# UTAH

Administrative Documentation

R307-110-28 and Utah SIP Section XX, Regional Haze

State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Air Quality

195 N. 1950 West

P.O. Box 144820 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820

801-536-4000



## June 1, 2011

# UTAH

ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTATION 

## June 2011

### R307-110-28 and Utah SIP Section XX, Regional Haze



## A DMINISTRATIVE 

## D OCUMENTATION

Table of Contents

Legal Authority Utah Code Title 19, Chapter 2, Air Conservation Act .................................................................................. C – 1 Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 3, Administrative Rulemaking Act ............................................................. C – 16 Utah Administrative Code, R15, Administrative Rules ............................................................................... C – 39

Proposed for Public Comment

Text of R 307-110-28

.......................................................................................................... ............P – 1

Text of SIP Secti on XX, Regi onal Haze.......................................................................................... ..............P – 2

R307-110-28: DAR Bulletin (February 01, 2011) DAR #34350 ..............................................................P – 163

Public Hearing/Comments Hearing Stat ement ............................................................................................................ ......... H – 1 Hearing Ro ster ............................................................................................................... ...... H – 4

Affidavit of ne wspaper notice ................................................................................................. .................... H – 5 Summary of comment s and re sponses .............................................................................................. ............ H – 6

Effective Rule

Final Text of R307- 110-28

..................................................................................................... .................E – 1

Final Text of SIP Sec tion XX, Regi onal Haze.................................................................................... ...........E – 2

DAR Bulletin (May 1, 2011) Effectiv e Date Notic e..................................................................................E – 160

Certification

# Codes

# Air Conservation Act

Utah Code -- Title 19 -- Chapter 02 (May 28, 2009)

19-2-101. Short title -- Policy of state and purpose of chapter -- Support of local and regional programs -- Provision

of coordinated st atewide program. .............................................................................................. ..................................2

19-2-102. Definitions........................................................................................................ ...........................................2 19-2-103. Members of board -- Appointment -- Terms -- Organization -- Pe r diem and expenses.............................3

19-2-104. Powers of board. ................................................................................................... ......................................3

19-2-105. Duties of board.................................................................................................... ........................................5

19-2-105.3. Clean fuel requirements for fleets. .............................................................................. .............................5 19-2-106. Rulemaking au thority and procedure. .........................................................................................................6 19-2-107. Executive secretary -- Appointment -- Powers. ..........................................................................................6 19-2-108. Notice of construction or modification of installations required -- Authority of executive secretary to prohibit construction -- Hearings -- Limitations on authority of board -- Inspections authorized............................... ..7 19-2-109. Air quality standards -- Hearings on adoptio n -- Orders of executive secretary -- Adoption of emission control requirements........................................................................................................... ...........................................7 19-2-109.1. Operating permit require d -- Emissions fee -- Implementation. .................................................... ..........7

19-2-109.2. Small busin ess assistance program. ............................................................................... ..........................9

19-2-109.3. Public access to info rmation. ...................................................................................................................9

19-2-109.5. Pr ivate sector air quality permitting pr ofessionals certifi cation pr ogram........................................ .........9

19-2-110. Violations -- Notice to violator -- Corrective action orders -- Conference, conciliation, and persuasion by board -- Hearings.............................................................................................................. ...........................................10 19-2-112. Generalized condition of air pollution creating em ergency -- Sources causing imminent danger to health

-- Powers of executive director -- Declaration of emergency.................................................................... ..................10

19-2-113. Variances -- Judicial review....................................................................................... ...............................10

19-2-114. Activities not in vi olation of chap ter or rules.................................................................... ........................11

19-2-115. Violations -- Penaltie s -- Reimbursement for expenses. ............................................................. ..............11 19-2-116. Injunction or other remedies to pr event violations -- Civil actions not abridged................................... ...12 19-2-117. Attorney general as legal advisor to board -- Duties of attorney general and county attorneys................12 19-2-118. Violation of inju nction evidence of contempt....................................................................... ....................13 19-2-119. Civil or criminal remedies not excluded -- Actionable rights under chapter -- No liability for acts of God or other catastrophes.......................................................................................................... ..........................................13 19-2-120. Information required of owners or operators of air contaminant sources. ............................................ ....13 19-2-121. Ordinances of pol itical subdivisions authorized.................................................................... ....................13 19-2-122. Cooperative agreements betwee n political subdivisions and department. .............................................. ..13 19-2-123. Tax relief to encourage investment in facilities -- Sales an d use tax exemption.................................... ...13 19-2-124. Application for certification of po llution control facility -- Refunds -- Interest. ................................ ......13

19- 2- 125. Action on app lication for ce rtification. ........................................................................... ..........................14

19-2-126. Revocation of certif ication -- Grounds -- Procedure................................................................ .................14

19-2-127. Rules for administer ing certification for tax relief............................................................... .....................15Title 19. Environmental Quality Code Chapter 2. Air Conservation Act

19-2-101. Short title -- Policy of state and purpose of chapter -- Support of local and regional programs -- Provision of coordinated statewide program.

(1) This chapter is known as the "Air

Conservation Act." (2) It is the policy of this state and the purpose of this chapter to achieve and maintain levels of air quality which will protect human hea lth and safety, and to the greatest degree practicable, prevent injury to plant and animal life and property, foster the comfort and convenience of the people, promote the economic and social development of this state, and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of this state. (3) Local and regional air pollution control programs shall be supported to the extent practicable as essential instruments to secure and maintain appropriate levels of air quality. (4) The purpose of this chapter is to: (a) provide for a coordinated statewide program of air pollution prevention, abatement, and control; (b) provide for an appropriate distribution of responsibilities among the state and local units of
government; (c) facilitate cooperation across jurisdictional lines in dealing with problems of air pollution not confined within single jurisdictions; and (d) provide a framework within which air quality may be protected and consid eration given to the public interest at all levels of planning and development within the

state.

19-2-102. Definitions.

As used in this chapter: (1) "Air contaminant" means any particulate matter or any gas, vapor, suspended solid, or any combination of them, excluding steam and water vapors. (2) "Air contaminant source" means all sources

of emission of air contamin ants whether privately or publicly owned or operated. (3) "Air pollution" means the presence in the

ambient air of one or more air contaminants in the quantities and duration and under conditions and

circumstances as is or tends to be injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or use of property, as determined by th e rules adopted by the board. (4) "Ambient air" means the surrounding or

outside air. (5) "Asbestos" means the asbestiform varieties of serpentine (chrysotile), riebeckite (crocidolite),cummingtonite-grunerite, anthophyllite, and actinolitetremolite. (6) "Asbestos-containing material" means any material containing more than 1% asbestos, as determined using the method adopted in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M,

National Emission Standard for Asbestos. (7) "Asbestos inspection" means an activity undertaken to determine the pr esence or location, or to assess the condition of, asbestos-containing material or suspected asbestos-containing ma terial, whether by visual or physical examination, or by taking samples of the

material. (8) (a) "Board" means the Air Quality Board. (b) "Board" means, as used in Sections 19-2-123 through 19-2-126, the Air Quality Board or the Water Quality Board. (9) "Clean school bus" has the same meaning as

defined in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 16091. (10) "Executive secretary" means the executive secretary of the board. (11) (a) "Facility" means machinery, equipment, structures, or any part or accessories of them, installed or acquired for the primary purpose of controlling or disposing of air pollution. (b) "Facility" does not include an air conditioner, fan, or other similar facility for the comfort of personnel. (12) "Friable asbestos-containing material" means any material containing more than 1% asbestos, as determined using the method adopted in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M, National Emission St andard for Asbestos, that hand pressure can crumble, pul verize, or reduce to powder when dry. (13) "Indirect source" means a facility, building, structure, or installation which attracts or may attract mobile source activity that results in emissions of a pollutant for which there is a national standard. (14) (a) "Pollution control facility" or "facility" means, as used in Sections 19-2-123 through 19-2-126, any land, structure, building, installation, excavation, machinery, equipment, or device, or any addition to, reconstruction, replacement or improvement of, land or an existing structure, building, installation, excavation, machinery, equipment, or device reasonably used, erected, constructed, acquired, or inst alled by any person if the primary purpose of the use, erection, construction, acquisition, or installation is the prevention, control, or reduction of air or water pollution by: (i) the disposal or elim ination of or redesign to

eliminate waste and the use of treatment works for

industrial waste as defined in Title 19, Chapter 5, Water Quality Act; or (ii) the disposal, elimin ation, or reduction of or redesign to eliminate or reduc e air contaminants or air pollution or air contamination sources and the use of air cleaning devices. (b) "Pollution control facility" or "facility" does not include air conditioners, sept ic tanks, or other facilities for human waste, nor any propert y installed, constructed, or used for the moving of sewage to the collection facilities of a public or quasi-public sewerage system.19-2-103. Members of board -- Appointment -- Terms -- Organization -- Per diem and expenses.

(1) The board comprises 11 members, one of

whom shall be the executive di rector and 10 of whom shall be appointed by the governor with the consent of the

Senate. (2) The members shall be knowledgeable of air pollution matters and shall be: (a) a practicing physician and surgeon licensed in the state not connected with industry; (b) a registered professional engineer who is not from industry; (c) a representative from municipal government; (d) a representative from county government; (e) a representative from agriculture; (f) a representative from the mining industry; (g) a representative from manufacturing; (h) a representative from the fuel industry; and (i) two representatives of the public not representing or connected with industry, at least one of whom represents organized environmental interests. (3) No more than five of the appointed members shall belong to the same political party. (4) The majority of the members may not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or orders under this chapter. Any potential conflict of interest of any member or the executive secretary, relevant to the interests of the board, shall be adequately disclosed. (5) Members serving on the Air Conservation Committee created by Laws of Utah 1981, Chapter 126, as amended, shall serve as members of the board throughout the terms for which they were appointed. (6) (a) Except as required by Subsection (6)(b), members shall be appointed for a term of four years. (b) Notwithstanding the requirements of Subsection (6)(a), the governor shall, at the time of appointment or reappointment, ad just the length of terms to ensure that the terms of board members are staggered so that approximately half of the board is appointed every two

years. (7) A member may serve more than one term. (8) A member shall hold office until the expiration of the member's term and until the member's successor is appointed, but not more than 90 days after the expiration of the member's term. (9) When a vacancy occurs in the membership for any reason, the replacement shall be appointed for the unexpired term. (10) The board shall elect annually a chair and a

vice chair from its members. (11) (a) The board shall meet at least quarterly, and special meetings may be called by the chair upon his own initiative, upon the request of the executive secretary, or upon the request of three members of the board. (b) Three days' notice shall be given to each member of the board prior to any meeting. (12) Six members constitute a quorum at any meeting, and the action of a majority of members present is

the action of the board. (13) (a) (i) A member who is not a government employee shall receive no compensation or benefits for the member's services, but may r eceive per diem and expenses incurred in the performance of the member’s official duties at the rates established by the Division of Finance under

Sections 63A-3-106 and 63A-3-107. (ii) A member may decline to receive per diem and expenses for the member's service. (b) (i) A state government officer and employee

member who does not receive sa lary, per diem, or expenses from the agency the member represents for the member's service may receive per diem and expenses incurred in the performance of the member's official duties from the board at the rates established by the Division of Finance under

Sections 63A-3-106 and 63A-3-107. (ii) A state government officer and employee member may decline to receive per diem and expenses for

the member's service. (c) (i) A local government member who does not receive salary, per diem, or expenses from the entity that the member represents for the member's service may receive per diem and expenses incurred in the performance of the member's official duties at the rates established by

the Division of Finance under Sections 63A-3-106 and

63A-3-107. (ii) A local government member may decline to receive per diem and expenses for the member's service.

19-2-104. Powers of board.

(1) The board may make rules in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act: (a) regarding the control, abatement, and prevention of air pollution from all sources and the

establishment of the maximum quantity of air contaminants that may be emitted by any air contaminant source; (b) establishing air quality standards; (c) requiring persons engaged in operations which result in air pollution to: (i) install, maintain, and use emission monitoring devices, as the board finds necessary; (ii) file periodic re ports containing information relating to the rate, period of emission, and composition of the air contaminant; and (iii) provide access to records relating to emissions which cause or contribute to air pollution; (d) implementing 15 U. S.C.A. 2601 et seq. Toxic Substances Control Act, Subchapter II - Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response, and reviewing and approving asbestos management plans submitted by local education agencies under that act; (e) establishing a requirement for a diesel emission opacity inspection a nd maintenance program for diesel-powered motor vehicles; (f) implementing an oper ating permit program as required by and in conformity with Titles IV and V of the

federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; (g) establishing requirements for county emissions inspection and ma intenance programs after obtaining agreement from the counties that would be affected by the requirements;(h) with the approval of the governor, implementing in air quality nona ttainment areas employerbased trip reduction programs applicable to businesses having more than 100 employee s at a single location and applicable to federal, state, and local governments to the extent necessary to attain and maintain ambient air quality

standards consistent with the state implementation plan and federal requirements under th e standards set forth in Subsection (2); and (i) implementing lead-based paint remediation training, certification, and performance requirements in accordance with 15 U.S.C.A. 2601 et seq., Toxic Substances Control Act, Subc hapter IV -- Lead Exposure Reduction, Sections 402 and 406. (2) When implementing Subsection (1)(h) the

board shall take into consideration: (a) the impact of the business on overall air quality; and (b) the need of the business to use automobiles in order to carry out its business purposes. (3) The board may: (a) (i) hold a hearing that is not an adjudicative proceeding relating to any aspect of or matter in the administration of this chapter and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and other evidence, administer oaths and take testimony, and receive evidence as necessary; (ii) receive a proposed dispositive action from an administrative law judge as provided by Section 19-1-301;

and (iii) (A) approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove a proposed dispositive action; or (B) return the proposed dispositive action to the administrative law judge for further action as directed; (b) issue orders necessary to enforce the provisions of this chapter, enfo rce the orders by appropriate administrative and judicial proceedings, and institute judicial proceedings to secure compliance with this chapter; (c) settle or compromise any civil action initiated to compel compliance with this chapter and the rules made under this chapter; (d) secure necessary scientific, technical, administrative, and operati onal services, including laboratory facilities, by contract or otherwise; (e) prepare and develop a comprehensive plan or plans for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution in this state; (f) encourage voluntary cooperation by persons and affected groups to achieve the purposes of this chapter; (g) encourage local units of government to handle air pollution within their respective jurisdictions on a cooperative basis and provide technical and consultative assistance to them; (h) encourage and conduct studies, investigations, and research relating to air contamination and air pollution and their ca uses, effects, prevention, abatement, and control; (i) determine by means of field studies and sampling the degree of air contamination and air pollution in all parts of the state; (j) monitor the effects of the emission of air contaminants from motor vehicles on the quality of the outdoor atmosphere in all part s of this state and take appropriate action with respect to them; (k) collect and disseminate information and conduct educational and training programs relating to air contamination and air pollution; (l) advise, consult, c ontract, and cooperate with other agencies of the state, local governments, industries, other states, interstate or interlocal agencies, the federal government, and with interested persons or groups; (m) consult, upon request, with any person proposing to construct, install, or otherwise acquire an air contaminant source in the state concerning the efficacy of any proposed control device, or system for this source, or the air pollution problem which may be related to the source, device, or system, but a consultation does not relieve any person from compliance with this chapter, the rules adopted under it, or any other provision of law; (n) accept, receive, and administer grants or other funds or gifts from public and private agencies, including the f ederal government, for the purpose of carrying out any of the functions of this chapter; (o) require the owner and operator of each new source which directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of any air contaminant or the owner or operator of each existing s ource which by modification will increase emissions or have the potential of increasing emissions by 100 tons per year or more of any air contaminant, to pay a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable

costs of: (i) reviewing and acting upon the notice required under Section 19-2-108; and (ii) implementing and enforcing requirements placed on the sources by any approval order issued pursuant to notice, not including any court costs associated with any enforcement action; (p) assess and collect noncompliance penalties as required in Section 120 of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7420; (q) meet the requirements of federal air pollution laws; (r) establish work prac tice, certification, and clearance air sampling requi rements for persons who: (i) contract for hire to conduct demolition, renovation, salvage, encapsula tion work involving friable asbestos-containing materials, or asbestos inspections; (ii) conduct work described in Subsection (3)(r)(i) in areas to which the general public has unrestrained access or in school buildings that are subject

to the federal Asbestos Haza rd Emergency Response Act of 1986; (iii) conduct asbestos inspections in facilities subject to 15 U.S.C.A. 2601 et seq., Toxic Substances Control Act, Subchapter II - Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response; or (iv) conduct lead paint inspections in facilities subject to 15 U.S.C.A. 2601 et seq., Toxic Substances Control Act, Subchapter IV -- Lead Exposure Reduction; (s) establish certification requirements for persons required under 15 U. S.C.A. 2601 et seq., Toxic Substances Control Act, Subchapter II - Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response, to be accredited as inspectors, management planners, abat ement project designers,asbestos abatement contractors and supervisors, or asbestos abatement workers; (t) establish certification requirements for asbestos project monitors, which shall provide for experience-based certification of persons who, prior to establishment of the certification requirements, had received relevant asbestos training, as defined by rule, and had acquired at least 1,000 hours of experience as project monitors; (u) establish certif ication procedures and requirements for certification of the conversion of a motor vehicle to a clean-fuel vehicle, certifying the vehicle is eligible for the tax credit granted in Section 59-7-605 or 59- 10-1009; (v) establish a program to certify private sector air quality permitting professionals (AQPP), as described in Section 19-2-109.5; (w) establish certif ication requirements for persons required under 15 U. S.C.A. 2601 et seq., Toxic Control Act, Subchapter IV -- Lead Exposure Reduction, to be accredited as inspectors, risk assessors, supervisors, project designers, or abatement workers; and (x) assist the State Board of Education in adopting school bus idling reduction standards and implementing an idling reduction program in accordance

with Section 41-6a-1308. (4) Any rules adopted under this chapter shall be consistent with provisions of federal laws, if any, relating

to control of motor vehicles or motor vehicle emissions. (5) Nothing in this chapter authorizes the board to require installation of or payment for any monitoring equipment by the owner or operator of a source if the owner or operator has installe d or is operating monitoring equipment that is e quivalent to equipm ent which the board would require under this section.

19-2-105

. Duties of board.

The board, in conjunction with the governing body of each county identifie d in Section 41-6a-1643 and other interested parties, shall perform an evaluation of the inspection and maintenance program developed under Section 41-6a-1643 including issues relating to: (1) the implementation of a standardized inspection and maintenance program; (2) out-of-state registration of vehicles used in Utah; (3) out-of-county registration of vehicles used within the areas required to have an inspection and maintenance program; (4) use of the farm truck exemption; (5) mechanic training programs; (6) emissions standards; and (7) emissions waivers.

19-2-105.3. Clean fuel requirements

for fleets.

(1) As used in this section: (a) "1990 Clean Air Act" means the federal

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. (b) "Clean fuel" means: (i) propane, compressed natural gas, or electricity; (ii) other fuel the Air Quality Board created in Title 19, Chapter 2, Air C onservation Act, determines annually on or before July 1 is at least as eff ective as fuels under Subsection (1)(b)(i) in reducing air pollution; and (iii) other fuel that meets the clean fuel vehicle

standards in the 1990 Clean Air Act. (c) "Fleet" means 10 or more vehicles: (i) owned or operated by a single entity as defined by board rule; and (ii) capable of being fueled or that are fueled at a

central location. (d) "Fleet" does not in clude motor vehicles that

are: (i) held for lease or re ntal to the general public; (ii) held for sale or used as demonstration vehicles by motor vehicle dealers; (iii) used by motor vehicle manufacturers for product evaluations or tests; (iv) authorized emergenc y vehicles as defined in Section 41-6a-102; (v) registered under Title 41, Chapter 1a, Part 2, Registration, as farm vehicles; (vi) special mobile equipment as defined in Section 41-1a-102; (vii) heavy duty trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds; (viii) regularly used by employees to drive to and from work, parked at the employees' personal residences when they are not at their employment, and not practicably fueled at a central location; (ix) owned, operated, or leased by public transit districts; or (x) exempted by board rule. (2) (a) After evaluation of reasonably available pollution control strategies, and as part of the state implementation plan demonstr ating attainment of the national ambient air quality standards, the board may by rule, subject to Subsection (2)(c), require fleets in specified geographical areas to use clean fuels if the board

determines fleet use of clean fuels is: (i) necessary to demonstrate attainment of the national ambient air quality standards in any area where they are required; and (ii) reasonably cost effective when compared to other similarly beneficial control strategies for demonstrating attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. (b) State implementation plans developed prior to July 1, 1995, may require fleets to use clean fuels no earlier than July 1, 1995, unless the board determines fleet use of clean fuels is necessary prior to July 1, 1995, to

demonstrate attainment of th e national ambien t air quality standards in any area by an attainment date established by

federal law. (c) The board may not require more than 50% of

those trucks in a fleet that are heavy duty trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500 pounds and not more than 26,000 pounds to convert to clean fuels under Subsection (2)(b).(3) (a) After evaluation of reasonably available pollution control strategies, and as part of a state implementation plan demonstr ating only maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards, the board may by rule, subject to Subsection (3)(b), require fleets in specified geographical areas to use clean fuels if the board

determines fleet use of clean fuels is: (i) necessary to demonstrate maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards in any area where they are required; and (ii) reasonably cost effective as compared with other similarly beneficial control strategies for demonstrating maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards. (b) Under Subsection (3)(a) the board may require no more than: (i) 30% of a fleet to use clean fuels before January 1, 1998; (ii) 50% of a fleet to use clean fuels before January 1, 1999; and (iii) 70% of a fleet to use clean fuels before January 1, 2000. (c) The board may not require more than 50% of

those trucks in a fleet that are heavy duty trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500 pounds and not more than 26,000 pounds to convert to clean fuels under Subsection (3)(b). (4) Rules the board makes under this section may include: (a) dates by which fleets are required to convert to clean fuels under the prov isions of this section; (b) definitions of fl eet owners or operators; (c) definitions of vehicles exempted from this section by rule; (d) certification requi rements for persons who

install clean fuel conversion equipment, including testing

and certification standards regarding installers; and (e) certification fees for installers, established

under Section 63J-1-504. (5) Implementation of this section and rules made under this section are subject to the reasonable availability of clean fuel in the local market as determined by the board.

19-2-106. Rulemaking authority and procedure.

(1) Except as provided in Subsection (2), no rule which the board makes for the purpose of administering a program under the federal Cl ean Air Act may be more stringent than the correspondi ng federal regulations which

address the same circumstances. In making rules, the board may incorporate by reference corresponding federal regulations. (2) The board may make rules more stringent than corresponding federal regulations for the purpose described in Subsection (1), only if it makes a written finding after public comment and hearing and based on evidence in the record, that corresponding federal regulations are not adequate to protect public health and the environment of the state. Those findings shall be accompanied by an opinion referring to and evaluating the public health and environmen tal information and studies

contained in the record which form the basis for the board's

conclusion.

19-2-107. Executive secretary -- Appointment -- Powers.

(1) The executive secretary shall be appointed by the executive director, with th e approval of the board, and

shall serve under the administrative direction of the

executive director. (2) The executive secretary may: (a) develop programs for the prevention, control,

and abatement of new or existi ng air pollution resources of the state; (b) advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies of the state, the fe deral government, other states and interstate agencies, and with affected groups, political subdivisions, and industries in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter; (c) employ full-time employees necessary to carry out this chapter; (d) as authorized by the board, subject to the provisions of this chapter, authorize any employee or representative of the department to enter at reasonable time and upon reasonable notice in or upon public or private property for the purposes of inspecting and investigating conditions and plant records concerning possible air pollution; (e) encourage, particip ate in, or conduct studies, investigations, research, and de monstrations relating to air pollution and causes of it as advisable and necessary for the discharge of duties assigned under this chapter, including

the establishment of invent ories of pollution sources; (f) collect and disseminate information relating to air pollution and the prevention, control, and abatement of it; (g) as authorized by the board subject to the provisions of this chapter, enforce rules through the issuance of orders, including: (i) prohibiting or abating discharges of wastes affecting ambient air; (ii) requiring the construction of new control facilities or any parts of new control facilities or the modification, extens ion, or alteration of existing control facilities or any parts of new control facilities; or (iii) the adoption of other remedial measures to prevent, control, or abate air pollution; (h) review plans, spec ifications, or other data relative to pollution control systems or any part of the systems provided in this chapter; (i) as authorized by the board, subject to the provisions of this chapter, exercise all incidental powers necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter, including certification to any state or federal authorities for tax purposes the fact of cons truction, installation, or acquisition of any facility, land, building, machinery, or equipment or any part of them, in conformity with this chapter; (j) cooperate with any person in studies and research regarding air pollution, its control, abatement, and prevention; and(k) represent the state with the specific

concurrence of the executive director in all matters pertaining to interstate air po llution, including interstate compacts and similar agreements.

19-2-108

. Notice of construction or modification of installations required -- Authority of executive secretary to prohibit construction -- Hearings -- Limitations on authority of board -- Inspections authorized.

(1) The board shall require that notice be given to the executive secretary by any person planning to construct a new installation which will or might r easonably be expected to be a source or indirect source of air pollution or to make modifications to an existing installation which will or might reasonably be expected to increase the amount of or change the character or

effect of air contaminants discha rged, so that the installation may be expected to be a source or indirect source of air pollution, or by any person planning to install an air cleaning device or other equipment intended to control emission of air contaminants. (2) (a) (i) The executive secretary may require, as a condition precedent to the constructi on, modification, installation, or establishment of the air contaminant source or indirect source, the submission of plans, specificati ons, and other information as he finds necessary to determine wh ether the proposed construction, modification, installation, or esta blishment will be in accord with applicable rules in force under this chapter. (ii) Plan approval for an indirect source may be delegated by the executive secret ary to a local authority when requested and upon assurance that the local authority has and will maintain sufficient expertise to insure that the planned installation will meet the requirements established by law. (b) If within 90 days af ter the receipt of plans, specifications, or other informati on required under this subsection, the executive secretary determines that the proposed construction, installation, or establishment or an y part of it will not be in accord with the requirements of this chap ter or applicable rules or that further time, not exceeding three extensions of 30 days each, is required by the board to adequately review the plans, specifications, or other informa tion, he shall issue an order prohibiting the construction, installa tion, or establishment of the air contaminant source or sources in whole or in part. (3) In addition to any other remedies, any person aggrieved by the issuance of an order either granting or denying a request for the construction of a new installation, and prior to invoking any such other remedies shall, upon request, in

accordance with the rules of the board, be entitled to a hearing conducted by an administrative la w judge as provided by Section 19-1-301. Following the hearing a nd the receipt by the board of the proposed dispositive action from the administrative law judge, the board may affirm, modify, or withdraw the permit. (4) Any features, machines, and devices constituting parts of or called for by plans, specifications, or other information submitted under Subsection (1) shall be maintained in good working order. (5) This section does not authorize the board to require the use of machinery, devices, or equipment from a particular supplier or produced by a particular manufacturer if the required performance standards may be met by machinery, devices, or equipment otherwise available. (6) (a) Any authorized officer, employee, or representative of the board may enter and inspect any property, premise, or place on or at which an air contaminant source is located or is being constructed, modified, installed, or established at any reasonable time for the purpose of ascertaining the state of compliance with this chapter and the rules adopted under it. (b) (i) A person may not refuse entry or access to any authorized representative of the board who requests entry for purposes of inspection and who presents appropriate credentials. (ii) A person may not obstruct, hamper, or interfere with any inspection. (c) If requested, the owner or operator of the premises shall receive a report setting forth all facts found which relate to compliance status.

19-2-109

. Air quality standards -- Hearings on adoption -- Orders of executive secretary -- Adoption of emission control requirements.

(1) (a) The board, in adopting standards of quality for ambient air, shal l conduct public hearings. (b) Notice of any public hearing for the consideration, adoption, or amendment of air quality standards shall specify the locations to which the proposed standards apply and the time, date, and place of the hearing. (c) The notice shall be: (i) (A) published at leas t twice in any newspaper of general circulation in the area affected; and (B) published, in acco rdance with Section 45-1- 101, at least 20 days before the public hearing; and (ii) mailed at least 20 days before the public hearing to the chief executive of each political subdivision of the area affected and to other persons the executive secretary has reason to believe will be affected by the

standards. (d) The adoption of air quality standards or any modification or changes to air quality standards shall be by order of the executive secretary following formal action of the board with respect to the standards. (e) The order shall be published: (i) in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected; and (ii) as required in Section 45-1-101. (2) (a) The board may establish emission control requirements by rule that in its judgment may be necessary to prevent, abate, or control air pollution that may be statewide or may vary from area to area, taking into account varying local conditions. (b) In adopting these requirements, the board shall give notice and conduct public hearings in accordance with the requirements in Subsection (1).

19-2-109.1

. Operating permit required -- Emissions fee -- Implementation.

(1) As used in this section and Sections 19-2-

109.2 and 19-2-109.3: (a) "EPA" means the federal Environmental Protection Agency. (b) "1990 Clean Air Act" means the federal

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. (c) "Operating permit" means a permit issued by the executive secretary to sources of air pollution that meet the requirements of Titles IV and V of the 1990 Clean Air

Act.(d) "Program" means the air pollution operating permit program established unde r this section to comply

with Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act. (e) "Regulated pollutant" has the same meaning

as defined in Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act and implementing federal regulations. (2) (a) A person may not operate any source of air pollution required to have a permit under Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act without having obtained an operating permit from the executive secr etary under procedures the board establishes by rule. (b) A person is not required to submit an operating permit applica tion until the governor has submitted an operating permit program to the EPA. (c) Any operating permit issued under this section may not become effective until the day after the EPA issues approval of the permit program or November 15, 1995, whichever occurs first. (3) (a) Operating permits issued under this section shall be for a period of five years unless the board makes a written finding, after public comment and hearing, and based on substantial evidence in the record, that an operating permit term of less than five years is necessary to protect the public health and th e environment of the state. (b) The executive secretary may issue, modify, or renew an operating permit only after providing public notice, an opportunity for public comment, and an opportunity for a public hearing. (c) The executive secretary shall, in conformity with the 1990 Clean Air Act and implementing federal regulations, revise the cond itions of issued operating permits to incorporate applic able federal regulations in conformity with Section 502(b)(9) of the 1990 Clean Air Act, if the remaining period of the permit is three or more

years. (d) The executive secretary may terminate, modify, revoke, or reissue an operating permit for cause. (4) (a) The board shall establish a proposed

annual emissions fee that conforms with Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act for each ton of regulated pollutant, applicable to all sources requi red to obtain a permit. The

emissions fee established under th is section is in addition to

fees assessed under Section 19-2-108 for issuance of an approval order. (b) In establishing the fee the board shall comply with the provisions of Sect ion 63J-1-504 that require a public hearing and require the established fee to be submitted to the Legislature for its approval as part of the department's annual appropriations request. (c) The fee shall cover all reasonable direct and indirect costs required to develop and administer the program and the small business assistance program

established under Section 19-2- 109.2. The board shall prepare an annual report of the emissions fees collected and the costs covered by those fees under this Subsection (4). (d) The fee shall be established uniformly for all sources required to obtain an operating permit under the program and for all regulated pollutants. (e) The fee may not be assessed for emissions of any regulated pollutant if the emissions are already accounted for within the emissions of another regulated pollutant. (f) An emissions fee may not be assessed for any amount of a regulated pollutant emitted by any source in excess of 4,000 tons per year of that regulated pollutant. (5) Emissions fees for the period: (a) of July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993, shall be based on the most recent emissions inventory prepared by the executive secretary; and (b) on and after July 1, 1993, but prior to issuance of an operating permit, shall be based on the most recent emissions inventory, unless a source elects prior to July 1, 1992, to base the fee on allowable emissions, if applicable for a regulated pollutant. (6) After an operating permit is issued the

emissions fee shall be based on actual emissions for a regulated pollutant unless a source elects, prior to the issuance or renewal of a permit, to base the fee during the period of the permit on allowable emissions for that regulated pollutant. (7) If the owner or operator of a source subject to this section fails to timely pa y an annual emissions fee, the executive secretary may: (a) impose a penalty of not more than 50% of the fee, in addition to the fee, pl us interest on the fee computed at 12% annually; or (b) revoke the operating permit. (8) The owner or operato r of a source subject to this section may contest an emissions fee assessment or associated penalty in an adjudicative hearing under the Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administ rative Procedures Act, and Section 19-1-301, as provided in this Subsection (8). (a) The owner or operator must pay the fee under protest prior to being entitled to a hearing. Payment of an emissions fee or penalty under protest is not a waiver of the right to contest the fee or penalty under this section. (b) A request for a hearing under this Subsection (8) shall be made after payment of the emissions fee and

within six months after the emissions fee was due. (9) To reinstate an operating permit revoked under Subsection (7) the owner or operator shall pay all outstanding emissions fees, a penalty of not more than 50% of all outstanding fees, and interest on the outstanding emissions fees computed at 12% annually. (10) All emissions fees and penalties collected by the department under this s ection shall be deposited in the General Fund as the Air Pollution Operating Permit Program dedicated credit to be used solely to pay for the reasonable direct and indirect costs incurred by the department in developing an d administering the program

and the small business assist ance program under Section

19-2-109.2. (11) Failure of the executive secretary to act on any operating permit application or renewal is a final administrative action only for the purpose of obtaining judicial review by any of th e following persons to require the executive secretary to take action on the permit or its renewal without additional delay: (a) the applicant; (b) any person who participated in the public
comment process; or (c) any other person who could obtain judicial

review of that action under applicable law.19-2-109.2

. Small business assistance

program.

(1) The board shall establish a small business stationary source technical and environmental compliance assistance program that conf orms with Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act to assist small businesses to comply with state and federal air pollution laws. (2) There is created the Compliance Advisory Panel to advise and monitor the program created in Subsection (1). The seven panel members are: (a) two members who are not owners or representatives of owners of small business stationary air pollution sources, selected by the governor to represent the general public; (b) four members who are owners or who represent owners of small business stationary sources selected by leadership of the Utah Legislature as follows: (i) one member selected by the majority leader of the Senate; (ii) one member selected by the minority leader of the Senate; (iii) one member selected by the majority leader of the House of Representatives; and (iv) one member selected by the minority leader of the House of Representatives; and (c) one member selected by the executive director to represent the Division of Air Quality, Department of Environmental Quality. (3) (a) Except as required by Subsection (b), as terms of current panel memb ers expire, the department shall appoint each new member or reappointed member to a four-year term. (b) Notwithstanding the requirements of Subsection (a), the departme nt shall, at the time of appointment or reappointment, ad just the length of terms to ensure that the terms of pa nel members are staggered so that approximately half of th e panel is appointed every two

years. (4) Members may serve more than one term. (5) Members shall hold office until the expiration of their terms a nd until their successors are appointed, but not more than 90 days after the expiration of

their terms. (6) When a vacancy occurs in the membership for any reason, the replacement shall be appointed for the unexpired term. (7) Every two years, the panel shall elect a chair

from its members. (8) (a) The panel shall meet as necessary to carry out its duties. Meetings may be called by the chair, the executive secretary, or upon written request of three of the members of the panel. (b) Three days' notice shall be given to each member of the panel prior to a meeting. (9) Four members constitute a quorum at any meeting, and the action of the majority of members present is the action of the panel. (10) (a) (i) Members who are not government employees shall receive no compensation or benefits for their services, but may receive per diem and expenses incurred in the performance of the member’s official duties at the rates established by the Division of Finance under

Sections 63A-3-106 and 63A-3-107. (ii) Members may decline to receive per diem and expenses for their service. (b) (i) State government officer and employee members who do not receive salary, per diem, or expenses from their agency for their service may receive per diem and expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties from the panel at the rates established by the

Division of Finance under Sections 63A-3-106 and 63A-3-

107. (ii) State government officer and employee members may decline to receive per diem and expenses for

their service. (c) Legislators on the committee shall receive compensation and expenses as provided by law and legislative rule.

19-2-109.3

. Public access to

information.

A copy of each permit application, compliance plan, emissions or compliance monitoring report, certification, and each operating permit issued under this chapter shall be made available to the public in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 2, Government Records Access and Management Act.

19-2-109.5

. Private sector air quality permitting professionals certification

program.

(1) As used in this section, "AQPP" means an air quality permitting professional. (2) The board may establish a program to certify private sector AQPPs, includi ng consultants and employees of companies that may seek air quality permits from the division. Any program establ ished under this section shall

include: (a) a training program established and operated by the department, which desc ribes and explains the state law and rules regarding the air quality permit application and approval procedure under this chapter; (b) the requirement to pass an exam to measure qualifications of AQPP applicants; (c) an option for certification of an AQPP by passing the exam without undergoing any training required under the program; (d) an application process, including a fee

established under Section 63J-1-504 that covers the costs of the training, testing, and application process and the department's maintenance of a list of certified AQPPs; (e) certification of qualified AQPP applicants; (f) maintenance by the department of a current list of certified AQPPs, which is available to the public; (g) procedures for the expedited review by the department of air quality permit applications submitted by certified AQPPs; and (h) professional standards for AQPPs. (3) The board may not require AQPP certification as a condition of preparing or submitting anotice of intent or operating permit application under this chapter. (4) Any program under this section shall provide for revocation of any certifica tion issued under this section if the department determines, through an administrative hearing conducted under Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act, and Section 19-1-301, that the AQPP: (a) knowingly or negligently submitted false information or data as part of an air quality permit application; (b) prepared more than three air quality permit applications in one calendar year in a manner that each did not substantially comply w ith department application requirements; or (c) prepared any air qua lity permit application in violation of the professional standards defined by department rule.

19-2-110

. Violations -- Notice to

violator -- Corrective action orders -- Conference, conciliation, and persuasion by board -- Hearings.

(1) (a) Whenever the executive secretary has reason to believe that a violation of any provision of this chapter or any rule issued under it has occurred, he may

serve written notice of th e violation upon the alleged violator. The notice shall specify the provision of this chapter or rule alleged to be violated, the facts alleged to constitute the violation, and may include an order that necessary corrective action be taken within a reasonable

time. (b) In lieu of beginning an adjudicative proceeding under Subsection (1)(a), the board may initiate an action pursuant to Section 19-2-115. (2) Nothing in this chapter prevents the board from making efforts to obtain voluntary compliance through warning, conference, conciliation, persuasion, or other appropriate means. (3) Hearings may be held before an administrative law judge as provided by Section 19-1-301.

19-2-112

. Generalized condition of air pollution creating emergency -- Sources causing imminent danger to health -- Powers

of executive director -- Declaration of

emergency.
(1) (a) Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act, and any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, if the executive director finds that a generalized condition of air pollution exists and that it creates an emergency requiring immediate action to protect human health or safety, the executive director, with the concurrence of the governor, shall order persons causing or contributing to the air pollution to reduce or discontinue immediately the em ission of air contaminants. (b) The order shall fix a place and time, not later than 24 hours after its issuance, for a hearing to be held before the governor. (c) Not more than 24 hours after the commencement of this hearing, and without adjournment of it, the governor shall affirm, modify, or set aside the order

of the executive director. (2) (a) In the absence of a generalized condition of air pollution referred to in Subsection (1), but if the

executive director finds that emissions from the operation of one or more air contaminant sources is causing imminent danger to human health or safety, the executive director may commence adjudicative proceedings under Section

63G-4-502. (b) Notwithstanding Section 19-1-301, the executive director may conduct the emergency adjudicative proceeding in place of an administrative law judge. (3) Nothing in this section limits any power that the governor or any other officer has to declare an emergency and act on the basis of that declaration.

19-2-113

. Variances -- Judicial

review.

(1) (a) Any person who owns or is in control of any plant, building, structure, establishment, process, or equipment may apply to the bo ard for a variance from its

rules. (b) The board may grant the requested variance following an announced public m eeting, if it finds, after considering the endangerment to human health and safety and other relevant factors, th at compliance with the rules

from which variance is s ought would produce serious hardship without equal or grea ter benefits to the public. (2) A variance may not be granted under this

section until the board has cons idered the relative interests of the applicant, other owners of property likely to be affected by the discharges, and the general public. (3) Any variance or renewal of a variance shall be granted within the requir ements of Subsection (1) and for time periods and under condit ions consistent with the reasons for it, and within the following limitations: (a) if the variance is granted on the grounds that there are no practicable means known or available for the adequate prevention, abatement, or control of the air pollution involved, it shall be only until the necessary means for prevention, abatemen t, or control become known and available, and subject to the taking of any substitute or alternate measures that the board may prescribe; (b) (i) if the variance is granted on the grounds that compliance with the requirements from which variance is sought will require that measures, because of their extent or cost, must be spread over a long period of time, the variance shall be granted for a reasonable time that, in the view of the board, is requi red for implementation of the necessary measures; and (ii) a variance granted on this ground shall

contain a timetable for the implementation of remedial measures in an expediti ous manner and shall be conditioned on adherence to the timetable; or (c) if the variance is granted on the ground that it is necessary to relieve or prevent hardship of a kind other than that provided for in Subsection (a) or (b), it shall not be granted for more than one year.(4) (a) Any variance granted under this section may be renewed on terms and conditions and for periods that would be appropriate for initially granting a variance. (b) If a complaint is made to the board because of the variance, a renewal may not be granted unless, following an announced public meeting, the board finds that renewal is justified. (c) To receive a renewal, an applicant shall submit a request for agency action to the board requesting a

renewal. (d) Immediately upon rece ipt of an application for renewal, the board shall give public notice of the application as requi red by its rules. (5) (a) A variance or renewal is not a right of the applicant or holder but may be granted at the board's

discretion. (b) A person aggrieved by the board's decision may obtain judicial review. (c) Venue for judicial review of informal adjudicative proceedings is in the district court in which the

air contaminant source is situated. (6) (a) The board may review any variance during the term for which it was granted. (b) The review procedure is the same as that for an original application. (c) The variance may be revoked upon a finding

that: (i) the nature or amount of emission has changed or increased; or (ii) if facts existing at the date of the review had existed at the time of the original application, the variance would not have been granted. (7) Nothing in this section and no variance or renewal granted pursuant to it shall be construed to prevent or limit the application of the emergency provisions and procedures of Section 19-2-112 to any person or property.

19-2-114

. Activities not in violation of chapter or rules.

The following are not a violation of this chapter or of any rules made under it: (1) burning incident to horticultural or agricultural operations of: (a) prunings from trees, bushes, and plants; or (b) dead or diseased trees, bushes, and plants, including stubble; (2) burning of weed growth along ditch banks incident to clearing these ditches for irrigation purposes; (3) controlled heating of orchards or other crops to lessen the chances of their being frozen so long as the emissions from this heati ng do not violate minimum standards set by the board; and (4) the controlled burning of not more than two structures per year by an organized and operating fire department for the purpose of training fire service personnel when the United Stat es Weather Service clearing

index is above 500.

19-2-115

. Violations -- Penalties -- Reimbursement for expenses.

(1) As used in this section, the terms "knowingly," "willfully," and "criminal negligence" shall

mean as defined in Section 76-2-103. (2) (a) A person who violat es this chapter, or any rule, order, or permit issued or made under this chapter is subject in a civil proceeding to a penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation. (b) Subsection (2)(a) also applies to rules made under the authority of Section 19-2-104, for implementation of 15 U.S.C. A. 2601 et seq., Toxic Substances Control Act, Subchapter II - Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response. (c) Penalties assessed fo r violations described in 15 U.S.C.A. 2647, Toxic S ubstances Control Act, Subchapter II - Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response, may not exceed the amounts speci fied in that section and

shall be used in accordance with that section. (3) A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor and is subject to imprisonment under Section 76-3-204 and a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation if that person knowingly violates any of the following under this chapter: (a) an applicable standard or limitation; (b) a permit condition; or (c) a fee or filing requirement. (4) A person is guilty of a third degree felony and is subject to imprisonment under Section 76-3-203 and a fine of not more than $25 ,000 per day of violation who knowingly: (a) makes any false material statement, representation, or certification, in any notice or report required by permit; or (b) renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained by this chapter or applicable rules made under this chapter. (5) Any fine or penalty assessed under Subsections (2) or (3) is in lieu of any penalty under

Section 19-2-109.1. (6) A person who willfully violates Section 19-2- 120 is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. (7) A person who knowingly violates any requirement of an applicable implementation plan adopted by the board, more than 30 days after having been notified in writing by the executive secretary that the person is violating the requirement, knowingly violat es an order issued under Subsection 19-2-110(1)(a), or knowingly handles or disposes of asbestos in violation of a rule made under this chapter is guilty of a third degree felony and subject to imprisonment under Section 76-3-203 and a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation in the case of the first offense, and not more than $50,000 per day of violation in the case of subsequent offenses. (8) (a) As used in this section: (i) "Hazardous air pollutant" means any hazardous air pollutant listed under 42 U.S.C. 7412 or any extremely hazardous substance listed under 42 U.S.C. 11002(a)(2). (ii) "Organization" means a legal entity, other than a government, establis hed or organized for any purpose, and includes a corporat ion, company, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, foundation,institution, trust, society, union, or any other association of

persons. (iii) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury

which involves a substantial ri sk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. (b) (i) A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor and subject to imprisonment under Section 76-3-204 and a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation if that person w ith criminal negligence: (A) releases into the ambient air any hazardous air pollutant; and (B) places another pers on in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. (ii) As used in this Subsection (8)(b), "person" does not include an employee who is carrying out the employee's normal activities and who is not a part of senior management personnel or a corporate officer. (c) A person is guilty of a second degree felony and is subject to imprisonment under Section 76-3-203 and a fine of not more than $50,000 per day of violation if that

person: (i) knowingly releases into the ambient air any hazardous air pollutant; and (ii) knows at the time th at the person is placing another person in imminent da nger of death or serious bodily injury. (d) If a person is an organization, it shall, upon conviction of violating Subsec tion (8)(c), be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000. (e) (i) A defendant who is an individual is

considered to have acte d knowingly under Subsections (8)(c) and (d), if: (A) the defendant's conduct placed another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; and (B) the defendant was aware of or believed that there was an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to another person. (ii) Knowledge possessed by a person other than the defendant may not be attr ibuted to the defendant. (iii) Circumstantial evidence may be used to prove that the defendant possessed actual knowledge, including evidence that the defendant took affirmative steps to be shielded from receiving relevant information. (f) (i) It is an affirma tive defense to prosecution under this Subsection (8) that the conduct charged was freely consented to by the person endangered and that the danger and conduct charged were reasonably foreseeable

hazards of: (A) an occupation, a business, a profession; or (B) medical treatment or medical or scientific experimentation conducted by professionally approved methods and the other person was aware of the risks involved prior to giving consent. (ii) The defendant has the burden of proof to establish any affirmative de fense under this Subsection (8)(f) and must prove that defense by a preponderance of

the evidence. (9) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (9)(b), and unless prohibited by federa l law, all penalties assessed and collected under the authority of this section shall be deposited in the General Fund. (b) The department may reimburse itself and local governments from monies collected from civil penalties for extraordinary expenses incurred in

environmental enforcement activities. (c) The department shall regulate reimbursements by ma king rules in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, that: (i) define qualifying environmental enforcement activities; and (ii) define qualifying extraordinary expenses.

19-2-116

. Injunction or other remedies to prevent violations -- Civil actions not abridged.

(1) Action under Section 19-2-115 does not bar enforcement of this chapter, or any of the rules adopted under it or any orders made under it by injunction or other appropriate remedy. The board has the power to institute and maintain in the name of the state any and all enforcement proceedings. (2) This chapter does not abridge, limit, impair, create, enlarge, or otherwise affect substantively or procedurally the right of an y person to damages or other relief on account of injury to persons or property and to maintain any action or other appropriate proceeding for this

purpose. (3) (a) In addition to any other remedy created in this chapter, upon failure of any person to comply with any provision of this chapter or any rule adopted under it or any final order made by the board, the executive secretary, or the executive director and when it appears necessary for the protection of health and welf are, the board may initiate through its executive secretary an action for appropriate injunctive relief. (b) The attorney general shall bring injunctive relief actions on request. (c) A bond is not required.

19-2-117

. Attorney general as legal advisor to board -- Duties of attorney general and county attorneys.

(1) The attorney general is the legal advisor to the board and its executive secretary and shall defend them or any of them in all actions or proceedings brought against them or any of them. (2) The county attorney in the county in which a cause of action arises may, upon request of the board or its executive secretary, bring any action, civil or criminal, to abate a condition which exists in violation of, or to prosecute for the violation of or to enforce, this chapter or the standards, orders, or rules of the board or the executive secretary issued under this chapter. (3) The board or its executive secretary may bring any action and be represen ted by the attorney general. (4) In the event any person fails to comply with a

cease and desist order of the board or its executive secretary that is not subject to a stay pending administrative or judicial review, the board may, through its executivesecretary, initiate an action for, and is entitled to, injunctive relief to prevent any further or continued violation of the

order.

19-2-118

. Violation of injunction evidence of contempt.

Failure to comply with the terms of any injunction issued under this chap ter is prima f acie evidence of contempt which is punis hable as for other civil
contempts.

19-2-119

. Civil or criminal remedies not excluded -- Actionable rights under chapter -- No liability for acts of God or other catastrophes.

(1) Existing civil or criminal remedies for any wrongful action which is a violation of any part of the law are not excluded by this chapter. (2) Persons other than the state or the board do not acquire actionable rights by virtue of this chapter. (3) The liabilities imposed for violation of this chapter are not imposed for any violation caused by an act of God, war, strike, ri ot, or othe r catastrophe.

19-2-120. Information required of owners or operators of air contaminant

sources.
The owner or operator of any stationary air

contaminant source in the state shall furnish to the board the reports required under Section 19-2-104 and any other information the board finds necessary to determine whether the source is in compliance with state and federal regulations and standards. The information shall be correlated with applicable emission standards or limitations and shall be available to the public during normal business hours at the office of the department.

19-2-121

. Ordinances of political

subdivisions authorized.

Any political subdivision of the state may enact and enforce ordinances to control air pollution that are consistent with this chapter.

19-2-122. Cooperative agreements between political subdivisions and department.

(1) Any political subdivision of the state may enter into and perform with ot her political subdivisions of the state or with the department contracts and agreements as they find proper for establishing, planning, operating, and financing air pollution programs. (2) The agreements may provide for an agency

to: (a) supervise and operate an air pollution

program; (b) prescribe, subject to the approval of the board, the agency's powers and duties; and (c) fix the compensation of the agency's members and employees.

19-2-123

. Tax relief to encourage

investment in facilities -- Sales and use tax exemption.

(1) It is in the public interest of the state to encourage, through tax relief, investment in pollution control and pollution elimination facilities while at the same time making and keeping the state an attractive location for continued industrial development, including the expansion of existing plants, thereby increasing employment and payrolls and upgrading the natural

resources of the state. (2) All materials and equipment purchased, leased, or otherwise procured and services utilized for the construction or installation in a pollution control facility are exempt from sales and use ta xes imposed by Title 59, Chapter 12, Sales and Use Tax Act, upon obtaining a certification of pollution control facility from the board.

19-2-124

. Application for certification of pollution control facility --

Refunds -- Interest.

(1) (a) A person who qualifies under Subsection (2) may apply to the board for certification of a pollution control facility erected, construc ted, or installed, or to be erected, constructed, or installed in the state. (b) The person may file the application after: (i) a firm construction contract has been entered;

or (ii) construction has commenced. (2) (a) (i) A person who applies under Subsection (1) shall be: (A) the owner of a trade or business that uses property in the state requiring a pollution control facility to prevent or minimize pollution; or (B) a person who, as a lessee or pursuant to an agreement, conducts the trade or business that operates or uses the property. (ii) For purposes of this Subsection (2), "owner" includes a contract purchaser. (b) The facility shall be owned, operated, or leased during a part of the tax year in which the exemption

is claimed. (c) A person who obtains certification for a pollution control facility may claim an exemption from sales and use taxes as provided in Sections 19-2-123 and

59-12-104. (d) A person who pays a tax under Title 59, Chapter 12, Sales and Use Tax Act, on a purchase of tangible personal property or services used in the construction of or incorporated into a pollution control facility that: (i) is not certified under Section 19-2-125, may

obtain a refund of the tax if: (A) the board subsequently certifies the pollution control facility; (B) the tangible personal property or services meet the requirements for exemption provided inSubsections 19-2-123(2) and 59-12-104(11), except for the certification requirement; and (C) the person files a claim for the refund with

the State Tax Commission within the lesser of: (I) three years after the day on which the pollution control facility is certified under Section 19-2- 125; or (II) six years after the day on which the person pays the tax under Title 59, Chapter 12, Sales and Use Tax Act; or (ii) is certified under Section 19-2-125, may

obtain a refund of the tax if: (A) the tangible personal property or services meet the requirements for exemption provided in Subsections 19-2-123(2) and 59-12-104(11); and (B) the person files a claim for the refund with the State Tax Commission within three years after the day on which the person pays the tax under Title 59, Chapter 12, Sales and Use Tax Act. (e) (i) If a person files a claim for a refund of taxes under Subsection (2)(d)(i) paid on a purchase of tangible personal property or services used in the construction of or incorporated into a pollution control facility that was not certifie d under Section 19-2-125 at the time of the purchase: (A) within 180 days after the day on which the board certifies the pollution control facility, interest shall accrue to the amount of the refund granted by the State Tax

Commission: (I) at the rate prescribed in Section 59-1-402;

and (II) beginning on the day on which the person pays the tax under Title 59, Chapter 12, Sales and Use Tax Act, for which the person is claiming a refund; or (B) more than 180 days after the day on which the board certifies the pollution control facility, interest shall be added to the amount of the refund granted by the

State Tax Commission: (I) at the rate prescribed in Section 59-1-402;

and (II) beginning 30 days after the day on which the person files the claim for a refund under Subsection (2)(d). (ii) If a person files a claim for a refund of taxes under Subsection (2)(d)(ii) paid on a purchase of tangible personal property or services used in the construction of or incorporated into a pollution control facility that was

certified under Section 19-2-125 at the time of the purchase, interest shall accrue to the amount of the refund granted by the State Tax Commission: (A) at the rate prescr ibed in Section 59-1-402;

and (B) beginning 30 days after the day on which the person files a claim for a refund under Subsection (2)(d). (3) (a) Each application shall: (i) be in a format prescribed by the board; and (ii) contain: (A) a description of the facility and materials incorporated in the facility; (B) the machinery and equipment; (C) the existing or proposed operational procedure; and (D) a statement of the purpose of pollution prevention, control, or reducti on served or to be served by the facility. (b) The board may require any further

information it finds necessa ry before issuance of a

certificate.

19-2-125

. Action on application for

certification.

(1) (a) The board shall certify the facility if, after consulting with the State Tax Commission, the board finds

that: (i) a pollution control facility or a part of a pollution control facility, for which application is made

under Section 19-2-124: (A) was or is to be erected, constructed, acquired, or installed; and (B) is designed and is being operated or will operate primarily to prevent, co ntrol, or reduce air or water pollution; and (ii) the applicant qualifies under Section 19-2-

124. (b) If one or more facilities constitute an operational unit, the board may certify those facilities under

one certificate. (2) (a) The board and the State Tax Commission shall act on an application under Section 19-2-124 before the 120th day after filing. (b) Failure of the board and the State Tax Commission to timely act constitutes automatic acceptance of the application and the board shall furnish a certificate to the applicant on demand.

19-2-126

. Revocation of certification

-- Grounds -- Procedure.

(1) (a) The board, after consulting with the State Tax Commission, may revoke the certification issued under Section 19-2-125 of any pollution control facility if it finds

that the: (i) certification was obtained by fraud or gross misrepresentation; or (ii) holder of the certificate has failed substantially to operate the facility for the purpose of, and to the extent necessary to prevent, control, or reduce air or water pollution as specified in the certificate. (b) A shutdown of the facility due to force majeure, including obsolescence , is not cause to revoke certification of any facility. (2) (a) The board shall provide notice of the revocation by issuing a not ice of agency action. (b) The holder of the certificate may obtain judicial review of the revocation. (c) The revocation is final and conclusive unless an appeal is taken. (d) If the revocation is affirmed on appeal,

revocation is final on the da te notice of revocation was received by the holder. (3) As soon as a revoca tion under this section is final, the board shall notify the State Tax Commission of

the revocation.(4) (a) If the certification of a pollution control facility is revoked, all prior ta x relief provided to the holder

because of the certificate is forfeited. (b) The State Tax Commission shall collect taxes not paid by the holder because of the tax relief provided the holder to the extent permitted by the applicable statute of

limitations.

19-2-127

. Rules for administering

certification for tax relief.

In addition to the powers granted it, the board may formulate, amend, or cancel rules establishing procedures for processing and evaluating applications for certification, establishing procedures for the issuance and revocation of certificates, and al l other matters pertaining to the board in administering certification for tax relief on pollution control facilities.

## Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act

Utah Code Title 63G, Ch apter 3 (May 12, 2009)

Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act

.............................................................................................................................. ................. 1

Title 63G. General Government.

.............................................................................................................................. .................... 1

Chapter 3. Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act. ................................................................................................................... 1

Part 1. General Provisions.

.............................................................................................................................. ..................... 1

63G-3-101. Title.

.............................................................................................................................. ................................ 1

63G-3-102. Definitions.

.............................................................................................................................. .................... 1 Part 2. Circumstances Requiring Rulema king - Status of Administrative Rules. ................................................................. 2

63G-3-201. When rulemaking is required. ...................................................................................................................... 2 63G-3-202. Rules having the effect of law. .................................................................................................................... 3 Part 3. Rulemaking Proceures.

.............................................................................................................................. ............... 3

63G-3-301. Rulemaking procedure.

.............................................................................................................................. .. 3 63G-3-302. Public hearings.

.............................................................................................................................. ............. 4 63G-3-303. Changes in rules.

.............................................................................................................................. ............ 4 63G-3-304. Emergency rulemaking procedure. .............................................................................................................. 5 63G-3-305. Agency review of rules -- Schedule of filings -- Limited exemption for certain rules. ................................ 5

Part 4. Division of Administrative Rules. ............................................................................................................................ 5

63G-3-401. Division of Administrative Ru les created -- Appointment of director. ........................................................ 5

63G-3-402. Division of Administ rative Rules -- Duties generally. ................................................................................. 6 63G-3-403. Repeal and reenactme nt of Utah Administrative Code. ............................................................................... 6 Part 5. Legislative Oversight.

.............................................................................................................................. ................. 7

63G-3-501. Administrative Rules Review Committee. ................................................................................................... 7 63G-3-502. Legislative reauthorization of agen cy rules -- Extension of rules by governor. ........................................... 8

Part 6. Judicial Review.

.............................................................................................................................. ......................... 8

63G-3-601. Interested parties -- Petition for agency action. ............................................................................................ 8 63G-3-602. Judicial challenge to administrative rules. ................................................................................................... 8 63G-3-603. Time for contesting a rule -- Statute of limitations. ..................................................................................... 9 Part 7. Official Compilation of Administrative Rules. ......................................................................................................... 9

63G-3-701. Utah Administrative Code as offi cial compilation of ru les -- Judicial notice. ............................................... 9

63G-3-702. Utah Administrative Code -- Organization -- Official compilation. .............................................................. 9

Title 63G. General Government.

Chapter 3. Utah Administrative Rulemaking

Act.

Part 1. General Provisions.

63G-3-101. Title. This chapter is known as the "Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act." Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-1)

63G-3-102. Definitions. As used in this chapter: (1) "Administrative record" means information an agency relies upon when making a rule under this chapter including: (a) the proposed rule, chan ge in the proposed rule, and the rule analysis form; (b) the public comment received and recorded by the agency during the public comment period; (c) the agency's response to the public comment; (d) the agency's analysis of the public comment;

and (e) the agency's report of its decision-making

process. (2) "Agency" means each state board, authority, commission, institution, department, division, officer, or other state government entity other than the Legislature, its committees, the political subdivisions of the state, or the courts, which is authorized or required by law to make rules, adjudicate, grant or withhold li censes, grant or withhold relief from legal obligations, or perfo rm other similar actions or duties delegated by law. (3) "Bulletin" means the Utah State Bulletin. (4) "Catchline" means a short summary of each section, part, rule, or title of the code that follows the section, part, rule, or title reference placed before the text of the rule and serves the same function as boldface in legislation as

described in Section 68-3-13. (5) "Code" means the body of all effective rules as compiled and organized by th e division and entitled "Utah

Administrative Code." (6) "Director" means the director of the Division of

Administrative Rules.2 (7) "Division" means the Division of Administrative

Rules. (8) "Effective" means operative and enforceable. (9) (a) "File" means to submit a document to the division as prescribed by the division. (b) "Filing date" means the day and time the document is recorded as received by the division. (10) "Interested person" m eans any person affected by or interested in a proposed rule, amendment to an existing rule, or a nonsubstantive change made under Section 63G-3-

402. (11) "Order" means an agency action that determines the legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities, or other interests of one or more specific persons , but not a class of persons. (12) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, govern mental entity, or public or private organization of any character other than an agency. (13) "Publication" or " publish" means making a rule available to the public by includ ing the rule or a summary of

the rule in the bulletin. (14) "Publication date" means the inscribed date of the

bulletin. (15) "Register" may include an electronic database. (16) (a) "Rule" means an agency's written statement

that: (i) is explicitly or implicitly required by state

or federal statute or other applicable law; (ii) implements or interprets a state or federal legal mandate; and (iii) applies to a class of persons or another

agency. (b) "Rule" includes the amendment or repeal of an existing rule. (c) "Rule" does not mean: (i) orders; (ii) an agency's written statement that applies only to internal manageme nt and that does not restrict the legal rights of a public class of persons or another agency; (iii) the governor's executive orders or proclamations; (iv) opinions issued by the attorney general's office; (v) declaratory rulings issued by the agency according to Section 63G-4-503 except as required by Section 63G-3-201; (vi) rulings by an agency in adjudicativeproceedings, except as required by Subsection 63G3-201(6); or (vii) an agency written statement that is in violation of any state or federal law. (17) "Rule analysis" means the format prescribed by the division to summarize and analyze rules. (18) "Small business" means a business employing fewer than 50 persons. (19) "Substantive change" means a change in a rule that affects the application or results of agency actions. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-2) Part 2. Circumstances Requiring Rulemaking -

Status of Administrative Rules.

63G-3-201. When rulemaking is required. (1) Each agency shall: (a) maintain a current version of its rules; and (b) make it available to the public for inspection during its regular business hours. (2) In addition to other rulemaking required by law, each agency shall make rules when agency action: (a) authorizes, requires, or prohibits an action; (b) provides or prohibits a material benefit; (c) applies to a class of persons or another agency;

and (d) is explicitly or implicitly authorized by statute. (3) Rulemaking is also required when an agency issues a written interpretation of a state or federal legal mandate. (4) Rulemaking is not required when: (a) agency action applies only to internal agency management, inmates or residents of a state correctional, diagnostic, or detention facili ty, persons under state legal custody, patients admitted to a state hospital, members of the state retirement system, or students enrolled in a state education institution; (b) a standardized agency manual applies only to

internal fiscal or administra tive details of governmental entities supervised under statute; (c) an agency issues policy or other statements that are advisory, informative, or descriptive, and do not conform to the requirements of Subsections (2) and (3);

or (d) an agency makes nonsubstantive changes in a rule, except that the agency shall file al l nonsubstantive changes in a rule with the division. (5) (a) A rule shall enumerate any penalty authorized by statute that may result from its violation, subject to Subsections (5)(b) and (c). (b) A violation of a rule may not be subject to the criminal penalty of a class C misdemeanor or greater offense, except as provide d under Subsection (5)(c). (c) A violation of a rule may be subject to a class C or greater criminal penalty under Subsection (5)(a)

when: (i) authorized by a specific state statute; (ii) a state law and programs under that law

are established in order for the state to obtain or maintain primacy over a federal program; or (iii) state civil or criminal penalties established by state statute regarding the program are equivalent to or less than corresponding federal civil or criminal penalties. (6) Each agency shall enact rules incorporating the principles of law not already in its rules that are established by final adjudicative decisions within 120 days after the

decision is announced in its cases. (7) (a) Each agency may enact a rule that incorporates by reference: (i) all or any part of another code, rule, or regulation that has been adopted by a federal agency, an agency or political subdivision of this state, an agency of another state, or by a nationally recognized organization or association;3 (ii) state agency implementation plans mandated by the fede ral government for participation in the federal program; (iii) lists, tables, illustrations, or similar materials that are subject to frequent change, fully described in the rule, an d are availabl e for public inspection; or (iv) lists, tables, illustrations, or similar

materials that the director determines are too expensive to reproduce in the administrative code. (b) Rules incorporating materials by reference

shall: (i) be enacted according to the procedures outlined in this chapter; (ii) state that the referenced material is incorporated by reference; (iii) state the date, issue, or version of the material being incorporated; and (iv) define specifically what material is incorporated by reference and identify any agency

deviations from it. (c) The agency shall identify any substantive changes in the material incorporated by reference by following the rulemaking procedures of this chapter. (d) The agency shall maintain a complete and current copy of the referenced material available for public review at the agency and at the division. (8) (a) This chapter is not intended to inhibit the exercise of agency discretion within the limits prescribed by statute or agency rule. (b) An agency may enact a rule creating a justified exception to a rule. (9) An agency may obtain assistance from the attorney general to ensure that its rules meet legal and constitutional requirements. Amended by Chapter 347, Laws of Utah 2009 General Session, effective May 12, 2009 (formerly Section 63-46a-3)

63G-3-202. Rules having the effect of law. (1) An agency's written statement is a rule if it conforms

to the definition of a rule under Section 63G-3-102, but the

written statement is not enforceable unless it is made as a rule in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. (2) An agency's written statement that is made as a rule in accordance with the requirements of this chapter is

enforceable and has the effect of law. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-3.5)

Part 3. Rulemaking Procedures.

63G-3-301. Rulemaking procedure. (1) An agency authorized to make rules is also authorized to amend or repeal those rules. (2) Except as provided in Sections 63G-3-303 and 63G3-304, when making, amending, or repealing a rule agencies shall comply with: (a) the requirements of this section; (b) consistent procedures required by other statutes; (c) applicable fe deral manda tes; and (d) rules made by the division to implement this chapter. (3) Subject to the requiremen ts of this chapter, each agency shall develop and use flexible approaches in drafting

rules that meet the needs of the agency and that involve persons affected by the agency's rules. (4) (a) Each agency shall f ile its proposed rule and rule analysis with the division. (b) Rule amendments shall be marked with new language underlined and deleted language struck out. (c) (i) The division shall publish the information required under Subsection (8) on the rule analysis and the text of the proposed rule in the next issue of the

bulletin. (ii) For rule amendments, only the section or

subsection of the rule being amended need be printed. (iii) If the director determines that the rule is too long to publish, the director shall publish the rule analysis and shall publish the rule by reference to a copy on file with the division. (5) Prior to filing a rule with the division, the department head shall consid er and comment on the fiscal impact a rule may have on businesses. (6) If the agency reasonably expects that a proposed rule will have a measurable negative fiscal impact on small businesses, the agency shall c onsider, as allowed by federal law, each of the following methods of reducing the impact of

the rule on small businesses: (a) establishing less stringent compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses; (b) establishing less stringent schedules or deadlines for compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses; (c) consolidating or simplifying compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses; (d) establishing performan ce standards for small businesses to replace design or operational standards required in the proposed rule; and (e) exempting small businesses from all or any part of the requirements contained in the proposed rule. (7) If during the public comment period an agency receives comment that the proposed rule will cost small business more than one day's annual average gross receipts, and the agency had not previously performed the analysis in Subsection (6), the agency shall perform the analysis described in Subsection (6). (8) The rule analysis shall contain: (a) a summary of the rule or change; (b) the purpose of the rule or reason for the change; (c) the statutory authority or federal requirement for the rule; (d) the anticipated cost or savings to: (i) the state budget; (ii) local governments; (iii) small businesses; and (iv) persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities; (e) the compliance cost for affected persons; (f) how interested persons may review the full text of the rule; (g) how interested persons may present their views on the rule;4 (h) the time and place of any scheduled public hearing; (i) the name and telephone number of an agency employee who may be contacted about the rule; (j) the name of the agency head or designee who authorized the rule; (k) the date on which the rule may become effective following the publ ic comment period; and (l) comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses. (9) (a) For a rule being repealed and reenacted, the rule analysis shall contain a summary that generally includes the following: (i) a summary of substantive provisions in the repealed rule which are eliminated from the enacted rule; and (ii) a summary of new substantive provisions appearing only in the enacted rule. (b) The summary required under this Subsection (9) is to aid in review and ma y not be used to contest any rule on the ground of noncompliance with the procedural requirements of this chapter. (10) A copy of the rule analysis shall be mailed to all persons who have ma de timely request of the agency for advance notice of its rulemaking proceedings and to any other person who, by statutory or federal mandate or in the judgment of the agency, should also receive notice. (11) (a) Following the publication date, the agency shall allow at least 30 days for public comment on the rule. (b) The agency shall review and evaluate all public comments submitted in writing within the time period under Subsection (11)(a) or pr esented at public hearings conducted by the agency within the time period under Subsection (11)(a). (12) (a) Except as provide d in Sections 63G-3-303 and 63G-3-304, a proposed rule becomes effective on any date specified by the agency that is no fewer than seven calendar days after the close of the public comment period under Subsection (11), nor more than 120 days after the publication

date. (b) The agency shall provide notice of the rule's effective date to the division in the form required by the

division. (c) The notice of effective date may not provide for an effective date prior to the date it is received by the

division. (d) The division shall publish notice of the

effective date of the rule in the next issue of the bulletin. (e) A proposed rule lapses if a notice of effective date or a change to a proposed rule is not filed with the

division within 120 da ys of publication. (13) (a) As used in th is Subsection (13), "initiate rulemaking proceedings" means the filing, for the purposes of publication in accordance with Subsection (4), of an agency's proposed rule that is required by state statute. (b) A state agency shall initiate rulemaking proceedings no later than 180 days after the effective date of the statutory provisi on that specifically requires the rulemaking, except under Subsection (13)(c). (c) When a statute is enacted that requires agency rulemaking and the affected agency already has rules in place that meet the statutory requirement, the agency shall submit the rules to the Administrative Rules Review Committee for review within 60 days after the statute requiring the ru lemaking takes effect. (d) If a state agency does not initiate rulemaking proceedings in accordance with the time requirements in Subsection (13)(b), the state agency shall appear before the legislative Administrative Rules Review Committee and provide the reasons for the delay. Amended by Chapter 93, Laws of Utah 2009 General Session, effective May 12, 2009 (formerly Section 63-46a-4)

63G-3-302. Public hearings. (1) Each agency may hold a public hearing on a proposed rule, amendment to a rule , or repeal of a rule during the public comment period. (2) Each agency shall hold a public hearing on a proposed rule, amendment to a ru le, or repeal of a rule if: (a) a public hearing is re quired by state or federal mandate; (b) (i) another state agency, ten interested persons, or an interested association having not fewer than ten members request a public hearing; and (ii) the agency receives the request in writing not more than 15 days after the publication date of the proposed rule. (3) The agency shall hold the hearing: (a) before the rule becomes effective; and (b) no less than seven days nor more than 30 days after receipt of the request for hearing. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-5)

63G-3-303. Changes in rules. (1) (a) To change a proposed rule already published in the bulletin, an agency shall file with the division: (i) the text of the changed rule; and (ii) a rule analysis c ontaining a description of the change and the information required by Section

63G-3-301. (b) A change to a proposed rule may not be filed more than 120 days after publication of the rule being changed. (c) The division shall publish the rule analysis for the changed rule in the bulletin. (d) The changed proposed rule and its associated proposed rule will become effective on a date specified by the agency, not less than 30 days or more than 120 days after publication of the la st change in proposed rule. (e) A changed proposed rule and its associated proposed rule lapse if a no tice of effective date or another change to a proposed rule is not filed with the division within 120 days of publ ication of the last change in proposed rule. (2) If the rule change is nonsubstantive: (a) the agency need not comply with the requirements of Subsection (1); and (b) the agency shall notify the division of the change in writing. (3) If the rule is effective, the agency shall amend the rule according to the procedur es specified in Section 63G-3-

301.5 Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-6)

63G-3-304. Emergency rulemaking procedure. (1) All agencies shall comply with the rulemaking procedures of Section 63G-3-301 unless an agency finds that these procedures would: (a) cause an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare; (b) cause an imminent budget reduction because of budget restraints or federal requirements; or (c) place the agency in violation of federal or state

law. (2) (a) When finding that its rule is excepted from regular rulemaking procedures by this section, the agency

shall file with the division: (i) the text of the rule; and (ii) a rule analysis that includes the specific reasons and justifications for its findings. (b) The division shall publish the rule in the bulletin as provided in Subsection 63G-3-301(4). (c) The agency shall notify interested persons as provided in Subsection 63G-3-301(10). (d) The rule becomes effective for a period not exceeding 120 days on the date of filing or any later date designated in the rule. (3) If the agency intends the rule to be effective beyond 120 days, the agency shall also comply with the procedures of

Section 63G-3-301. Amended by Chapter 300, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session; and Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-7)

63G-3-305. Agency review of rules -- Schedule of filings -- Limited exemption for certain rules. (1) Each agency shall review each of its rules within five years of the rule's original effective date or within five years of the filing of the last five-year review, whichever is later. Rules effective prior to 1992 need not be reviewed until

1997. (2) An agency may consider any substantial review of a rule to be a five-year review. If the agency chooses to consider a review a five-year review, it shall follow the procedures outlined in Subsection (3). (3) At the conclusion of its review, the agency shall file

a notice of review on or before the anniversary date indicating its intent to continue, am end, or repeal the rule. (a) If the agency continues the rule, it shall file a

statement which includes: (i) a concise explanation of the particular statutory provisions under which the rule is enacted and how these provisions authorize or require the rule; (ii) a summary of written comments received during and since the last five-year review of the rule from interested persons supporting or opposing the rule; and (iii) a reasoned justification for continuation of the rule, including reasons why the agency disagrees with comments in opposition to the rule, if any. (b) If the agency repeals the rule, it shall comply

with Section 63G-3-301. (c) If the agency amends and continues the rule, it shall comply with the requirements of Section 63G-3- 301 and file the statement required in Subsection (3)(a). (4) (a) The division shall publish the notice and

statement in the bulletin. (b) The division may schedule the publication of agency notices and statemen ts, provided that no notice and statement shall be published more than one year

after the review deadline established under Subsection (1). (5) The division shall notify an agency of rules due for review at least 180 days pr ior to the anniversary date. (6) If an agency finds that it will not meet the deadline established in Subsection (1): (a) the agency may file an extension prior to the anniversary date with the di vision indicating the reason for the extension; and (b) the division shall publish notice of the

extension in the next issue of the bulletin. (7) An extension permits the agency to file a notice no more than 120 days after the anniversary date. (8) If an agency fails to file a notice of review or extension on or before the date specified in the notice mandated in Subsection (5), the division shall: (a) publish a notice in the next issue of the bulletin that the rule has expired and is no longer enforceable; (b) remove the rule from the code; and (c) notify the agency that the rule has expired. (9) After a rule expires, an agency must comply with the requirements of Section 63G-3-301 to reenact the rule. (10) (a) Rules issued under the following provisions related to the Department of Workforce Services or Labor

Commission that are in effect on July 1, 1997, are not subject to the requirements of this section until July 1, 1998: (i) Title 34, Labor in General; (ii) Title 34A, Utah Labor Code; (iii) Title 35A, Utah Workforce Services Code; (iv) Title 40, Chapter 2, Coal Mines; and (v) Title 57, Chapter 21, Utah Fair Housing

Act. (b) Any rule described in Subsection (10)(a) that would have expired on or after July 1, 1997 but before July 1, 1998, expires July 1, 1998, unless for that rule the Department of Workforce Services or Labor

Commission files: (i) the notice of re view, described in Subsection (3); or (ii) an extension described in Subsection (6). Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-9)

Part 4. Division of Administrative Rules.

63G-3-401. Division of Administrative Rules created -- Appointment of director. (1) There is created within the Department of

Administrative Services the Divi sion of Administrative Rules, to be administered by a director.6 (2) The director of administrative rules shall be appointed by the executive dire ctor with the approval of the

governor. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-9.5)

63G-3-402. Division of Admi nistrative Rules -- Duties generally. (1) The Division of Admi nistrative Rules shall: (a) establish all filing, publication, and hearing procedures necessary to make rules under this chapter; (b) record in a register the receipt of all agency rules, rule analysis forms, and notices of effective dates; (c) make the register, copies of all proposed rules, and rulemaking documents available for public inspection; (d) publish all proposed rule s, rule analyses, notices of effective dates, and review notices in the bulletin at least monthly, except that the division may publish the complete text of any proposed rule that the director determines is too long to print or too expensive to publish by reference to the text maintained by the division; (e) compile, format, number, and index all effective rules in an administrative code, and periodically publish that code and supplements or revisions to it; (f) publish a digest of all rules and notices contained in the most recent bulletin; (g) publish at least annually an index of all changes

to the administrative code and the effective date of each change; (h) print, or contract to print, all rulemaking publications the division de termines necessary to implement this chapter; (i) distribute without charge the bulletin and

administrative code to stat e-designated repositories, the Administrative Rules Review Committee, the Office of Legislative Research and Ge neral Counsel, and the two houses of the Legislature; (j) distribute without charge the digest and index to state legislators, agencies , political subdivisions on request, and the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel; (k) distribute, at prices covering publication costs, all paper rulemaking publicatio ns to all other requesting persons and agencies; (l) provide agencies assistance in rulemaking; and (m) administer this chapter and require state agencies to comply with filing, publication, and hearing procedures. (2) The division may after notifying the agency make nonsubstantive changes to rules filed with the division or published in the bulletin or code by: (a) implementing a unifor m system of formatting, punctuation, capitalization, organization, numbering, and wording; (b) correcting obvious errors and inconsistencies in punctuation, capitalization, numbering, referencing, and wording; (c) changing a catchline to more accurately reflect the substance of each section, part, rule, or title; (d) updating or correcting annotations associated with a section, part, rule, or title; and (e) merging or determining priority of any amendment, enactment, or repeal to the same rule or section made effective by an agency. (3) In addition, the division may make the following nonsubstantive changes with the concurrence of the agency: (a) eliminate duplication within rules; (b) eliminate obsolete and redundant words; and (c) correcting defective or inconsistent section and paragraph structure in arrangement of the subject matter

of rules. (4) For nonsubstantive changes made in accordance with Subsection (2) or (3) after publ ication of the rule in the bulletin, the division shall publish a list of nonsubstantive changes in the bulletin. For each nonsubstantive change, the

list shall include: (a) the affected code citation; (b) a brief description of the change; and (c) the date the change was made. (5) All funds appropriated or collected for publishing the division's publications shall be nonlapsing. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-10)

63G-3-403. Repeal and reenactment of Utah

Administrative Code. (1) When the director determines that the Utah Administrative Code requires extensive revision and reorganization, the division may repeal the code and reenact a new code according to the requirements of this section. (2) The division may: (a) reorganize, reformat , and renumber the code; (b) require each agency to review its rules and make any organizational or substantive changes according to the requirements of Section 63G-3-303; and (c) require each agency to prepare a brief summary of all substantive changes made by the agency. (3) The division may make nonsubstantive changes in the code by: (a) adopting a uniform system of punctuation, capitalization, numbering, and wording; (b) eliminating duplication; (c) correcting defective or inconsistent section and paragraph structure in arrangement of the subject matter of rules; (d) eliminating all obsol ete or redundant words; (e) correcting obvious erro rs and inconsistencies in punctuation, capitalization, numbering, referencing, and wording; (f) changing a catchline to more accurately reflect the substance of each section, part, rule, or title; (g) updating or correcting annotations associated with a section, part, rule, or title; and (h) merging or determining priority of any amendment, enactment, or repeal to the same rule or section made effective by an agency. (4) (a) To inform the public about the proposed code reenactment, the division shall publish in the bulletin: (i) notice of the code reenactment;7 (ii) the date, time, and place of a public hearing where members of the public may comment on the proposed reenactment of the code; (iii) locations where the proposed reenactment of the code may be reviewed; and (iv) agency summaries of substantive changes

in the reenacted code. (b) To inform the public about substantive changes in agency rules contained in the proposed reenactment, each agency shall: (i) make the text of their reenacted rules

available: (A) for public review during regular business hours; and (B) in an electronic version; and (ii) comply with the requirements of Subsection 63G-3-301(10). (5) The division shall hold a public hearing on the proposed code reenactment no fewer than 30 days nor more than 45 days after the public ation required by Subsection (4)(a). (6) The division shall distribute complete text of the proposed code reenactment without charge to: (a) state-designated repositories in Utah; (b) the Administrative Rules Review Committee;

and (c) the Office of Legislative Research and General

Counsel. (7) The former code is repealed and the reenacted code

is effective at noon on a date de signated by the division that is not fewer than 45 days nor more than 90 days after the publication date required by this section. (8) Repeal and reenactment of the code meets the requirements of Section 63G-3-305 for a review of all agency

rules. Amended by Chapter 300, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session; and Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a10.5)

Part 5. Legislative Oversight.

63G-3-501. Administrative Rules Review Committee. (1) (a) There is created an Administrative Rules Review Committee of ten permanent members and four ex officio

members. (b) (i) The committee's permanent members shall be composed of five members of the Senate, appointed by the president of the Senate, and five members of the House, appointed by the spea ker of the House, with no more than three senators and three representatives from the same political party. (ii) The permanent members shall convene at

least once each month as a committee to review new agency rules, amendments to existing agency rules, and repeals of existing agency rules. Meetings may be suspended at the discretion of the

committee chairs. (iii) Members shall serve for two-year terms or until their successors are appointed. (iv) A vacancy exists whenever a committee member ceases to be a member of the Legislature, or when a member resigns from the committee. Vacancies shall be filled by the appointing authority, and the replacement shall serve out the unexpired term. (c) When the committee reviews existing rules, the committee's permanent members shall invite the Senate and House chairmen of the standing committee and the

Senate and House chairm en of the appropriation subcommittee that have jurisdiction over the agency whose existing rules are being reviewed to participate as nonvoting, ex officio memb ers with the committee. (d) Three representatives and three senators from the permanent members are a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting. (2) Each agency rule as defined in Section 63G-3-102 shall be submitted to the committee at the same time public notice is given under Section 63G-3-301. (3) (a) The committee shall exercise continuous oversight of the process of rulemaking. (b) The committee shall examine rules submitted by each agency to determine: (i) whether or not they are authorized by

statute; (ii) whether or not they comply with legislative intent; (iii) their impact on the economy and the government operations of the state and local political subdivisions; and (iv) their impact on affected persons. (c) To carry out these duties, the committee may examine any other issues that it considers necessary. The committee may also notify and refer rules to the chairmen of the interim committee which has jurisdiction over a particular agency when the committee determines that an issue involved in an agency's rules may be more appropriately addressed by that committee. (d) In reviewing the rules, the committee shall follow generally accepted pr inciples of statutory

construction. (4) The committee may request that the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst prepare a fiscal note on any rule. (5) In order to accomplish its oversight functions, the committee has all the powers granted to legislative interim

committees as set forth in Section 36-12-11. (6) (a) The committee may prepare written findings of its review of each rule and may include any recommendations, including legislative action. (b) The committee shall provide to the agency that

enacted the rule: (i) its findings, if any; and (ii) a request that the agency notify the committee of any changes it makes in the rule. (c) The committee shall provide its findings to any member of the Legislature and to any person affected by the rule who requests the findings. (d) The committee shall provide its findings to the presiding officers of both the House and the Senate, Senate and House chairs of the standing committee, and

the Senate and House chai rs of the Appropriation Subcommittee that have jurisdiction over the agency whose rules are the subject of the findings.8 (7) (a) The committee may submit a report on its review of state agency rules to each member of the Legislature at each regular session. (b) The report shall include: (i) the findings and re commendations made by the committee under Subsection (6); (ii) any action taken by an agency in response to committee recommendations; and (iii) any recommendations by the committee for legislation. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-11)

63G-3-502. Legislative reauthorization of agency rules -- Extension of rules by governor. (1) All grants of rulemaking power from the Legislature to a state agency in any statute are made subject to the provisions of this section. (2) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), every agency rule that is in effect on February 28 of any calendar year expires on May 1 of that year unless it has been reauthorized by the Legislature. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (2)(a), an agency's rules do not expire if: (i) the rule is explicitly mandated by a federal law or regulation; or (ii) a provision of Utah's constitution vests the agency with specific constitutional authority to regulate. (3) (a) The Administrative Rules Review Committee shall have omnibus legislation prepared for consideration by the Legislature during its annual general session. (b) The omnibus legislation shall be substantially in the following form: "All rules of Utah state agencies are reauthorized except for the following:". (c) Before sending the legislation to the governor for the governor's action, the Administrative Rules Review Committee may send a letter to the governor and to the agency explaining specifically why the committee believes any rule shoul d not be reauthorized. (d) For the purpose of this section, the entire rule, a single section, or any complete paragraph of a rule may be excepted for reauthorization in the omnibus legislation considered by the Legislature. (4) The Legislature's reauthorization of a rule by legislation does not constitute le gislative approval of the rule, nor is it admissible in any proceeding as evidence of legislative intent. (5) (a) If an agency believes that a rule that has not been reauthorized by the Legislature or that will be allowed to expire should continue in full force and effect and is a rule within their authorized rulemaking power, the agency may seek the governor's declaration extending the rule beyond the expiration date. (b) In seeking the extension, the agency shall submit a petition to the gove rnor that affirmatively

states: (i) that the rule is necessary; and (ii) a citation to the source of its authority to

make the rule. (c) (i) If the governor finds that the necessity does exist, and that the agency has the authority to make the rule, the governor may declare the rule to be extended by publishing that declaration in the Administrative Rules Bulletin on or before April 15 of that year. (ii) The declaration shall set forth the rule to be extended, the reasons the extension is necessary, and a citation to the source of the agency's authority

to make the rule. (d) If the omnibus bill required by Subsection (3) fails to pass both houses of the Legislature or is found to have a technical legal defect preventing reauthorization of administrative rules intended to be reauthorized by the Legislature, the governor ma y declare all rules to be extended by publishing a single declaration in the

Administrative Rules Bulletin on or before June 15 without meeting requirements of Subsections (5)(b) and (c). Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a11.5)

Part 6. Judicial Review.

63G-3-601. Interested parties -- Petition for agency

action. (1) As used in this s ection, "initiate rulemaking proceedings" means the filing, for the purposes of publication

in accordance with Subsection 63G-3-301(4), of an agency's proposed rule to implement a petition for the making, amendment, or repeal of a rule as provided in this section. (2) An interested person may petition an agency to request the making, amendmen t, or repeal of a rule. (3) The division shall prescribe by rule the form for petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration, and disposition. (4) A statement shall accompany the proposed rule, or proposed amendment or repeal of a rule, demonstrating that the proposed action is within the jurisdiction of the agency and appropriate to the powers of the agency. (5) Within 60 days after submission of a petition, the agency shall either deny the petition in writing, stating its reasons for the denial, or initiate rulemaking proceedings. (6) (a) If the petition is submitted to a board that has been granted rulemaking authority by the Legislature, the board shall, within 45 days of the submission of the petition, place the petition on it s agenda for review. (b) Within 80 days of the submission of the petition, the board shall either: (i) deny the petition in writing stating its reasons for denial; or (ii) initiate ru lemaking proceedings. (7) If the agency or board has not provided the petitioner written notice that the agency has denied the petition or initiated rulemaking proceedings within the time limitations specified in Subsection (5) or (6) respectively, the petitioner may seek a writ of mandamus in state district court. Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-12)

63G-3-602. Judicial challeng e to administrative rules. (1) (a) Any person aggrieved by a rule may obtain judicial review of the rule by filing a complaint with the county clerk in the district court where the person resides or in the district court in Salt Lake County.9 (b) Any person aggrieved by an agency's failure to comply with Section 63G-3-201 may obtain judicial review of the agency's failure to comply by filing a complaint with the clerk of the district court where the person resides or in the dist rict court in Salt Lake County. (2) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), a person seeking judicial review under this section shall exhaust that person's administrative remedies by complying with the requirements of Section 63G-3-601 before filing the complaint. (b) When seeking judicial review of a rule, the person need not exhaust that person's administrative

remedies if: (i) less than six months has passed since the date that the rule became effective and the person

had submitted verbal or written comments on the rule to the agency during the public comment period; (ii) a statute granting rulemaking authority expressly exempts rules made under authority of that statute from compliance with Section 63G-3- 601; or (iii) compliance with Section 63G-3-601 would cause the person irreparable harm. (3) (a) In addition to the information required by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint filed under this

section shall contain: (i) the name and mailing address of the plaintiff; (ii) the name and mailing address of the defendant agency; (iii) the name and mailing address of any other party joined in the action as a defendant; (iv) the text of the rule or proposed rule, if

any; (v) an allegation that the person filing the complaint has either exhausted the administrative remedies by complying with Section 63G-3-601 or met the requirements for waiver of exhaustion of administrative remedies established by Subsection (2)(b); (vi) the relief sought; and (vii) factual and lega l allegations supporting the relief sought. (b) (i) The plaintiff shall serve a summons and a copy of the complaint as required by the Utah Rules of

Civil Procedure. (ii) The defendants shall file a responsive pleading as required by the Utah Rules of Civil

Procedures. (iii) The agency shall file the administrative record of the rule, if any, with its responsive pleading. (4) The district court may grant relief to the petitioner by: (a) declaring the rule invalid, if the court finds that: (i) the rule violates c onstitutional or statutory law or the agency does not have legal authority to make the rule; (ii) the rule is not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole administrative record; or (iii) the agency did not follow proper rulemaking procedure; (b) declaring the rule nonapplicable to the petitioner; (c) remanding the matter to the agency for compliance with proper rulema king procedures or further fact-finding; (d) ordering the agency to comply with Section 63G-3-201; (e) issuing a judicial stay or injunction to enjoin the agency from illegal action or action that would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner; or (f) any combination of Subsections (4)(a) through (e). (5) If the plaintiff meets the requirements of Subsection (2)(b), the district court may review and act on a complaint

under this section whether or no t the plaintiff has requested the agency review under Section 63G-3-601. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a12.1)

63G-3-603. Time for contesting a rule -- Statute of

limitations. (1) A proceeding to contest any rule on the ground of noncompliance with the proced ural requirements of this chapter shall commence within two years of the effective date

of the rule. (2) A proceeding to contest any rule on the ground of not being supported by substantia l evidence when viewed in light of the whole administrative record shall commence within four years of the effective date of the challenged

action. (3) A proceeding to contest any rule on the basis that a change to the rule made under Subsection 63G-3-402(2) or (3) substantively changed the ru le shall be commenced within two years of the date the change was made. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-14)

Part 7. Official Compil ation of Administrative

Rules.

63G-3-701. Utah Administrative Code as official compilation of rules -- Judicial notice.

The code shall be received by all the judges, public officers, commissions, and departments of the state government as evidence of the administrative law of the state of Utah and as an authorized compilation of the

administrative law of Utah. Al l courts shall take judicial notice of the code and its provisions. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-16)

63G-3-702. Utah Administrative Code -- Organization -- Official compilation. (1) The Utah Administrative Code shall be divided into three parts: (a) titles, whose number shall begin with "R"; (b) rules; andUtah Administrative Rulemaki ng Act, 2009 Page 10

10 (c) sections. (2) All sections contained in the code are referenced by a three-part number indicating its location in the code. (3) The division shall maintain the official compilation of the code and is the state-designated repository for administrative rules. If a dispute arises in which there is more than one version of a rule, the latest effective version on file with the division is considered the correct, current version. Renumbered and Amended by C hapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-9.6)

NOTE: Source http://le.utah.gov /~code/TITLE 63G/63G03.zip accessed 07/02/2009. Legislative action information added by the Division of Administrative Rules based on information from HistoryInfo.txt provided by Legislative Research and General Counsel, 07/02/2009.Administrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 1 - R15. Administrative Services,
Administrative Rules.
R15-1. Administrative Rule Hearings. R15-1-1. Authority. (1) This rule establishes procedures and
standards for administrative rule hearings as required by Subsection 63G-3-402(1)(a). (2) The procedures of
this rule constitute the minimum requirements for mandatory administrative rule hearings. Additional procedures may be required to comply with any other governing statute, federal law, or federal regulation.

R15-1-2. Definitions. (1) Terms used in this
rule are defined in Section

63G-3-102. (2) In addition: (a) "hearing" means an administrative rule hearing;

and (b) "officer" means an administrative rule hearing
officer.

R15-1-3. Purpose. (1) The purpose of this rule is to provide: (a) procedures for agency hearings on proposed
administrative rules or rules changes, or on the need for a rule or change; (b) opportunity for public comment on rules; and (c) opportunity for agency response to public

concerns about rules.

R15-1-4. When Agencies Hold Hearings. (1) Agencies shall hold hearings as required by Subsection 63G-3-302(2). (2) Agencies may hold hearings: (a) during the public comment period on a proposed rule, after its publication in the bulletin and prior to its effective date; (b) before initiating rulemaking procedures under Title 63G, Chapter 3, to promote public input prior to a rule's publication; (c) during a regular or extraordinary meeting of a state board, council, or commission, in order to avoid separate and additional meetings; or (d) to hear any public petition for a rule change as provided by Section 63G-3-601. (3) Voluntary hearings, as described in this section, follow the procedures prescribed by this rule or any other procedures the agency may provide by rule. (4) Mandatory hearings, as described in this section, follow the procedures prescribed by this rule and any additional requirements of

state or federal law. (5) If an agency holds a mandatory hearing under the procedures of this rule during the public comment period
described in Subsection 63G-3- 301(6), no second hearing is required for the purpose of

comment on the same rule or change considered at the first hearing.

R15-1-5. Hearing Procedures. (1) Notice. (a) An agency shall provide notice of a hearing by: (i) publishing the hearing date, time, place, and subject in the bulletin; (ii) mailing copies ofAdministrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 2 - the notice directly to persons who have petitioned for a hearing or rule changes under
Section 63G-3-302 or 63G-3- 601, respectively; and (iii) posting for at least 24 hours in a place in the agency's offices which is frequented by the public. (b) If a rules hearing becomes mandatory after the agency has published the proposed rule in the bulletin, the agency shall notify in writing persons requesting the hearing of the time and place. (c) An agency may provide additional notice of a hearing, and shall give further notice as may otherwise be required by law. (2) Hearing Officer. (a) The agency head shall appoint as hearing officer a person qualified to conduct fairly the hearing. (b) No restrictions apply to this appointment except the officer shall know rulemaking procedure. (c) However, if a state board, council, or commission is responsible for agency rulemaking, and holds a hearing, a member or the body's designee may be the hearing officer. (3) Time. The officer shall open the hearing at the announced time and place and permit comment for a minimum of one hour. The hearing may
be extended or continued to another day as necessary in the judgment of the officer. (4) Comment. (a) At the opening of the hearing, the officer shall explain the subject and purpose of the hearing and invite orderly, germane comment from all persons in attendance. The officer may set time limits for speakers and shall ensure equitable use
of time. (b) The agency shall have a representative at the hearing, other than the officer, who is familiar with
the rule at issue and who can respond to requests for information by those in

attendance. (c) The officer shall
invite written comment to be submitted at the hearing or after the hearing, within a
reasonable time. Written

comment shall be attached to the hearing minutes. (d) The officer shall conduct the hearing as an open, informal, orderly, and informative meeting. Oaths, cross-examination, and rules of evidence are not required. (5) The Hearing Record. (a) The officer shall cause to be recorded the name, address, and relevant affiliation of all persons speaking at the hearing, and
cause an electronic or mechanical verbatim recording of the hearing to be made, or make a brief summary, of their

remarks. (b) The hearing record consists of a copy of the proposed rule or rule change, submitted written comment, the hearing recording or summary, the list of persons speaking at the hearing, and other pertinent documents as determined by the agency. (c) The hearing officer shall, as soon as practicable, assemble the hearing record and transmit it to the agency
for consideration. (d) The hearing record shall be kept with and as partAdministrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 3 - of the rule's administrative
record in a file available at the agency offices for public inspection.

R15-1-8. Decision on an Issue Regarding Rulemaking

Procedure. (1) When a hearing issue requires a decision regarding rulemaking procedure, the
officer shall submit a written request for a decision to the
director as soon as practicable after, or after recessing, the hearing, as provided in Section R15-5-6. The director shall reply to the agency head as provided in Subsection R15-5-6(2). The
director's decision shall be included in the hearing

record.

R15-1-9. Appeal and Judicial
Review. (1) Persons may appeal the decision of the agency head or the division by petitioning the district court for judicial review as provided by law.

KEY: administrative law, government hearings

Date of Enactment or Last
Substantive Amendment: June 1, 1996
Notice of Continuation: September 29, 2005 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 63G-3-402

R15-2. Public Petitioning for Rulemaking. R15-2-1. Authority. As required by Subsection 63G-3-601(2), this rule prescribes the form and procedures for submission, consideration, and disposition of petitions requesting the making, amendment, or repeal
of an administrative rule.

R15-2-2. Definitions. (1) Terms used in this
rule are defined in Section

63G-3-102. (2) Other terms are
defined as follows: (a) "rule change" means: (i) making a new rule; (ii) amending, repealing, or repealing and reenacting an existing rule; (iii) amending a proposed rule further by filing a change in proposed rule under the provisions of Section 63G-3-303; (iv) allowing a proposed (new, amended, repealed, or repealed and reenacted) rule or change in proposed rule to lapse; or (v) any combination of

the above. (b) "petitioner" means an interested person who submits a petition to an agency pursuant to Section
63G-3-601 and this rule.

R15-2-3. Petition Procedure. (1) The petitioner shall send the petition to the head of the agency authorized by law to make the rule change requested. (2) The agency receiving the petition shall stamp the petition with the date of receipt.

R15-2-4. Petition Form. The petition shall: (a) be clearly designated "petition for a rule change"; (b) state the petitioner's name; (c) state the petitioner's interest in theAdministrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 4 - rule, including relevant affiliation, if any; (d) include a statementas required by Subsection 63G3-601(4) regarding the requested rule change; (e) state the approximate wording of the requested rule change; (f) describe the reason for the rule change; (g) include an address,
an E-mail address when available, and telephone where the petitioner can be reached during regular business hours;

and (h) be signed by the petitioner.

R15-2-5. Petition Consideration And Disposition. (1) The agency head or designee shall: (a) review and consider the petition; (b) write a response to the petition stating: (i) that the petition is denied and reasons for denial,

or (ii) the date when the agency is initiating a rule change consistent with the intent of the petition; and (c) send the response to the petitioner within the timeframe provided by Section 63G3-601. (2) The petitioned agency may, within the timeframe provided by Section 63G3-601, interview the petitioner, hold a public hearing on the petition, or take any action the agency, in its judgment, deems necessary to provide the petition due
consideration. (3) The agency shall retain the petition and a copy of the agency's response as part of the administrative

record. (4) The agency shall mail copies of its decision to all persons who petitioned for a rule change.

KEY: administrative law

Date of Enactment or Last
Substantive Amendment: December 25, 2006
Notice of Continuation: September 29, 2005 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 63G-3-601

R15-3. Definitional
Clarification of
Administrative Rule. R15-3-1. Authority, Purpose,
and Definitions. (1) This rule is
authorized under Subsection 63G-3-402(1) which requires
the division to administer the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, Title 63G, Chapter 3. (2) This rule clarifies when rulemaking is required, and requirements for incorporation by reference
within rules. (3) Terms used in this
rule are defined in Section

63G-3-102.

R15-3-2. Agency Discretion. (1) A rule may restrict agency discretion to prevent agency personnel from exceeding their scope of employment, or committing arbitrary action or application of standards, or to provide due process for persons affected by agency
actions. (2) A rule may authorize agency discretion that sets limits, standards, and scope of employment within which a range of actions may beAdministrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 5 - applied by agency personnel. A rule may also establish criteria for granting exceptions to the standards or procedures of the rule when, in the judgment of authorized personnel, documented
circumstances warrant. (3) An agency may have written policies which broadly prescribe goals and guidelines. Policies are not rules unless they meet the
criteria for rules set forth under Section 63G-3-201(2). (4) Within the limits prescribed by Sections 63G-3- 201 and 63G-3-602, an agency has full discretion regarding
the substantive content of its
rules. The division has authority over nonsubstantive
content under Subsections 63G3-402(2) and (3), and 63G-3- 403(2) and (3), rulemaking procedures, and the physical

format of rules for compilation in the Utah
Administrative Code.

R15-3-3. Use of Incorporation by Reference in Rules. (1) An agency incorporating materials by reference as permitted under Subsection 63G-3-201(7) shall comply with the following

standards: (a) The rule shall state specifically that the cited material is "incorporated by

reference." (b) If the material contains options, or is modified in its application, the options selected and
modifications made shall be
stated in the rule. (c) If the incorporated material is substantively changed at a later time, and the agency intends to enforce the revised material, the agency shall amend its rule through rulemaking procedures to incorporate by reference any applicable changes as soon as practicable. (d) In accordance with Subsection 63G-3-201(7)(c), an agency shall describe substantive changes that appear in the materials incorporated by reference as part of the "summary of rule or change" in the rule analysis. (2) An agency shall comply with copyright requirements when it provides the division a copy of material incorporated by

reference.

R15-3-4. Computer-Prohibited
Material. (1) All rules shall be in a format that permits their compatibility with the division's computer system and compilation into the Utah
Administrative Code. (2) Rules may not contain maps, charts, graphs, diagrams, illustrations, forms, or similar material. (3) The division shall issue and provide to agencies
instructions and standards for formatting rules.

R15-3-5. Statutory Provisions that Require Rulemaking
Pursuant to Subsection 63G-3- 301(13). For the purposes of Subsection 63G-3-301(13), the phrase "statutory provision that requires the rulemaking" means a state statutory provision that explicitly mandates rulemaking.

KEY: administrative lawAdministrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 6 - Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: April
30, 2007
Notice of Continuation: September 29, 2005 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 63G-3- 201; 63G-3-301; 63G-3-402

R15-4. Administrative Rulemaking Procedures. R15-4-1. Authority and Purpose. (1) This rule establishes procedures for filing and publication of agency rules under Sections63G-3-301, 63G-3-303, and 63G3-304, as authorized under Subsection 63G-3-402(1). (2) The procedures of
this rule constitute minimum requirements for rule filing and publication. Other governing statutes, federal laws, or federal regulations may require additional rule filing and publication procedures.

R15-4-2. Definitions. (1) Terms used in this
rule are defined in Section

63G-3-102. (2) Other terms are
defined as follows: (a) "Anniversary date"
means the date that is five years from the original effective date of the rule, or the date that is five years from the date the agency filed
with the division the most recent five-year reviewrequired under Subsection 63G3-305(3), whichever is sooner. (b) "Digest" means the Utah State Digest that
summarizes the content of the bulletin as required by Subsection 63G-3-402(1)(f); (c) "Codify" means the process of collecting and arranging administrative rules systematically in the Utah Administrative Code, and includes the process of verifying that each amendment was marked as required under Subsection 63G-3-301(2)(b); (d) "Compliance cost" means expenditures a regulated person will incur if a rule or change is made effective; (e) "Cost" means the aggregated expenses persons as a class affected by a rule will incur if a rule or change is made effective; (f) "eRules" means the
Division's administrative rule filing application that agencies use to file rules and notices; (g) "Savings" means: (i) an aggregated monetary amount that will no longer be incurred by persons as a class if a rule or change is made effective; (ii) an aggregated monetary amount that will be
refunded or rebated if a rule or change is made effective; (iii) an aggregated monetary amount of anticipated revenues to be generated for state budgets, local governments, or both if a rule or change is made effective;

or (iv) any combination of these aggregated monetary

amounts. (h) "Unmarked change" means a change made to rule
text that was not marked as required by Subsection 63G-3- 301(2)(b).

R15-4-3. Publication Dates
and Deadlines. (1) For the purposes of Subsections 63G-3-301(2) andAdministrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 7 - 63G-3-303(1), an agency shall
file its rule and rule analysis by 11:59:59 p.m. on the fifteenth day of the month for publication in the bulletin and digest issued on the first of the next month, and by 11:59:59 p.m. on the first day of the month for publication on the fifteenth

of the same month. (a) If the first or fifteenth day is a Saturday, or a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday holiday, the agency shall file the rule and rule analysis by 11:59:59 p.m. on the previous regular business day. (b) If the first or fifteenth day is a Sunday or Monday holiday, the agency
shall file the rule and rule analysis by 11:59:59 p.m. on the next regular business day. (2) For all purposes,
the official date of publication for the bulletin and digest shall be the first and fifteenth days of each

month.

R15-4-4. Thirty-day Comment Period for a Proposed Rule and a Change in Proposed Rule. (1) For the purposes of
Sections 63G-3-301 and 63G-3- 303, "30 days" shall be computed by: (a) counting the day after publication of the rule as the first day; and (b) counting the thirtieth consecutive day after the day of publication as the thirtieth day, unless (c) the thirtieth consecutive day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, in which event the thirtieth day is the next regular business day. R15-4-5a. Notice of the Effective Date for a Proposed

Rule. (1)(a) Pursuant to Subsection 63G-3-301(9), upon expiration of the comment period designated on the rule analysis and filed with the rule, and before expiration of 120 days after publication of a proposed rule, the agency proposing the rule shall notify the division of the
date the rule is to become
effective and enforceable. (b) The agency shall notify the division after determining that the proposed rule, in the form published,
shall be the final form of the rule, and after informing the division of any nonsubstantive changes in the rule as provided for in Section R15-4-

6. (2)(a) The agency shall notify the division by filing
with the division a Notice of Effective Date form using

eRules. (b) If the eRules Notice
of Effective Date form is unavailable to the agency, the agency may notify the division by any other form of written communication clearly identifying the proposed rule, stating the date the rule was
filed with the division or published in the bulletin, and stating its effective date. (3) The date designated
as the effective date shall

be: (a) at least seven days after the comment period specified on the rule analysis; or (b) if the agency formally extends the comment period for a proposed rule by publishing a subsequent noticeAdministrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 8 - in an issue of the bulletin, at least seven days after the extended comment period. (4) The division shall publish notice of the
effective date in the next
issue of the bulletin. There is no publication deadline for
a notice of effective date for a proposed rule, nor requirement that it be published prior to the
effective date.

R15-4-5b. Notice of the Effective Date for a Change in Proposed Rule. (1)(a) Upon expiration of the 30-day period required by Section 63G-3-303, and before expiration of the 120th day after publication of a change in proposed rule, the agency promulgating the rule shall notify the division of
the date the rule is to become
effective and enforceable. (b) The agency shall notify the division after determining that the rule text as published is the final form of the rule, and after informing the division of any nonsubstantive changes in the rule as provided for in
Section R15-4-6. (2)(a) The agency shall notify the division by filing
with the division a Notice of Effective Date form using

eRules. (b) If the eRules Notice
of Effective Date form is unavailable to the agency, the agency may notify the division by any other form of written communication clearly identifying the change in proposed rule and any rules upon which the change in proposed rule is dependent, stating the date the rules were filed with the division or published in the bulletin, and stating the effective

date. (3) The date designated
as the effective date shall

be: (a) at least 30 days after the publication date of the rule in the bulletin, or (b) if the agency designated a comment period, at least seven days after a comment period designated by the agency on the rule analysis or formally extended by publication of a subsequent
notice in the bulletin. (4) The division shall publish notice of the
effective date in the next
issue of the bulletin. There is no publication deadline for
the notice of effective date for a change in proposed rule, nor requirement that it be published prior to the
effective date.

R15-4-6. Nonsubstantive Changes in Rules. (1) Pursuant to Subsections 63G-3-201(4)(d) and 63G-3-303(2), for the purpose of making rule changes that are grammatical or do not materially affect the application or outcome of agency procedures and standards, agencies shall comply with the procedures of
this section. (2) The agency proposing a change shall determine if the change is substantive or nonsubstantive according to
the criteria cited in Subsection R15-4-6(1). (a) The agency may seek the advice of the Attorney General or the division, but the agency is responsible forAdministrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 9 - compliance with the cited
criteria. (3) Without complying with regular rulemaking procedures, an agency may make nonsubstantive changes in: (a) proposed rules already published in the bulletin and digest but not made effective, or (b) rules already
effective. (4) To make a nonsubstantive change in a rule, the agency shall: (a) notify the division by filing with the division the form designated for nonsubstantive changes; (b) include with the
notice the rule text to be changed, with changes marked as required by Section R15-4- 9; and (c) include with the notice the name of the agency head or designee authorizing the change. (5) A nonsubstantive change becomes effective on
the date the division makes the change in the Utah
Administrative Code. (6) The division shall
record the nonsubstantive change and its effective date
in the administrative rules register.

R15-4-7. Substantive Changes in Proposed Rules. (1) Pursuant to Section 63G-3-303, agencies shall comply with the procedures of this section when making a substantive change in a proposed rule. (a) The procedures of this section apply if: (i) the agency determines a change in the rule is necessary; (ii) the change is
substantive under the criteria of Subsection 63G-3-102(19); (iii) the rule was published as a proposal in the bulletin and digest; and (iv) the rule has not
been made effective under theprocedures of Subsection 63G3-303(1)(d) and Section R15-4-

5. (b) If the rule is already effective, the agency shall comply with regular rulemaking procedures. (2) To make a substantive change in a proposed rule, the agency
shall file with the division: (a) a rule analysis, marked to indicate the agency intends to change a rule already published, and describing the change and reasons for it; and (b) a copy of the proposed rule previously published in the bulletin marked to show only those changes made since the proposed rule was previously published as described in
Section R15-4-9. (3) The division shall publish the rule analysis in
the next issue of the bulletin, subject to the publication deadlines of
Section R15-4-3. The division may also publish the changed

text of the rule. (4) The agency may make a change in proposed rule effective by following the requirements of Section R15-4- 5, or may further amend the rule by following the procedures of Sections R15-4-6

or R15-4-7.

R15-4-8. Temporary 120-day
Rules.Administrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 10 - (1) Pursuant to Section 63G-3-304, for the purpose of filing a temporary rule, an agency shall comply with the procedures of this section. (2) The agency proposing a temporary rule shall
determine if the need for the rule complies with the
criteria of Subsection 63G-3- 304(1). (a) The division interprets the criteria of Subsection 63G-3-304(1) to include under "welfare" any
substantial material loss to the classes of persons or agencies the agency is mandated to regulate, serve, or protect. (3) The agency shall use the same procedures for filing and publishing a temporary rule as for a permanent rule, except: (a) the rule shall
become effective and enforceable on the day and hour it is recorded by the division unless the agency designates a later effective date on the rule analysis; (b) no comment period is

necessary; (c) no public hearing is necessary; and (d) the rule shall expire 120 days after the
rule's effective date unless the filing agency notifies the division, on the form or by memorandum, of an earlier expiration date. (4) A temporary rule is separate and distinct from a rule filed under regular rulemaking procedures, though the language of the two rules may be identical. To make a temporary rule permanent, the agency shall propose a separate rule for regular rulemaking. (5) When a temporary rule and a similar regular
rule are in effect at the same time, any conflict between the provisions of the two are
resolved in favor of the rule
with the most recent effective date, unless the agency designates otherwise as part of the rule analysis. (6) A temporary rule has

the full force and effect of a permanent rule while in effect, but a temporary rule
is not codified in the Utah
Administrative Code.

R15-4-9. Underscoring and Striking Out. (1) (a) Pursuant to Subsection 63G-3-301(2)(b), an agency shall underscore language to be added and strike out language to be deleted in proposed rules. (b) Consistent with Subsection 63G-3-301(2)(b), an agency shall underscore language to be added and strike out language to be deleted in changes in proposed rules, 120-day rules, and nonsubstantive changes. (c) Consistent with legislative bill drafting technique, the struck out language shall be surrounded by brackets. (2) When an agency proposes to make a new rule or section, the entire proposed

text shall be underscored. (3)(a) When an agency proposes to repeal a complete rule it shall include as part of the information provided in the rule analysis a brief summary of the deleted language and a brief explanation of why the rule is being repealed.Administrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 11 - (b) The agency shall include with the rule analysis a copy of the text to be
deleted in one of the following formats: (i) each page annotated "repealed in its entirety" or (ii) the entire text struck out in its entirety and surrounded by one set of
brackets. (c) The division shall not publish repealed rules unless space is available within the page limits of the
bulletin. (4) When an agency fails to mark a change as described in this section, the director or his designee may refuse to codify the change. When determining whether or not to codify an unmarked change, the
director shall consider: (a) whether the unmarked change is substantive or nonsubstantive; and (b) if the purpose of public notification has been adequately served. (5) The director's refusal to codify an unmarked change means that the change is not operative for the purposes of Section 63G-3-701 and that the agency must comply with regular rulemaking procedures to make the change.

R15-4-10. Estimates of Anticipated Cost or Savings, and Compliance Cost. (1) Pursuant toSubsections 63G-3-301(3), 63G3-303(1), 63G-3-304(2), and 53C-1-201(3), when an agency files a proposed rule, change in proposed rule, 120-day (emergency) rule, or expedited rule and provides anticipated cost or savings, and compliance cost information in the rule analysis, the agency

shall: (a) estimate the incremental cost or savings and incremental compliance
cost associated with the changes proposed by the rule or change; (b) estimate the incremental cost or savings and incremental compliance cost in dollars, except as otherwise provided in Subsections R15-4-10(4) and (5); (c) indicate that the
amount is either a cost or a savings; and (d) estimate the incremental cost or savings expected to accrue to "state budgets," "local governments," "small businesses," and "persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities" as aggregated cost or savings; (2) In addition, an

agency may: (a) provide a narrative description of anticipated cost or savings, and compliance cost; (b) compare anticipated cost or savings, and compliance cost figures, for the rule or change to: (i) current budgeted
costs associated with the existing rule, (ii) figures reported on
a fiscal note attached to a related legislative bill, or (iii) both (i) and (ii). (3) If an agency chooses to provide comparison figures, it shall clearly distinguish comparison figures from the anticipated cost or savings, and compliance cost figures. (4) If dollar estimates are unknown or not available,Administrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 12 - or the obtaining thereof would impose a substantial unbudgeted hardship on the agency, the agency may
substitute a reasonednarrative description of costrelated actions required by the rule or change, and explain the reason or reasons
for the substitution. (5) If no cost, savings, or compliance cost is
associated with the rule or change, an agency may enter "none," "no impact," or
similar words in the rule analysis followed by a written explanation of how the agency
estimated that there would be no impact, or how the proposed rule, or changes made to an existing rule does not apply to "state budgets," "local government," "small businesses," "persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities," or any
combination of these. (6) If an agency does not provide an estimate of cost, savings, compliance cost, or a reasoned narrative description of cost information; or a written explanation as part of the rule analysis in compliance with this section, the Division may, after making an attempt to obtain the required information, refuse to register and publish the rule or change. If the Division refuses to register and publish a rule or change, it

shall: (a) return the rule or change to the agency with a notice indicating that the
Division has refused to register and publish the rule or change; (b) identify the reason or reasons why the Division refused to register and publish the rule or change;

and (c) indicate the filing
deadlines for the next issue
of the Bulletin.

KEY: administrative law

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: August
24, 2007
Notice of Continuation: September 29, 2005 Authorizing, and Implementedor Interpreted Law: 63-46a1063G-3-301; 63-46a-463G-3- 303; 63-46a-663G-3-304; 63G-3-

402

R15-5. Administrative Rules Adjudicative Proceedings. R15-5-1. Purpose. (1) This rule provides the procedures for informal adjudicative proceedings governing: (a) appeal and review of a decision by the division not to publish an agency's proposed rule or rule change or not to register an agency's notice of effective date; and (b) a determination by the division whether an agency rule meets the procedural requirements of Title 63G, Chapter 3, the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act. (2) The informal procedures of this rule apply
to all other division actions for which an adjudicative proceeding may be required.

R15-5-2. Authority. This rule is required by
Sections 63G-4-202 and 63G-4- 203, and is enacted under the authority of Subsection 63G-3- 402(1)(m) and Sections 63G-4-Administrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 13 - 202, 63G-4-203, and 63G-4-503.

R15-5-3. Definitions. (1) The terms used in
this rule are defined in
Section 63G-4-103. (2) In addition, "digest" means the Utah State Digest which summarizes the
content of the bulletin asrequired under Subsection 63G3-402(1)(f).

R15-5-4. Refusal to Publish or Register a Rule or Rule Change. (1) The division shall not publish a proposed rule or rule change when the division determines the agency has not met the requirements of Title 63G, Chapter 3, or of Rules

R15-3 or R15-4. (2) The division shall not register an agency's notice of effective date, nor codify the rule or rule change
in the Utah Administrative Code, if the agency exceeds the 120-day limit required by Subsection 63G-3-301(6)(a) as interpreted in Section R15-4-

5. (3) The division shall notify the agency of a refusal to publish or register a rule or rule change, and shall advise and assist the agency in correcting any error or omission, and in re-filing to meet statutory and regulatory
criteria.

R15-5-5. Appeal of a Refusal to Publish or Register a Rule or Rule Change. (1) An agency may request a review of a division refusal to publish or register a rule or rule change by filing a written petition for
review with the division director. (2) The division director shall grant or deny the petition within 20 days, and respond in writing giving the reasons for any denial. (3) The agency may appeal the decision of the division director by filing a written appeal to the
Executive Director of the Department of Administrative Services within 20 days of receipt of the division
director's decision. The
Executive Director shall respond within 20 days affirming or reversing the
division director's decision.

R15-5-6. Determining the Procedural Validity of a Rule. (1) A person may contest the procedural validity, or request a determination of

whether a rule meets the requirements of Title 63G, Chapter 3, by filing a written petition with the division. (a) The rule at issue may be a proposed rule or an
effective rule. (b) The petition must be received by the division within the two-year limit set by Section 63G-3-603. (c) The petition may emanate from a rulemaking hearing as in Section R15-1-8. (d) The petition shall specify the rule or rule change at issue and reasons why the petitioner deems it procedurally flawed or
invalid. (e) The petition shall be accompanied by any
documents the division should consider in reaching its
decision. (f) The petition shall be signed and designate aAdministrative Services

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 14 - telephone number where the petitioner can be contacted during regular business hours. (2) The division shall respond to the petition in writing within 20 days of its receipt. (a) The division shall

research all records pertaining to the rule or rule change at issue. (b) The response of the
division shall state whether the rule is procedurally valid or invalid and how the agency may remedy any defect. (c) The division shall send a copy of the petition and its response to the pertinent agency. (3) The petitioner may request reconsideration of the division's findings by filing a written request for
reconsideration with the
division director. (a) The director may respond to the request in writing. (b) If the petitioner receives no response within 20 days, the request is denied.

R15-5-7. Remedies Resulting from an Adjudicative Proceeding. (1) A rule the division determines is procedurally
invalid shall be stricken from
the Utah Administrative Code
and notice of its deletion published in the next issues of the bulletin and digest. (2) The division shall notify the pertinent agencyand assist the agency in refiling or otherwise remedying the procedural omission or
error in the rule. (3) A rule the division determines is procedurally valid shall be published and registered promptly.

KEY: administrative procedures, administrative law

Date of Enactment or Last
Substantive Amendment: June 1, 1996
Notice of Continuation: September 29, 2005 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 63G-3- 402; 63G-4-202; 63G-4-203;

63G-4-503

# Proposed RuleR307-110-28 December 8, 2010 Page 1 of 1

R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality. 1 R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan. 2 R307-110-28. Regional Haze. 3 The Utah State Implementation Plan, Section XX, Regional 4 Haze, as most recently amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on 5 [September 3, 2008 ]April 6, 2011 , pursuant to Section 19-2-104, is 6 hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of these rules. 7 KEY: air pollution, PM10, PM2.5, ozone 8 Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [November 10, 9
2008 ]2011 10 Notice of Continuation: March 15, 2007 11 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-104(3)(e) 12

13

14

## Utah State Implementation Plan

Section XX

Regional Haze

Addressing Regional Haze Visibility Protection for the Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309

Adopted by the Air Quality Board September 3, 2008 2011Section XX - Regional Haze. Page ii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 1

B. BACKGROUND ON THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE.................................... 3

1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 3

2. Definitions ........................................................................................................ 3

3. 1977 Clean Air Act ........................................................................................... 3 4. Reasonably Attributable Vi sibility Impairment SIP......................................... 4

5. 1990 Clean Air Act ........................................................................................... 4 6. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission ............................................. 5 7. Western Regional Ai r Partnership .................................................................... 6 8. Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in 2003 SIP................................ 7

C. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR TH E CLEAN-AIR CORRIDOR............. 10

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 10 2. Identification of the Clean-Air Corridor; Other Clean-Air Corridors ............ 11 3. Strategy for Clean Air Corridors .................................................................... 13

a. Comprehensive emissions tracking program. ........................................................ 13

b. Patterns of growth within the clean-air corridor.................................................... 13

c. Patterns of growth outside the clean-air corridor................................................... 13

d. Actions if impairment inside or outsi de the clean-air corridor occurs................... 14

D. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FO R STATIONARY SOURCES...................... 15

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 15

2. Achievement of a 13% or Greater Re duction of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by

2000................................................................................................................. 16 3. Strategy for Stationary Sources of Sulfur Dioxide ......................................... 16

a. 2018 Milestone 17

b. Interim Milestones ................................................................................................. 18

c. Triggering the Trading Program............................................................................ 18

d. Certainty that 2018 Milestone Will Be Me t on Time ............................................ 18

e. Trading Program Features ..................................................................................... 18

f. Allocations 18

g. State and Tribal Opt-In or Opt-Out........................................................................ 18 4. Geographic Enhancement Program ................................................................ 19

a. Procedure for addressing Reasonably Attri butable Visibility Impairment under the Regional Haze Rule................................................................... 19 5. Report on Assessment of NO

x /PM Strategies................................................. 19

a. Assessment of Need for NO

x and PM milestones.................................................. 19 6. Best Available Control Technology (BART) Assessment for NO

x and PM.. 20

a. Regional Haze Rule BA RT Requirements............................................................. 20

b. BART-Eligible Sources. ........................................................................................ 21

c. Sources Subject to BART...................................................................................... 21

d. BART Determination............................................................................................. 24

E. SULFUR DIOXIDE MILESTONES AND BACKSTOP TRADING

PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 28Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iii 1. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger........................................ 28

a. Regional Sulfur Dioxi de Milestones...................................................................... 28

b. Regional Program Ad ministration ......................................................................... 30

c. Determination of Program Trigger ........................................................................ 31

d. Year 2013 Assessment........................................................................................... 36

e. Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone ............................................... 37 2. Pre-Trigger Emissions Tracking Requirements.............................................. 38

a. SO 2 Emission Inventory......................................................................................... 38

b. Development of Emissi on Tracking System.......................................................... 39

c. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking Database ................................. 39 3. WEB Trading Program Requirements ............................................................ 40

a. Initial Allocation of SO 2 Allowances .................................................................... 40

b. Distribution of Allowances fo r Future Control Periods......................................... 49

c. Distribution of the New Source Allocation ........................................................... 49

d. Regional Tribal Set-aside....................................................................................... 51

e. Opt-in Sources 51

f. WEB Emissions and Allowance Tr acking System (WEB EATS)......................... 51

g. Allowance Transfers.............................................................................................. 53

h. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year.............................................................. 54

i. Monitoring/Recordkeeping.................................................................................... 56 j. Compliance, Excess Emi ssions, and Penalties....................................................... 58

k. Periodic Evaluation of the Trading Program ......................................................... 58

l. Retired Source Exemption ..................................................................................... 61

m. Integration into Permits ......................................................................................... 61 4. 2013 SIP Revision; Backstop for Beginning of Second Planning Period ...... 62

F. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR MOBILE SOURCES................................ 63

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 63 2. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile Sources ............ 64

a. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile Sources. .................. 64

b. Program to assure continuous declin e in mobile source emissions. ...................... 65

c. Backstop provision to address potential incr ease in non-road emissions in the event

Federal standards ar e not finalized............................................ 65 3. Other GCVTC Strategies for Mobile Sources ................................................ 65

G. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR FIRE PROGRAMS .................................. 66

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 66 2. Prescribed Fire Program Evaluation ............................................................... 66

a. Wildlands Fire 67

b. Agricultural Fire 68 3. Emission Inventory and Tracking System ...................................................... 69

a. Wildlands Inventory .............................................................................................. 69

b. Agricultural Lands Inventory................................................................................. 70
4. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers ................................. 70 5. Enhanced Smoke Management Program........................................................ 70Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iv a. Actions to Minimize Fire Emissions...................................................................... 70

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion ........................................................................... 71

c. Alternatives to Fire ................................................................................................ 71

d. Public Notification of Burning .............................................................................. 71

e. Air Quality Monitoring.......................................................................................... 71

f. Surveillance and Enforcement ............................................................................... 71

g. Program Evaluation ............................................................................................... 72

h. Burn Authorization ................................................................................................ 72

i. Regional Coordination........................................................................................... 72 j. ESMP for Agricultural Burning............................................................................. 72
6. Annual Emission Goals................................................................................... 72

H. ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS FROM PAVED AND UNPAVED ROAD

DUST.................................................................................................................... 73

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 73 2. State of Utah Long-term Strategy for Road Dust Sources.............................. 73

a. Assessment of Paved and Unpave d Road Dust Emissions. ................................... 73

b. Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding...................................................... 74

I. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

............................................................................................................................... 75

1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs in Utah.................... 78 2. Inventory of Renewable Energy Gene ration Capacity and Production in 2002

......................................................................................................................... 78 3. Inventory of Total Utah Capacity and Production in 2002............................. 81 4. Percent of Total Energy Generation Capacity and Production Derived from Renewable Energy .......................................................................................... 82 5. Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

......................................................................................................................... 83

a. States' Contributions to the Regional Renewable Energy Generation Goal .......... 83

b. Utah's Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy

Goals ......................................................................................... 84 6. State of Utah Programs to Encourage Early Compliance............................... 85

a. Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program Early Reduction Credits. ...................... 85

b. Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program Renewable Energy Credits................... 85 7. Summary of Utah Programs to Expand Energy Conservation ....................... 86 8. Areas Where Power Is Lacking and Renewable Sources Can Supply It........ 86 9. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention and EERE Measures...... 88

a. Regional Approach to Analyses ............................................................................ 88

b. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention and EERE

Measures ................................................................................... 89 10. Utah Programs to Meet the Regional Renewable Energy Goals .................... 95

a. Summary of Utah Programs................................................................................... 95

b. Potential for Renewabl e Energy Resources........................................................... 96

J. OTHER GCVTC RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 105

1. Regulatory History and Requirements.......................................................... 105 2. Other State of Utah Long-term Strategy Components.................................. 105Section XX - Regional Haze. Page v a. Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

Recommendations. .................................................................. 105

b. Implementation of Additi onal Recommendations. .............................................. 105

K. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT ANTICIPATED FROM

LONG-TERM STRATEGY ............................................................................ 106

1. Effect on Emissions of Long-term Strategy Components ............................ 106

a. Inventory Methodology and Scope...................................................................... 106

b. Projected Changes in Emissions fo r Utah and the GCVTC Region .................... 108 2. Projected Changes in Visual Air Quality...................................................... 117

a. Applicable Class I Areas...................................................................................... 117

b. Projected Visibility Improvement........................................................................ 117

L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS............................... 120

1. Periodic Progress Reports for Dem onstrating Reasonable Progress. ........... 120 2. Actions To Be Taken Concurrent with Periodic Progress Reports. ............. 120

M. STATE PLANNING/INTERSTATE COORDINATION AND TRIBAL

IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................... 122

1. Participation in Regional Planning and Coordination .................................. 122 2. Applicability to Tribal Lands........................................................................ 122

3. Interstate Coordination ................................................................................. 122Section XX - Regional Haze. Page vi 

## LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Executive Summary of Long-Term Strategies ............................................... 1 Table 2. State-by-State Comparison of 1990 and 2000 Stationary Source Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the 9 GCVTC Transp ort Region States (tons per year) . 16 Table 3. BART-Eligible Sources in Utah. .................................................................... 21 Table 4. Subject to BART Modeling ............................................................................ 23 Table 5. Emissions Rates (lb/MMBtu) for the Retrofitted Hunter and Huntington

Units ......................................................................................................................... 25 Table 6. Change in Emissions (tons/yr) for Retrofitted BART Units ....................... 25

Table 7. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Milestones ............................................................ 28 Table 8. Utility/Non-utility Split................................................................................... 44 Table 9. Mobile Source Inventory for 2003 and 2018 ................................................ 65 Table 10. Agricultural Burning Emissions Comparison............................................ 68 Table 11. Summary of Information Requirement for Pollution Prevention............ 76 Table 12. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Capacity (Megawatts)............ 80 Table 13. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Generation (Megawatt-hours)

............................................................................................................................... .... 81 Table 14. Utah Capacity by Source (Electric Power Annual). (Megawatts) ............ 82 Table 15. Utah Net Generation by Source, 1999-2002 (Thousand Megawatt-hours)

............................................................................................................................... .... 82 Table 16. Utah Consumption of Renewa ble Power; 2000-2002 (Gigawatt-hours) .. 83 Table 17. Programs to Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts ........... 86 Table 18. Annual Average (2005-2020) Changes for Key Economic Indicators...... 94 Table 19. Utah Renewable Energy Program Descriptions......................................... 96

Table 20. Utah Land-fill Gas Resources .................................................................... 103 Table 21. Summary of the Change in Emissions from 1996-2018 for Utah Sources

............................................................................................................................... .. 109 Table 22. Changes in Emissions from 1996 - 2018 for 9 GCVTC States ................ 109 Table 23. Projected Visibility Improvement ............................................................. 119Section XX - Regional Haze. Page vii 

## LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 16 GCVTC Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309.............................. 8 Figure 2. Utah Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309......................................... 9 Figure 3. Map of the Clean Air Corridor in the Transport Region.......................... 12 Figure 4. Relationship between Utah potential BART-eligible sources and Class I areas. Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 modeled separately

at maximum 300 km. .............................................................................................. 23 Figure 5. Utah's Transmission and Distribution Network......................................... 87 Figure 6. Forecast Renewable Energy Capacity Additions to Meet 10/20 Goals. ... 90 Figure 7. Generation Mix in 2018: Business-As-Usual and Meeting 10/20 Goals. . 90 Figure 8. Potential NO

x Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations. ......................................... 91 Figure 9. Potential CO 2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE.

............................................................................................................................... .... 92 Figure 10. Annual Levelized Production Costs for Business-As-Usual and Efficiency. ................................................................................................................ 93 Figure 11. Annual Levelized Production Costs for BAU and Meeting the 10/20

Goal. ......................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah. ................................................................. 98 Figure 13. Geothermal Energy Potential in Utah. ...................................................... 99 Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah. ............................................................... 101 Figure 15. Biomass Energy Potential in Utah. .......................................................... 102 Figure 16. Class I Areas in the WRAP Region.......................................................... 110 Figure 17. Class I Areas with Contributions from Northern Utah ......................... 112 Figure 18. Class I Areas with Impacts from Central Utah. ..................................... 115 Figure 19. Class I Areas with Impacts from Eastern Utah, including the Ute Indian Reservation that is not covered by Utah’s Regional Haze SIP. ........................ 117Section XX - Regional Haze. Page viii 

## APPENDICES TO THE SIP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A Definitions

Appendix B WEB Trading Program Monitoring Protocols

Appendix C Projection of Visibility Improvement

Appendix D WRAP Interstate and Regional Planning ActivitiesSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 1 

## A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document comprises the State of Utah's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Regional Haze Rule in Section 309 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (40 CFR 51.309). Part B includes introductory and background information. The remaining parts identify the SIP requirements under Section 309 and detail how Utah is addressing those requirements, and appendices include more detail about certain parts. Table 1 is a brief summary of each of the 309 SIP requirements along with Utah's approach in addressing those requirements.

Table 1. Executive Summary of Long-Term Strategies

Clean Air Corridors 309(d)(3) Part C documents that emission growth inside and outside of the Clean Air Corridor is not shown to be contributing currently to impairment within the Clean Air Corridor. Stationary Sources 309(d)(4) Part D includes proof of a 13% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2000, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for NO

x and PM , geographic enhancement provisions, and other stationary source

materials.

Sulfur Dioxide

Milestones and Backstop Trading Program 309(d)(4) Part E includes milestones for sulfur dioxide emissions along with a backstop market cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide emissions from specific sources.

Mobile Sources 309(d)(5) Part F demonstrates that federal programs (such as low sulfur diesel, vehicle emission standards, etc.) lead to decreasing mobile source emissions throughout the planning period. Programs Related to

Fire 309(d)(6) Part G demonstrates that Utah has developed a smoke management regulation (R307-204) that implements the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility Policy

. Paved and Unpaved

Road Dust 309(d)(7) Part H discusses the WRAP finding that dust emissions are not now a significant regional contributor to visibility impairment within the Colorado Plateau 16 Class I areas.

Pollution Prevention 309(d)(8) Part I describes programs and policies within Utah related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Utah's anticipated contribution to the pollution prevention goals is outlined.

Additional

Recommendations 309(d)(9) Part J summarizes that Utah has not identified any other recommendations in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report to implement in Utah at this time. A report on each recommendation is included in the Utah Technical Support Document Supplement.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 2 Projection of Visibility Improvement 309(d)(2) Part K projects visibility improvement for the 20% best and worst days for each of the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau (Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Zion

National Parks in Utah and the other 11 Class I areas in adjacent states that were addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission)

Periodic Revisions 309(d)(10) Part L commits the State of Utah to submit periodic revisions to this SIP every five years. State Planning and

Interstate Coordination 309(d)(11) Part M describes Utah's participation in the Western Regional Air Partnership.

Reasonable Progress for

Additional Class I Areas 309(g) Utah has no additional Class I areas.

Technical Support Documents

Accompanying this implementation plan and associated appendices are two other documents. The first is a Technical Support Document (TSD) developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) that contains the results of numerous collaborative studies by the WRAP members on which the State of Utah relied in the development of the 2003 SIP. In the implementation plan, this is referred to as the “WRAP TSD.” The WRAP TSD also includes appendices. In addition, there are other supplemental materials that are state-specific technical support information. In the implementation plan, these are referred to as the “Utah TSD Supplement.”

In 2008, the Regional Haze SIP was updated to address changes in the regional haze rule and EPA’s BART Guidelines. The WRAP developed a new TSD, a Technical Support System (TSS) that contains the results of updated modeling, and an Emission Data Management System (EDMS). In the implementation plan these combined materials are referred to as the 2008 WRAP TSD and updated state-specific materials are referred to as the 2008 Utah TSD supplement.

In 2011 the SO 2 milestones in Part E of the SIP were revised to address a reduced number of states participating in the regional backstop trading program, and changes in growth projections for electric utilities in the west.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 3 

## B. BACKGROUND ON THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE

1. Introduction

Good visibility is important to fully enjoy the experience of visiting our national parks and wilderness areas. Visibility is impaired by light scattering and absorption caused byparticulate matter and gases in the atmosphere that occur from both natural and humancaused activities. Visibility can be impaired by natural sources such as rain, wildland fires, volcanic activity, sea mists, and wind blown dust from undisturbed desert areas. Visibility also can be impaired by human-caused sources of air pollution such as industrial processes, (utilities, smelters, refineries, etc.), mobile sources (cars, trucks, trains, etc.) and area sources (residential wood burning, prescribed burning on wild and agricultural lands, wind blown dust from disturbed soils, etc.) These sources emit pollutants that, in higher concentrations, also can affect public health.

The State of Utah has implemented this section of the State Implementation Plan to address visibility protection in the mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas) required under 40 CFR 51.309. It contains all measures necessary to address regional haze visibility impairment to ensure the State of Utah makes reasonable progress toward the national goal contained in 42 U.S.C. 7491.



### 2. Definitions

This Plan contains terms and phrases that have formal definitions under 40 CFR 51.301, 40 CFR 51.309(b), and other terms specific to the programs set forth in this Plan. These definitions are contained in Appendix A of this section and shall prevail over other interpretations as to the meaning and intent of this Plan.



### 3. 1977 Clean Air Act

In the 1977 Clean Air Act, Congress established requirements for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in areas within the United States and for the review of pollution controls on new sources. 1 Coupled with this, Congress established a visibility protection program for those larger national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas). 2 This program established a national goal of "...the prevention of any future, and remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Federal class I areas, which impairment results from man-made air pollution" and requires states to develop long-term strategies to

1 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 , United States Congress. 42 U.S.C. 7470-7479. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. August 7, 1977.

2 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Section 169A , United States Congress. 42 U.S.C. 7491. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. August 7, 1977.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 4 assure reasonable progress toward this national goal. The program also requires states to address any visibility impairment caused by emissions of air pollutants from certain large industrial sources if the source was less than 15 years old as of August 1977, through the establishment of emission limits based on best available retrofit technology (BART). Congress also established mandatory criteria for states to use when establishing BART emission limits and developing long-term strategies for reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.



### 4. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment SIP

In 1980, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued final regulations to address the requirements of the 1977 Clean Air Act, requiring states with Class I areas to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions with new source review plans, monitoring plans, BART implementation plans, and long-term strategies to address reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. 3 Utah's SIP for visibility protection was submitted to EPA on April 26, 1985, and approved on May 30, 1986.

In the mid-1980s, Governor Bangerter appointed a Task Force on Visibility Protection to determine the appropriate level of protection for Utah's Class I areas, and to determine the sources of impairment of visibility in those areas. The Task Force included representatives of industry, environmental groups, local governments, and citizens at large. The Task Force visited many sites within Utah's five Class I areas and heard presentations from technical experts in the science of visibility. After more than a year of investigation, the Task Force recommended that all Utah Class I areas need protection, and that the biggest cause of visibility impair ment is not individual industrial sources, but rather the regional haze from a multitude of sources that is transported over long

distances.

In 1985, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program was established to coordinate the monitoring of air quality in national parks and wilderness areas and to ensure sound and consistent scientific methods were being used. 4
The IMPROVE Steering Committee established monitoring protocols for visibility measurement, particulate matter measurement, and scientific photography of the Class I areas. IMPROVE monitoring is designed to establish reference information on visibility conditions and trends to aid in the development of visibility protection programs. Monitoring from the IMPROVE network demonstrated that visibility in all the Class I areas is impaired to some degree by regional haze.



### 5. 1990 Clean Air Act

Although the 1980 regulations addressed reasonably attributable visibility impairment from specific sources, also known as plume bli ght, it did not adequately address visibility

3 40 CFR Part 51 - Protection of Visibility, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 45 FR 80089. Government Printing Office: Wash ington, D.C. December 2, 1980.

4 IMPROVE Home Page. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve (accessed April 2003).Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 5 impairment from large collections of sources whose emissions are mixed and transported over long distances, creating a uniform haze (regional haze). In the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress established the requirements to address regional haze visibility impairment, giving the EPA authority to establish visibility transport commissions and promulgate regulations to address regional haze, and requiring the establishment of a visibility transport commission to investigate and report on regional haze visibility impairment in the Grand Canyon National Park located in northern

Arizona. 5



### 6. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) was established by EPA in November of 1991, consisting of seven western governors (or their designees), and five ex-officio members representing federal land management agencies and EPA. When establishing the GCVTC, EPA designated a transport region including seven western states: California, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. Although part of the Transport Region, the State of Idaho declined the invitation to participate in the GCVTC. Utah's governor was vice-chair of the GCVTC. Although Congress required a commission to be established for the Grand Canyon National Park, the member states agreed to expand the scope of the GCVTC to address all 16 of the

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC elected to use a stakeholder-driven process to accomplish its objectives. Ultimately, the organization included 200+ political, policy and technical stakeholders who staffed a variety of committees and subcommittees to perform policy analysis and technical studies, and to participate in the public debate. The GCVTC was funded by EPA grants and contributions from stakeholders, including substantial in-kind labor. During its four-and-one-half year development, the GCVTC was expanded to include the State of Wyoming and tribal leaders as members. The GCVTC appointed a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) representing broad stakeholder interests to pr ovide input and feedback to the GCVTC. Many Utahns were members of the PAC, with two serving on the PAC Steering Committee, and one serving on the Executive Committee as Vice-Chair of the PAC. The 80+ member Public Advisory Committee developed a consensus report of recommendations for the GCVTC that was ultimately adopted by the GCVTC and

submitted to EPA in June 1996. 6

Recommendations of the GCVTC include the following:

• Policies based on energy conservation, increased energy efficiency and promotion of the use of renewable resources for energy production;

• Careful tracking of emissions growth that may affect air quality in clean air corridors;

5 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Section 169B , United States Congress. 42 U.S.C. 7492. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. November 15, 1990.

6 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas

. Western Governors' Association: Denver, CO, June 10, 1996.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 6 • Regional targets for sulfur dioxide emissions with a backstop program, probably including a regional cap and possibly a market-based trading program;

• Cooperatively developed strategies, expanded data collection and improved modeling for reducing or preventing visibility impairment in areas within and adjacent to Class I areas, pending further studies of sources adjacent to Class I

areas;

• Emissions cap for mobile sources at the lowest level (expected to occur in 2005) and establishment of a regional emissions budget, as well as implementation of national strategies aimed at reducing tailpipe emissions;

• Further study to resolve issues regarding the modeled contribution to visibility impairment of dust from paved and unpaved roads;

• Continued bi-national cooperation to resolve data gaps and jurisdictional issues around emissions from Mexico;

• Programs to minimize emissions and visibility impacts and to educate the public about impacts from prescribed fire and wildfire, because emissions are projected to increase significantly through 2040; and

• Creation of an entity like the GCVTC to promote, support and oversee the implementation of many of the recommendations in this report.

EPA initially proposed regional haze regulations in 1997. 7 The proposed regulations described a generic program to apply nationally and did not include provisions to address the recommendations of the GCVTC. The Western Governors' Association (WGA) engaged key stakeholders to develop a recommendation on how to transform the GCVTC recommendations into a Regional Haze Rule. WGA approved their recommendation and

transmitted it to EPA in June 1998. 8 Based on this and other public input, EPA issued the final Regional Haze Rule in July 1999 with a national program (§ 308) that could apply to any state or tribe and an optional program (§ 309) relying on the work of the GCVTC that is available to the states and tribes in the nine-state GCVTC transport region. 9



### 7. Western Regional Air Partnership

The GCVTC recognized the need for a long-term organization to address the policy and technical studies needed to address regional haze. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) was formed in September 1997. The WRAP's charter allows it to address any air quality issue of interest to WRAP members, though most current work is focused on developing the policy and technical work products needed by states and tribes in writing

7 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Regulations; Proposed Rule - 62 FR 41138 . United States Environmental Protection Agency, Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. July 31, 1997.

8 Leavitt, M. O., Governor of Utah, Letter to EPA Administrator Browner on behalf of the Western Governors' Association, June 29, 1998.

9 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Rule; Final Rule, 64 FR 35714 . United States Environmental Protection Agency, Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. July 1, 1999.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 7 their regional haze state implementation plans (SIPs) and tribal implementation plans (TIPs). The WRAP has been co-chaired by the governor of Utah and the governor of the Acoma Pueblo. The WRAP Board is currently composed of representatives from 13 states, 13 tribes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The WRAP operates on a consensus basis and receives financial support from EPA. The WRAP established stakeholder-based technical and policy oversight committees to assist in managing the development process of regional haze work products. Stakeholder-based working groups and forums were established to focus attention on the policy and technical work products the states and tribes need to develop their implementation plans.

The WRAP developed and submitted an Annex to the GCVTC recommendations to define a voluntary program of sulfur dioxide emission reduction milestones coupled with a backstop market-trading program to assure emission reductions. EPA proposed changes to the Regional Haze Rule to incorporate the GCVTC Annex, and the final rule was published on June 5, 2003. 10 The WRAP is completing a suite of work products to support states and tribes developing GCVTC-based regional haze implementation plans.

Additional information about the WRAP can be found on the WRAP web site at http://www.wrapair.org

.



### 8. Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in 2003 SIP

The Regional Haze Rule under 40 CFR 51.309 requires states to address visibility protection for regional haze in the 16 Class I areas studied by the GCVTC in the initial regional haze SIP submitted by December 31, 2003. Other Class I areas are to be

addressed after interstate consultation. These will be addressed in future SIP revisions as

necessary.

Five of the 16 GCVTC Class I areas are in Ut ah, and Utah has no other Class I areas not covered under this initial SIP for regional haze. The Class I areas addressed are shown in Figure 1. The areas within the state of Utah are shown in Figure 2.

10 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule, 68 FR 33764, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. June 5, 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 8 Figure 1. 16 GCVTC Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 9 Figure 2. Utah Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 10 

## C. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR THE CLEAN-AIR

CORRIDOR

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

One of the required tasks of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission was to

review whether clean-air corridors exist for the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. A clean-air corridor is a geographic region that contributes clean air to the Class I areas on the days with best visibility. If clean-air corridors were found to exist, the GCVTC was required to recommend whether additional control strategies were needed to manage emissions growth to protect visibility on the least impaired days in the Class I areas. For the purpose of assessment, the GCVTC considered the average of the days representing the 20% best visibility conditions to be the least impaired days. EPA also used this definition in defining the term in the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309).

In 1995 the GCVTC Meteorology Subcommittee completed an analysis of the geographical source areas contributing to least impaired days in the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. The analysis, in a report entitled, Clean-Air Corridors: A Framework for Identifying Regions that Influence Clean Air on the Colorado Plateau

, 11 showed that the area north and west of the Grand Canyon National Park does provide clean air to the Grand Canyon area primarily due to a combination of favorable meteorological conditions (rain washout and higher ventilating winds) and low emissions of pollutants from the sparsely populated area. The GCVTC Public Advisory Committee (PAC) reviewed the clean-air corridor analysis and emission projections and determined that, for the period through 2040, emissions growth is projected to be less than the amount that would degrade visibility on the least impaired days in the 16 Class I areas. Based on this finding, the PAC recommended emissions growth be monitored in the future but that no additional control strategies were needed in the clean-air corridor at that time. The GCVTC adopted this recommendation and included it in its final report to EPA, which was integrated into the Regional Haze Rule. 12

The projections of visibility conducted by the WRAP and documented in Appendix C also indicate that visibility on the 20% best and worst days will improve through 2018.

The Regional Haze Rule requires states submitting implementation plans under 40 CFR

51.309 to determine if there are additional areas to be considered as clean-air corridors for emission tracking purposes in the GCVTC areas. The successor to the GCVTC, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), completed a technical analysis to validate the emissions growth projections in the clean air corridors. This analysis was included as

11 Meteorology Subcommittee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Clean Air Corridors: Framework for Identifying Regions t hat Influence Clean Air on the Colorado Plateau. Western Governors' Association: Denver, CO, July 1995.

12 64 FR 35751, July 1, 1999.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 11 part of the WRAP consensus policy. 13 A copy of this policy is contained in the Utah TSD Supplement. The WRAP policy defined a clean air corridor previously identified by the GCVTC Meteorology Subcommittee, and modified to recognize county level emission inventory practices and an emissions tracking requirement in the clean air corridor. The technical studies and findings supporting the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy are located in Chapter 3 of the WRAP Technical Support Document.



### 2. Identification of the Clean-Air Corridor; Other Clean-Air

Corridors

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State of Utah concurs with the identification of an existing clean-air corridor as defined in the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy. The boundary of the clean-air corridor is indicated on the map in Figure 3 provided below. This clean-air corridor was identified using studies conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC, and updated in the WRAP technical and policy analysis of the area described in the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy. A large portion of Utah

resides in the identified clean-air corridor.

13 WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors, adopted by Western Regional Air Partnership, November 13, 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 12 Figure 3. Map of the Clean Air Corridor in the Transport Region.

Source: Figure 1 from the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors.

The State of Utah, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), has determined, based on the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy and technical analysis, that no other clean-air corridors are identified at this time. The State of Utah commits to participating in a regional effort to review this determination as part of periodic plan revisions required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 13 

### 3. Strategy for Clean Air Corridors

a. Comprehensive emissions tracking program.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), the State of Utah commits to monitoring changes in emissions inside and outside the clean-air corridor with an emissions tracking program developed by the WRAP to ensure that visibility does not degrade on the least impaired days in any of the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. The State of Utah commits to providing statewide annual emission inventory data for use in the WRAP emissions tracking program. The state of Utah is working with the WRAP to develop a comprehensive emissions tracking system. 14 Utah, working with the WRAP, will summarize emission trends in order to identify any significant emissions growth that could lead to visibility degradation in the 16 Class I areas. Included in this summary will be an assessment of whether any significant emissions growth has occurred within or outside the clean-air corridor, in accordance with paragraphs C.3.b and c below. The State of Utah will work cooperatively with states not submitting a plan under 40 CFR 51.309 that have emissions within or outside the clean-air corridor that could affect air quality in the clean-air corridor, to ensure the emissions are incorporated into the tracking program through

inter-state consultation.



### b. Patterns of growth within the clean-air corridor.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii), the State of Utah has determined, based on the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy and WRAP tec hnical analysis, that current projections of emissions changes inside the identified clean-air corridor will not contribute to degradation of visibility on the least impaired days in the 16 Class I areas during the planning period through 2018. Future emissions growth will be tracked in accordance with the comprehensive emissions tracking system noted in paragraph C.3.a above. The

WRAP will summarize annual emission trends within the clean-air corridor and assess whether any significant emission growth has occurred within the corridor as an analysis

tool for states.



### c. Patterns of growth outside the clean-air corridor.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 309(d)(3)(iii), the State of Utah has determined, based on the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy and technical analys is, that current projections of emission changes in areas outside the identified clean-air corridor will not contribute to degradation of visibility on the least impaired days in the 16 Class I areas during the planning period through 2018. The State of Utah will ensure that WRAP will track emissions in areas outside the clean-air corridor and report to the State of Utah on any

14 EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc, for the WRAP Emissions Forum. Emissions Forum Data Reporting, Management, and Tracking System: Draft Final Report: Needs Assessment for Evaluation and Design of an Emissions Data Reporting, Management, and Tracking System. July, 2003. From the WRAP Web site on August 20, 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 14 significant changes in emission projections that may require a reassessment of this determination in future SIP revisions, as required in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).



### d. Actions if impairment inside or outside the clean-air

corridor occurs.

The State of Utah, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will review the WRAP's annual summary of emission trends inside and outside the clean-air corridor and determine if significant emissions growth as identified within the corridor in accordance with paragraph C.3.b above, or was identified outside the corridor, in accordance with paragraph C.3.c above. If si gnificant emissions growth is identified, the State of Utah, in coordination with other tr ansport region states and tribes, will conduct, or seek WRAP assistance in conducting, an analysis of the emissions growth on visual air quality impacts on the least impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that this growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the State of Utah, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will evaluate the need for additional emission reduction measures and identify an implementation schedule for such measures, if needed. The implementation of any additional emission measures shall be coordinated with all appropriate transport region state and tribes, on a mutually agreed upon timetable, and reported to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). If the WRAP regional planning process is unable to perform such an analysis for the Class I areas in Utah, or come to a consensus on the interpretation of such an analysis, the State of Utah will perform such studies and engage in independent interstate consultation provided for under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11).Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 15 

## D. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR STATIONARY

SOURCES

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) studied the long-term projected changes of emissions from stationa ry sources. It was found that emissions of sulfur dioxide from stationary sources would decline by at least 13% between 1990 and 2000. Also, emissions of sulfur dioxide would continue to decline through 2040 when only 30% to 50% of the 1990 emission levels would remain. This decline was due to the normal turnover of source technology as older sources retire and are replaced by newer and cleaner technologies.

The GCVTC decided that the most appropriate way to address emissions of sulfur dioxide from stationary sources was to establish regional emission milestones and allow voluntary measures to achieve the emission reductions. If the emission milestones are not achieved, then a backstop market trading program would be implemented to guarantee the emission reductions are achieved. The GCVTC did not have sufficient time to develop the details of the emission milestones or backstop program, but committed to develop it and submit it to EPA.

In the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, EPA required the states to complete the development of the stationary source program for sulfur dioxide and to submit it as an Annex to the GCVTC recommendations. The WRAP submitted the Annex in September, 2000. 15 On June 5, 2003, EPA issued the final rules related to the sulfur dioxide program for stationary sources. 16 These rules incorporated the materials in the Annex.

EPA’s approval of the Annex was challenged, and on February 18, 2005 the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s 2003 rules. 17 The Court determined that EPA had required a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) demonstration in the Annex that was based on a methodology that had been vacated by the Court in 2002. 18 On October

15 Western Regional Air Partnership. Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and a Backstop Market Trading Program, An Annex to the Report of the Grand Cany on Visibility Transport Commission. Denver, CO. September 29,

2000.

16 68 FR 33764.

17 Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) vs. Environmental Protection Agency, February 18, 2005.

18 American Corn Growers Association vs. Environmental Protection Agency, May 24, 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 16 13, 2006 EPA revised the regional haze rule to establish the methodology for states to develop an alternative to BART that was consistent with the Court’s decision. 19



### 2. Achievement of a 13% or Greater Reduction of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by 2000

The GCVTC projected a 13% or great er reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions between the years of 1990 and 2000. As shown in Table 2, regional SO 2 emission totals show that there was a 25% reduction in these emissions from 1990 to

2000. 20 There was a 29 33 % decrease in SO 2 emissions during this time period from the

four three states that developed SIPs under 40 CFR 51.309 ( Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, excluding emissions from sources in those states that are under tribal jurisdiction).

Table 2. State-by-State Comparison of 1990 and 2000 Stationary Source Sulfur

Dioxide Emissions in the 9 GCVTC Tran sport Region States (tons per year)

States 1990 2000
Arizona 185,398 99,133
California 52,832 38,501
Colorado 95,534 99,161
Idaho 24,652 27,763
Nevada 52,775 53,943
New Mexico 177,994 117,344 Oregon 17,705 23,362
Utah 85,567 38,521 Wyoming 136,318 124,110
Totals 828,775 621,838



### 3. Strategy for Stationary Sources of Sulfur Dioxide

The long-term strategy for stationary sources implements the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recommendation to develop regional sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) milestones and a backstop trading program to ensure that the milestone goals are

achieved. The GCVTC recommendations were further refined in an Annex to the Commission report that was submitted to EPA in September 2000.

The long-term strategy for stationary sources is implemented through the following

documents:

19 71 FR 60612

20 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. fo r the Western Governors’ Association. Year 2000 Point Source SO 2 Emissions Analysis - 9 State Western Region Report. Denver, CO, May 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 17 • Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Trading Program, Part E of this plan, describes the overall program and contains Utah’s commitment to implement all parts of the program as outlined in the plan. The plan establishes the regional SO 2 milestones, emissions tracking requirements, and, if the Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program (WEB Trading Program) is triggered, the plan also describes how Utah will determine allocations and manage the allowance tracking system that is needed to implement the program.

• R307-250, Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxi de Trading Program, contains the requirements that will apply to major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide as a backstop regulatory program if the SO 2 milestones are exceeded. The rule may never be implemented if the goal to meet the regional SO 2 milestones through voluntary means is achieved. If the rule is implemented, it establishes the procedures and compliance requirements for sources in the trading program.

• R307-150 requires major industrial sources of SO 2 to submit an annual emissions inventory in the pre-trigger phase of the program to measure compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones. If the backstop program is triggered, then these requirements will eventually be replaced by more rigorous monitoring requirements in R307-250.



### a. 2018 Milestone

The 2018 milestone of 23 4 ,6 24 141,849 tons represents an emission reduction of approximately 2 3 5 ,000 216,515 tons of SO 2 from the 1990 baseline emissions of 469,534 358,364 tons for the four three participating states, and is well on the way to the GCVTC’s goal of a 50-70% reduction by 2040. The 2018 regional sulfur dioxide milestone provides for greater reasonable progress 21 than would be achieved by application of best available retrofit technology (BART) for SO 2 , as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) for both the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau and other Class I Areas that are affected by sources in the 3-state region that are subject to BART . The

WRAP participating states estimated that BART reductions would total approximately

91

, 8 00 48,737 tons of SO 2 by 2018.

In modeling work conducted by the WRA P to verify the Annex analysis, it was determined that, in addition to the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, the regional

SO 2 milestones showed greater reasonable progress than would be achieved under BART for Utah's Class I areas and for any Class I areas affected by emissions from Utah. This demonstration can be found in Section 4.1.2 of the WRAP Technical Support Document that was submitted to EPA as part of the 2003 regional haze SIP

. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(g)(ii), no further demonstration will be needed prior to 2018 for Utah's stationary sources identified in the Annex, in terms of satisfying BART for SO2 under 40 CFR 51.308(e).

21 [Insert Date of final document here] October 6, 2010 Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BARTSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 18 

### b. Interim Milestones

Interim milestones were set based on expected emission reductions that were already planned between 2003 and 2018. These milestones show steady and continuing emission reductions, with most of the emission reductions occurring by 2013.



### c. Triggering the Trading Program

States and tribes will collect an annual SO 2 inventory. Compliance with the milestones is determined by an annual comparison of the rolling 3-year average of total regional emissions with the rolling 3-year average of the milestones. For 2018, total emissions will be compared with the 2018 milestone. If a milestone is exceeded, the trading program is activated and emission allocations are made one year later with sources having five years from the year of exceedance to comply with their allocation. Sources may comply by retrofitting to bring emissions below their allocation, by buying credits to emit from other sources, by retiring the source, or by other means.



### d. Certainty that 2018 Milestone Will Be Met on Time

Part E of this Plan includes a mechanism for the states and tribes to activate the trading program in 2013 if available evidence indicates the 2018 milestone will not be reached. In order to be in compliance with the 2018 milestone, the 2018 emissions must be less

than the 2018 milestone. Sources that have not controlled their emissions in accordance with their allocations will be subject to financial penalties.



### e. Trading Program Features

Details of the backstop trading program such as applicability, monitoring and reporting, trading procedures, compliance requirements and penalties, are defined in R307-250.

Sources that reduce their emissions below their allocation will be able to sell excess allowances to other sources, within certain programmatic restrictions.



### f. Allocations

If the program is triggered, 8 2 ,500 tons of SO 2 allocations will be set aside for tribal interests, acknowledging that tribal lands are largely undeveloped and that tribes would not benefit from a plan based only on past emissions. There will be a new source set-aside to accommodate growth within the region. Existing sources will receive a

"floor" allocation based on a "clean unit" emission rate. Certain renewable energy sources also will be eligible to receive an allocation. The remainder of the allowances, which will decline over the years, will be allocated to existing sources. If the program is triggered, sources may buy and sell allowances to come into compliance.



### g. State and Tribal Opt-In or Opt-Out

In the event that any other states or tribes choose to participate in the regional trading program in the future the milestones will be adjusted through a SIP revision to reflect the changes.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 19 

### 4. Geographic Enhancement Program

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) allows states to submit a SIP, or tribes a TIP, which adopts an alternative measure to regional haze BART. Geographic enhancement is a voluntary approach provided in Section 308(e)(2)(v) that can be included in the plan for addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) for stationary sources, under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.302(c). RAVI is di fferent from regional haze in that it addresses “hot spots” or situations where visibility impairment in a Class I area is reasonably attributable to a single source or small group of sources in relatively close proximity to the Class I area. In December 2004, the State of Utah signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Federal Land Managers to provide sources greater certainty regarding their potential risk of being certified as a RAVI source by a Federal Land Manager. Sources can incorporate this information into their business planning process, and use the efficiencies and reduced costs of the market to address potential RAVI issues.



### a. Procedure for addressing Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment under the Regional Haze Rule.

If the National Park Service certifies impairment, the State of Utah will fulfill its obligations to determine attribution and if necessary determine BART for the applicable source or group of sources in accordance with Utah's SIP for visibility protection submitted to EPA on April 26, 1985, and approved on May 30, 1986. Additional information regarding possible technical approaches for determining attribution is contained in the WESTAR report, Recommendations for Making Attribution Determinations in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART

.



### 5. Report on Assessment of NO

x 

### /PM Strategies

a. Assessment of Need for NO

x 

### and PM milestones.

The State of Utah has evaluated the need for NO

x and PM emission control strategies, the degree of visibility improvement expected, and whether such milestones are needed to avoid any net increase in these pollutants. This evaluation was based on an assessment of

NO

x and PM stationary source emissions made by the WRAP Market Trading Forum for all WRAP states, including the transport region states. 22

Several conclusions were reached based on the analyses.

• For the vast majority of Class I areas throughout the WRAP region, stationary

source NO

x and PM emissions are not a major contributor to visibility impairment on the average 20% best and 20% worst days. However, on some of the worst days nitrates and PM are the main components of visibility impairment.

22 WRAP. Stationary Source NOx and PM Emissions in th e WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts. Denver, CO. Presented to the WRAP Board October 15, 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 20 • Stationary source NO

x emissions are projected to increase by 4% between 1996 and 2018. Stationary source NO

x emissions probably cause 2% - 5% of the visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau.

• Stationary source PM emissions are projected to increase by 29% between 1996 and 2018. Stationary source PM emissions probably cause less than 2% of the regional visibility impairment.

• The current regional modeling does a poor job of predicting nitrate concentrations

in the winter when NO

x has the greatest impact on visibility impairment. The modeling also does a poor job of predicting the impact of localized fugitive dust impact. The WRAP is currently making significant improvements to the model

and to the emission inventories to address these issues.

• There is a wide range of emission reduction techniques available to control NO

x and PM emissions, and many of the technologies are cost-effective. The current emission inventory does not contain enough information to determine what technologies are currently in place in the West and the cost of additional controls.

• RAVI remedies are available in cases where particular stationary sources may impact particular Class I areas.

The complete report is provided in the 2003 Utah TSD Supplement.



### 6. Best Available Control Technology (BART) Assessment for

NO

x 

### and PM.

a. Regional Haze Rule BART Requirements

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), certain major stationary sources are required to evaluate, install, operate and maintain BART technology or an approved BART

alternative for NO

x and PM emissions. BART requirements can be addressed through a case-by-case review under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or through an alternative program under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The State of Utah has chosen to evaluate BART for NO

x and PM under the case-by-case provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). BART for SO 2 is addressed through an alternative program under 40 CFR 51.309 that is described in Part E of this plan.

EPA issued guidelines for BART determinations on July 6, 2005 that are codified in Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51. These guidelines establish a three step process.

• States identify sources which meet the definition of BART eligible

• States determine which BART eligible sources are “subject to BART”

• For each source subject to BART States identify the appropriate control technology.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 21 The determination of NO

x limits for fossil-fuel fired power plants having a total generating capacity greater than 750 megawatts must be made pursuant to the guidelines in 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, Section E.5. 23



### b. BART-Eligible Sources.

BART-eligible sources are those sources that fall within one of 26 specific source categories, were built during the 15-year window of time from 1962 to 1977, and have potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year of any visibility impairing air pollutant (40 CFR 51.301). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308 (e)(1)(i) a State is required to list all BART-eligible sources within the State.

Two Four BART-eligible sources electric generating units have been identified in the State of Utah: PacifiCorp’s Rocky Mountain Power plants Hunter ( Units 1 and 2 ) and Huntington ( Units 1 and 2 ) . The sources units are located at as fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million Btu per hour heat input

, fall into one of the 26 specific BART source categories. The plants units have potential emissions greater than 250 tons per year of a visibility impairing pollutant. The plants units had commenced construction within the BART time frame of August 7, 1962 to August 7, 1977.

Table 3. BART-Eligible Sources in Utah.

SOURCE UNI

T ID SERVICE

DATE GENERATING

NET

DEPENDABLE

CAPACITY (MW n ) BART
CATEGORY COAL TYPE BOILER

TYPE

Hunter 1 1978 488 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential

Hunter 2 1980 488 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential

Huntington 1 1977 498 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential

Huntington 2 1974 446 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential
Note: Hunter Unit 3 commenced construction after 1977 and is therefore not BARTeligible.



### c. Sources Subject to BART

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) the State is required to determine which BARTeligible sources are also “subject to BART.” BART-eligible sources are subject to BART if they emit any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area.

Both Rocky Mountain Power PacifiCorp’s plants Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington

Units 1 and 2 were determined by the State to be subject to BART. The State utilized the technical modeling services of the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC). Modeling

23 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Guidelines for BART De terminations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 FR 39158)Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 22 was performed according to the RMC modeling protocols 24 . For the WRAP BART exemption screening modeling, the RMC followed the EPA BART Guidelines in 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y and the applicable CALMET/CALPUFF modeling guidance (e.g., IWAQM, 1998; FLAG, 2000; EPA, 2003c) including EPA’s March 16, 2006 memorandum: “Dispersion Coefficients for Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in

CALPUFF”. 25

The basic assumptions of the WRAP BA RT CALMET/CALPUFF modeling protocols

are as follows:

• Three years of modeling (2001, 2002 and 2003) were used.

• Visibility impacts due to emissions of SO 2 , NO

x and primary PM emissions were

calculated

• Visibility was calculated using the Original IMPROVE equation and Annual Average Natural Conditions.

• The effective range of CALPUFF modeling was set at 300km from the sources

• For pre-control modeling, maximum 24-hour average actual emissions from the

Acid Rain database were used in CALPUFF model.

• For post-control modeling, expected New Source Review (NSR) permitted limits

were used in the CALPUFF model.

According to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, a BART-eligible source is considered to “contribute” to visibility impairment in a Class I area if the modeled 98th percentile change in deciviews is equal to or greater than the “contribution threshold.” The State of Utah evaluated BART exemption screening modeling results at the EPA-suggested

contribution threshold of 0.5 dec e i views within a 300 Km radius of the BART-eligible

sources. 26 Both BART-eligible sources Hunter Unit 1, Hunter Unit 2, Huntington Unit 1, and Huntington Unit 2 and Huntington had a modeled impact greater than the threshold level of 0.5 change in dec e i views in at least one of the seven Class I areas within a 300

km radius of the sources.

24 CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the

Western United States

25 Atkinson and Fox, 2006

26 WRAP RMC BART Modeling for Utah Draft # 6 5 January 9 April 21 , 2007Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 23 Figure 4. Relationship between Utah potential BART-eligible sources and Class I

areas. Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 modeled separately using uncontrolled and controlled emissions at maximum 300 km.

Table 4. Subject to BART Modeling

Subject to BART Modeling - 98th Percentile 3 year average Delta Deciview

Capitol

Reef Canyonland

s Arches Bryce Canyo

n Zion Grand Canyo

n Black Canyon
Gunnison Mesa
Verde

Hunter 1 2.1 45 1.89 2 1. 643 0.5 43 0.4 58 0.5 85 0. 599 0.53 2

Hunter 2 1. 905 1.6 63 1. 446 0.4 63 0.41 4 0.5 15 0.5 28 0.4 64
Huntington 1 1.9 09 1.64 6 1. 453 0 .4 65 0.43 0.5 35 0.5 52 0.4 77
Huntington 2 2. 534 2. 343 1. 996 0.9 06 0.78 9 1.004 1.1 5 0.91 4 Formatted T aSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 24 Hunter 1 2.13 1.87 1.53 0.55 0.46 0.59 0.60 0.53

Hunter 2 1.89 1.62 1.36 0.47 0.41 0.52 0.53 0.47 Huntington 1 1.92 1.64 1.39 0.48 0.43 0.55 0.56 0.48 Huntington 2 2.43 2.26 1.89 .091 .078 .099 1.14 0.91



### d. BART Determination

As required under 51.308 (e)(1)(A) the determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available. In the analysis the State must take in to account five factors:

• Available technology

• Costs of compliance

• Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts

• Existing control equipment and the remaining useful life of the facility

• The degree of improvement in visibility reasonably anticipated to result from the use of such technology

PacifiCorp has installed

, or has received permits to install or committed to install the following retrofit control equipment at the Hunter Unit 1, Hunter Unit 2, Huntington Unit 1, and Huntington Unit 2 fossil fuel fired electric generating units (EGU):

Hunter Units 1 and 2:

• Conversion of existing electrostatic precipitators to pulse jet fabric filter baghouses

• The replacement of existing, first generation low-NO

x burners with Alstom TSF

2000TM low-NO

x firing system and installation of two elevations of separated

overfire air.

• Upgrade of existing flue gas conditioning desulfurization system to > 90%

S s ulfur dioxide removal.

Huntington Units 1 and 2:

• Conversion of existing electrostatic precipitators to pulse jet fabric filter baghouses

• The replacement of existing, first generation low-NO

x burners with Alstom TSF

2000TM low-NO

x firing system and installation of two elevations of separated

overfire air.

• Installation of a new wet-lime, flue gas de-sulfurization system at Unit 2 (FGD).

• Upgrade of existing flue gas conditioning desulfurization system to > 90%

S s ulfur dioxide removal at Unit 1.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 25 Table 5. Emissions Rates (lb/MMBtu) for the Retrofitted Hunter and Huntington

Units

Table 6. Change in Emissions (tons/yr) for Retrofitted BART Units

Unit PreControl

SO 2 PreControl

NOx PreControl

PM 10 PostControl

SO 2 PostControl

NO

x PostControl

PM 10 Delta

SO 2 Delta

NO

x Delta

PM 10

Hunter 1 2741 6833 533 2239 4851 280 -502 -1981 -253

Hunter 2 2425 5922 533 2185 4734 273 -240 -1187 -260
Huntington 1 2538 5676 444 2052 4445 256 -486 -1231 -188
Huntington 2 13703 5582 443 1743 3776 218 -11960 -1806 -225

TOTALS 21,407 24,013 1,953 8,219 17,807 1,027 -13,189 -6,206 -926

Pursuant to 51.308(e)(1)(C)(iv) each source subject to BART is required to install and operate BART no later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan. The PacifiCorp schedule for the four EGUs at Hun tington and Hunter sources is as follows.

Source Notice of Intent

Submitted Permit Issued Estimated In

Service Date

Hunter 1 June 2006 March 2008 Spring 2014

Hunter 2 June 2006 March 2008 May 2010 Spring

2011 Huntington 1 April 2008 Fall 2008 (est.) August

2009 Spring Fall 2010

Huntington 2 October 2004 April 2005 April 2007 Dec

2006

27 Utah Division of Air Quality Approval Orders: Huntington Unit 2 - AN0238012 -05 , Huntington Unit 1 - DAQE-AN0102380019-09 (note – on January 19, 2010 an administrative amendment was made to the 2009 AO) XX , Hunter Units I and 2 - XX DAQE-AN0102370012-08

28 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 Federal Register 39135) Units Utah Permitted Rates 27 Presumptive BART Limits 28

Rate: lb/MMBtu MW SO2 NOx PM SO2 NOx

Hunter 1 488 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28

Hunter 2 488 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28 Huntington 1 498 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28 Huntington 2 446 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 26 EPA under the BART Rule requires coal-fired electric generating plants of greater than 750 MW to meet BART presumptive limits. While EPA considers presumptive limits to be appropriate for all coal-fired power plants greater than 750 MW, the State may establish different requirements if the State can demonstrate that an alternative is justified

based on a consideration of the five BART factors.

“States, as a general matter, must require owners and operators of greater than 750 MW power plants to meet these BART emission limits... a State may establish different requirements if the State can demonstrate that an alternative determination is justified based on a consideration of the five statutory factors.” 29

“For Coal-fired EGU’s greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power plants and operating without post-combustion controls (i.e. SCR or SNCR), we have provided presumptive NOx limits, differentiated by boiler design and type of coal burned. You may determine that an alternative control level is appropriate based on careful consideration of the statutory factors.” (Appendix Y Part 51 – IV (E)(5). 30

EPA determined presumptive limits for SO 2 and NO

x for EGUs based on a methodology equivalent to that required in 50 CFR 51 Appendix Y for BART Rule. The EPA determination of presumptive limits included:

• Identification of all potential BART-eligible EGUs (all BART-eligible EGU’s were assumed to be Subject to BART)

• Technical analyses and industry research to determine applicable and appropriate SO 2 and NO

x control options,

• Economic analysis to determine cost effectiveness for each potentially BART-eligible EGU

• Evaluation of historical emissions and forecast emission reductions for each potentially BART-eligible EGU 31

.

• NOx and SO 2 CALPUFF modeling of emission impacts at model Class I

area.

The analysis included 491 potential BART EGUs including the Hunter Units 1

and 2 and Huntington plants Units 1 and 2 . The technical analysis conducted by EPA to determine presumptive BART limits for SO 2 and NO

x is in effect a BART determination analysis for 419 EGUs including the Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2

. 32

29 Ibid. (70 Federal Register 39131 )

.

30 70 Federal Register 39171

31 Ibid. (70 Federal Register 39134)

32 “Methodology for Developing BART NOx Presumptive Limits” EPA Clean Air Market Division June 15, 2005 HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0445 and “Technical Support Document for BART NOx Limits for Electric Generating Units Excel Spreadsheet, Memorandum April 15, 2005 HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0369Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 27 Section IV (E) (5) of Appendix Y Part 51 clearly requires the implementation of presumptive NOx limits for coal-fired EGU’s greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power plants. Under Appendix Y, states are given the discretion to challenge presumptive limits through a five factor analysis, but presumptive limits were developed by EPA as a reasonable, equivalent and mandated substitution for a five factor analysis

. 33

While the State considers requirements for BART determination under 51.308(e) (1) to be satisfied by the implementation of control technology that achieves presumpt ive limits, a post control modeling run was conducted to assess the post

- control change in visibility at

seven Class I areas. The State utilized the technical modeling services of the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC). Modeling was performed according to the RMC modeling protocols 34

. Post control modeling emissions were based on New Source Review permitted emission rates (lb per MMBtu) specified in Table 5.

The post control modeling showed a decrease in deciviews from the Subject to BART modeling for the four BART units at the seven Class I areas modeled.

Table 7 . Post

- Control BART Modeling, 98th Percentile 3

- year average deciviews

Post

- Control BART Modeling

- 98th Percentile 3 year average Deciview

Capitol

Reef Canyonl and

s Arches Bryce Canyon Zion Grand Canyon Black Canyon
Gunnison Mesa
Verde

Hunter 1 0.019 0.017 0.014 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.004

Hunter 2 0.019 0.017 0.014 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.004 Huntington

1 0.015 0.012 0.009 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 Huntington

2 0.015 0.012 0.009 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004

Utah’s long-standing Prevention of Signifi cant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program (SIP Section VII and R307-405), New Source Review permitting program (SIP Section II and R307-401) and Visibility program (SIP section XVII and R307-406) will continue to protect Class I area visibility by requiring best available control technology for new sources, and assuring that there is not a significant degradation in visibility at Class I areas due to new or modified major sources.

33 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 Federal Register 39171)

34 WRAP RMC BART Modeling for Utah Draft #5 January 9, 2007Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 28 

## E. SULFUR DIOXIDE MILESTONES AND BACKSTOP

TRADING PROGRAM

1. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger

a. Regional Sulfur Dioxide Milestones

(1) Milestone Values. The regional sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) milestones for the years 200 3 8 through 2018 are provided in Table 8 7 . The milestones will be adjusted annually as described in paragraph E.1.a(2) of this plan.

Table 7. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Milestones

For the year the regional sulfur

dioxide milestone is and the annual SO 2 emissions for these years will determine whether emissions are greater

than or less than the milestone

2003 35 420,637 tons SO 2 2003

2004 420,637 tons SO 2 Average of 2003 and 2004

2005 420,637 tons SO 2 Average of 2003, 2004 and 2005

2006 420,637 tons SO 2 Average of 2004, 2005 and 2006

2007 420,637 tons SO 2 Average of 2005, 2006 and 2007

2008 36 378,398 269,083 tons
SO 2 Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008

2009 336,160 234,903 tons
SO 2 Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009

2010 29 3

, 921 200,722 tons
SO 2 Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010

2011 2 9 3

, 921 200,722 tons
SO 2 Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011

2012 29 3

, 921 200,722 tons
SO 2 Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012

2013 2 7 8,985 185,795 tons
SO 2 Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013

2014 2 6 4,050 170,868 tons
SO 2 Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014

2015 2 49,114 155,940 tons Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015

35 The 2003 through 2007 milestones have been adjusted to include only the four states that are part of the regional backstop trading program using the adju stment methodology in th e 2003 Regional Haze SIP.

36 The 2006 and 2007 annual milestones that are used to calculate the 2008 3-year average milestone in Table 8 have been adjusted to incl ude only the three states that are pa rt of the regional backstop trading program using the adjustment met hodology in the 2003 Regional Haze SIPSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 29 For the year the regional sulfur

dioxide milestone is and the annual SO 2 emissions for these years will determine whether emissions are greater

than or less than the milestone

SO 2 2016 2 49,114 155,940 tons
SO 2 Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016

2017 2 49,114 155,940 tons
SO 2 Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017

2018 2 3 4,624 141,849 tons
SO 2 Year 2018 only

2019 forward, until replaced by an approved SIP 2 3 4,624 141,849 tons
SO 2 Annual; no multiyear averaging

(2) Smelter Specific Set

- Aside. Since 1990 the existing copper smelters in the west have made significant SO 2 emission

reductions. I n addition, 3 of the 6 s melters that were operating in 1990 have now been permanently closed. Because of the global nature of this industry, it is not expected that any new copper smelters will be constructed between 2008 and 2018. R epresentative emission estimates were develop ed for the existing copper smelters in the 2003 SIP. These estimates have been reviewed and determined to be a good estimate of future emissions from these smelters through 2018

. There is the possibility that ore from mines

located near the closed smelte rs could be transported to the existing smelters for processing. A small smelter

- specific set

- aside has been created to account for this possible production increase. The smelter

- specific set

- aside will be determined using the calculation procedures in X X.E.1.c(4) of this Plan

, and the set aside will be added to the milestone to account for capacity expansion at the remaining smelters. This set

- aside will only be available for use if sulfur input a nd emissions from an individual copper smelter

is above th e baseline level listed in Table 9 in any particular year as a result of increased capacity. The increase to the milestone will be based on a smelter’s proportional increase above its baseline sulfur input. The set

- aside will be recalculated every year to reflect actual operations of the remaining copper smelters. The set

- aside may not be traded under the backstop trading program.

Table 9 . Preliminary Smelter

- Specific Set Aside Company/Smelter Baseline Sulfur Input Baseline

Alloc ation Smelter

- specific

Set

- aside Asarco Hayden 235,000 tons 23,000 tons SO 2 3,000 tons SO 2 Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation, Smelter and Refinery 340,269 tons 1,000 tons SO 2 100 tons SO 2

TOTAL 575

, 2 69 tons 24 ,000 tons SO 2 3,100 tons SO 2 Formatted: B uSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 30 Note: The smelter baseline has decreased from 86,000 tons SO 2 in the 2003 SIP to the current value of

24 ,000 tons SO 2 due the permanent closure of the BHP San Manuel, Phelps Dodge Chino, and Phelps Dodge Hidalgo smelters. The Phelps Dodge Miami smelter is not inclu ded in this table because the smelter is currently operating at its permitted limit and therefore does not have a smelter

- specific set

aside. Smelter emissions were 148,510 tons SO 2 in 1990.

(3) (2) Other Milestone Adjustments.

(a) All other milestone adjustments will require a SIP revision. Paragraph E.1.c(3) of this plan outlines adjustments to be made to the emissions inventory to ensure a consistent comparison to the milestones. These adjustments will be incorporated into the milestones every five years as part of the periodic implementation plan revisions required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). Adjustments to the milestones will be tracked in the annual emissions report described in paragraph E.1.c(4) of this

Plan.

(b) Within ninety days of adoption by the Utah Air Quality Board of the periodic Implementation Plan revision incorporating adjustments based on paragraph E.1.c(3) or (4) of this Plan, the State of Utah will provide notice to sources whose records were used to calculate the adjustments, including the date of the SIP adoption and a statement that the source needs to retain the applicable records for at least five years from the date that the SIP was adopted, or ten years from the date of establishing the record, whichever is longer.

(c) Opt-in Provisions for States and Tribes. The regional milestones in Table 8 7 were developed for a 4 3 -state region: Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Other western states and tribes may choose to join this backstop trading program in the future. The addition of a state or tribe to the program will require a SIP/TIP revision of all participating states and tribes to adjust the regional milestones, and will not occur automatically. Any state or tribe that wishes to opt in to the program will propose milestone adjustments to the participating states and tribes using the same methodology that was used to develop the milestones in Table 8 7 . A new participant must agree to develop a SIP and backstop trading rule that is consistent with those adopted by the other participating states and tribes.



### b. Regional Program Administration

(1) Pre-trigger tracking of regional SO 2 emissions. The executive secretary will work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are participating in the SO 2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program to ensure that an emission tracking system for the regional SO 2 inventory is developed and maintained. The executive secretary is responsible for all regional program administration functions as described in this plan. The executive secretary will perform these functions using the WRAP as the executive secretary’s agent. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) compiled the SO 2 emission inventories that were used during the development of the Annex and subsequent SIP revisions , and the WRAP continues to refine and Formatted: B uSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 31improve the overall tracking system for regional haze. The WRAP will maintain the pretrigger emissions tracking functions described in this plan for the foreseeable future. If the WRAP is no longer able to fulfill this function, then the executive secretary will ensure that other arrangements are made, either through a different regional organization or through a contractor, to maintain the SO 2 tracking system that is described in this plan. The WRAP has no authority to make regulatory determinations. The WRAP has limited authority under this plan to perform tracking and accounting functions, prepare reports, and perform other administrative functions as directed by the executive secretary. The executive secretary will work expeditiously to correct any problems if the WRAP fails to perform any of the functions described in this plan in a timely manner.

(2) Designation of the Tracking System Administrator. If the backstop trading program is triggered due to an exceedance of the SO 2 milestones as outlined in Part E.1.c of this plan, the executive secretary will work cooperatively with the other participating states and tribes to designate one Tracking System Administrator (TSA). The TSA will be designated as expeditiously as possible, but no later than six months after the program trigger date. In addition, before the TSA is designated, the executive secretary will enter into a binding c ontract with the TSA that will require the TSA to perform all TSA functions described in this plan. The State of Utah has sufficient authority under State contract law to ensure that the functions in this plan are carried out by the TSA.

(3) Information Provided by other States and Tribes. The executive secretary will accept the emission inventory and permitting information provided by the other participating states and tribes in order to determine the milestone value and program trigger if such other states and tribes have provided proper documentation and followed the public notification process in their federally approved implementation plans.



### c. Determination of Program Trigger

(1) The executive secretary will submit an annual emissions report to the WRAP and all participating states and tribes by September 30 of each year. The report will document actual sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous calendar year for all sources subject to the Sulfur Dioxide Milestone Inventory requirements of R307-150. The first report for calendar year 2003 was submitted in 2004. If the WEB Trading Program is triggered as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(10) of this plan, annual reports will be prepared during the interim period for informational purposes until the trading program is fully implemented. The executive secretary will prepare the supporting documentation that is included with the annual emissions report as noted in (2) and (3)

below.

(2) The annual emissions report for Utah will include a source emissions change report that contains the following information:Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 32 (a) identification of any new sources that were not contained in the previous calendar year’s emissions report, and an explanation of why the source is now included in the program;

(b) identification of any sources that were included in the previous year’s report and are no longer included in the program, and an explanation of why this change has occurred; and

(c) an explanation for increases or decreases of emissions at any applicable source of more than twenty percent from the previous year.

(3) The annual emissions report for Utah will include the proposed emissions adjustment as described in (a) and (b) to ensure a consistent comparison to the

milestones.

(a) Changes in flow rate measurement methods. The provisions in this subsection (a) will apply only to the 2003

- 2007 emissions reports. Actual emission

in ventories for utilities that use EPA’s Reference Method 2F, 2G, or 2H to measure stack flow rate will be adjusted to be comparable with the flow rate assumptions that were used in 1999, the base year inventory for the Annex. The adjustment may be calculate d using any of the following three methods.

(i) Directly determine the difference in flow rate through a side

- by

- side comparison of data collected with the new and old flow reference methods during a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) test.

(ii) Compare the annual average heat rate using Acid Rain heat input data (MMBtu) and total generation (MWHrs) as reported to the federal Energy Information Administration. Under this approach, the flow adjustment factor will be calculated using the following ratio:

Heat input/MW for first full year of data using new flow rate method Heat input/MW for last full year of data using old flow rate method.

(iii) Compare the standard CFM per MW before and after the new flow

reference method based on CEMs data submitted in the Acid Rain Program, as follows:

SCF/Unit of Generation for first full year of data using new flow rate method SCF/Unit of Generation for last full year of data using old flow rate method.

(b) Changes in emission monitoring or calculation methods. Actual emission inventories for sources that change the method of monitoring or calculating their emissions will be adjusted to be comparable to the emission monitoring or

calculation method that was used in the 2006 base year inventory. The base year

inven tory for the 2003

- 2007 emissions reports is 1999 for utilities and 1998 forSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 33 all other sources. The base year inventory for the 2008 and later emissions reports is 2006 for all sources.

(4) The annual sulfur dioxide milestone and emissions report for Utah will document any adjustments that should be made to the milestone for the previous year as

follows.

(a) Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC) may submit sulfur input data and SO 2 emissions data to the executive secretary to demonstrate that KUC qualifies for

the smelter

- specific set

- aside described in Part E.1.a (2) of this Plan. If actual emissions and sulfur input are greater than the baseline level in Table 9 , the executive secretary will determine the milestone adjustment for KUC by determining the increase in the milestone based on the proportional increase in sulfur input over baseline levels. For each smelter, the adjustment will not exceed

the smelter

- specific set

- aside listed in Table 9

.

(b) Changes due to enforcement actions.

(i) Adjustments due to settlements arising from enforcement actions. Adjustments to the milestones will be made, as specified in subsection (iii) below, if:

(A) an agreement to settle an action, arising from allegations of a failure of an owner or operator of an emissions unit at a source in the program to comply with applicable regulations which were in effect during the base year, is reached between the parties to the action;

(B) the alleged failure to comply with applicable regulations affects the assumptions that were used in calculating the source’s base year and forecasted sulfur dioxide emissions; and

(C) the settlement includes or recommends an adjustment to the

milestones.

(ii) Adjustments due to administrative or judicial orders. Adjustments to the milestones will be made as directed by any final administrative or judicial order, as specified in (iii) below. Where the final administrative or judicial order does not include a reforecast of the source's baseline, the executive secretary will evaluate whether a reforecast of the source's baseline emissions is appropriate.

(iii) Adjustments method and effective dates. The milestone will be decreased by an appropriate amount based on a reforecast of the source’s decreased sulfur dioxide emissions. The adjustments will not be made to

the milestone until after the source has reduced its sulfur dioxideSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 34 emissions as required in the settlement agreement, or administrative or judicial order.

(iv) Documentation of adjustments for enforcement actions. The report will include the following documentation of any adjustment due to an enforcement action or a settlement agreement:

(A) identification of each source in Utah that has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions pursuant to a settlement agreement or an administrative or judicial order;

(B) for each source identified, a statement indicating whether the milestones were adjusted in response to the enforcement action;

(C) discussion of the rationale for the executive secretary's decision to adjust or not to adjust the milestones; and

(D) if SO 2 emissions reductions over and above those reductions needed for compliance with the applicable regulations were part of an agreement to settle an action, a statement indicating whether such reductions resulted in any adjustment to the milestones or allowance allocations, and a discussion of the rationale for the executive secretary's decision on any such adjustment.

(v) The State of Utah will include all accumulated milestone adjustments due to enforcement actions or settlement agreements in the periodic SIP revisions required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

(5) Compilation of Reports.

(a) The WRAP will compile the annual emissions reports submitted by all participating states and tribes into a draft regional emission report for sulfur dioxide. The WRAP will follow additional quality assurance procedures developed by member states and tribes to identify possible errors in the emissions data, including screening for missing or added sources, name changes, and significant changes in reported emissions. Any questions or anomalies regarding Utah’s report will be resolved by the executive secretary prior to the submission of the draft regional emission report.

(b) By December 31 of each year, the WRAP will submit the draft regional emission and milestone report to the executive secretary and all participating states and tribes and will post the report on the WRAP’s web page. The report will include the following information:

(i) actual regional sulfur dioxide emissions in tons per year;Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 35 (ii) adjustments to account for :

(A) changes in flow rate measurement methods, and

(B) changes in emission monitoring or calculation methods;

(iii) average adjusted emissions for the last three years for comparison to the regional milestone, if adjustments were made;

(iv) regional milestone adjustments to account for the smelter

- specific set

aside ; and

( i v) regional milestone adjustments due to enforcement actions or settlement agreements.

(6) The executive secretary will evaluate the draft regional emissions report and will propose a draft determination that the sulfur dioxide milestone has either been met in the region, or has been exceeded. In the event that the WRAP has not submitted a draft regional emissions and milestone report to the executive secretary by the December 31 deadline for any year, the executive secretary will prepare the report for that year based upon the annual emissions reports submitted by all participating states and tribes to the WRAP for that year. The executive secretary will modify the data in these annual emissions reports, or use data where such report(s) have not been submitted, based upon direction received from the Environmental Protection Agency.

(7) The executive secretary will advertise availability of the draft regional emissions report and will notify the public of the draft determination by publishing a notice in newspapers of general circula tion throughout Utah. A 30-day public comment period will be established, and a public hearing will be held during the public comment period. The executive secretary will also submit the draft determination to EPA for review and comment concurrently.

(8) The executive secretary will consider any comments received during the comment period, and will submit a copy of all comments to the WRAP and to all participating states and tribes along with a response that addresses the comments.

(9) The WRAP will compile the comments and responses from all participating states and tribes and prepare a draft final regional emissions report. The report will be submitted to the states and tribes that are participating in the program and, if necessary, the report will propose a common program trigger date.

(10) The executive secretary will review and approve the final regional emissions report. The executive secretary will then submit this report to the Environmental Protection Agency along with a final determination that the milestone either has been met in the region, or that the milestone has been exceeded and the WEB Trading Program has been triggered in Utah. This determination will be submitted to the EnvironmentalSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 36 Protection Agency by the end of March, fifteen months following the milestone year. The first determination was submitted in 2005, for the 2003 milestone. If the milestone has been exceeded, the common trigger date proposed in the regional report will become the program trigger date for purposes of implementing the WEB Trading Program. In the event that the program trigger date must be established by the executive secretary in the absence of a regional emissions and milestone report prepared by the WRAP, the program trigger date will be March 31 of the applicable year.

(11) The executive secretary will publish a notice of the final determination in newspapers of general circulation throughout the state of Utah. This notice will include the milestone and the final annual regional SO 2 emissions for that year. If the milestone has been exceeded, the notice will specify the program trigger date and the first year that WEB sources must be in compliance with the WEB Trading Program provisions as

outlined in R307-250-12.



### d. Year 2013 Assessment

(1) Initial Assessment in 2013 Periodic SIP Review.

(a) The executive secretary will work cooperatively through the WRAP with other participating states and tribes to develop a projected emission inventory for

SO 2 through the year 2018, using the 2010 regional inventory as a baseline. This projected inventory will be included in the 2010 annual emission and milestone report that will be completed in March 2012 as outlined in paragraph E.1.c of this plan.

(b) The executive secretary will evaluate the projected inventory, and based upon this information will make an assessment of the likelihood of meeting the regional milestone for the year 2018. The executive secretary will include this assessment as part of Utah’s progress report that must be submitted by December 31, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

(2) Regional Emissions Report for 2012.

(a) The executive secretary will prepare an SO 2 emission report for the year 2012 by September 30, 2013, as described in paragraph E.1.c(1) of this plan. The executive secretary will include a list of all known or anticipated sources in Utah that are anticipated to affect total SO 2 emissions in 2018. This may include permitted sources, projects that are still in the planning stage, or projections from the affected sources of anticipated emissions in 2018. The status of these projects will be described to provide a better understanding of the degree of certainty that individual projects will be completed by 2018.

(b) The WRAP will compile the information from all participating states and tribes, prepare draft SO 2 inventory projections for the year 2018, and estimate the

effect of known future sources on SO 2 emissions. Projected 2018 emissions willSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 37 be compared to the 2018 milestone. This information will be included in the draft regional emissions report for 2012 that will be submitted to the executive secretary by December 31, 2013, as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(5) of this Plan. The draft report will be published on the WRAP web site for a period of public review and comment for not less than 30 days.

(3) Consensus Decision. The executive secretary commits to meet with the participating states and tribes in March 2014 to discuss any comments received on the 2018 emission projections in the draft report. The participating states and tribes will decide, through a consensus process, whether it is necessary to trigger the WEB trading program early in order to meet the SO 2 emission reduction goals in 2018.

(4) Early Trigger: Timing. If the participating states and tribes unanimously decide in the March 2014 meeting that an early trigger of the backstop trading program is necessary, the executive secretary will trigger the WEB Trading Program and the timing of the program elements will be adjusted as follows to ensure that the WEB Trading Program is in place in 2018.

(a) The date of the consensus decision by the participating states and tribes to voluntarily trigger the WEB trading program will become the program trigger

date.

(b) Allowances for 2018 will be distributed to WEB sources by January 1, 2015.

(c) The first control period will be the year 2018. WEB sources will need to demonstrate at the end of the first control period that they have enough

allowances to cover their 2018 SO 2 emissions.

(5) Public Notification. The executive secretary will publish notice of the decision in newspapers of general circulation in Utah. If applicable, the notice will include a statement that the WEB Trading Program is in effect and will specify the program trigger date.



### e. Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone

If the WEB Trading Program is triggered as outlined in paragraph E.1.c of this Plan, and the first control period will not occur until after the year 2018, a special penalty will be

assessed if the 2018 milestone is exceeded.

Details of the penalty provisions for violation of the 2018 milestone can be found in R307-250-13. In general, the penalty involves an assessment of the minimum $5,000 per

ton of SO 2 emissions in excess of the WEB source’s allowance limitation. The source can resolve its excess emissions violation by agreeing to the streamlined settlement approach outlined in R307-250-13.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 38 The amount of the minimum monetary penalty in R307-250-13 will be evaluated at each five-year SIP review, and adjusted if needed, to ensure that the penalty per ton substantially exceeds the expected cost of allowances to ensure that this remains a stringent penalty.

The 2018 special penalty provision will continue to be applied each year after 2018 until

the 2018 milestone has been achieved.



### 2. Pre-Trigger Emissions Tracking Requirements

a. SO 2 

### Emission Inventory

40 CFR 51.309 sets forth emissions inventory requirements for tracking compliance with

the SO 2 milestones. R307-150 has been revised to supplement Utah’s inventory requirements to satisfy the needs of this program.

(1) Applicability. The sulfur dioxide milestone inventory requirements of R307- 150 require all stationary sources with actual emissions of 100 tons per year or more of

SO 2 in the year 2000, or in any subsequent year, to submit an annual inventory of SO 2 emissions, beginning with the 2003 emission inve ntory. A source that meets these criteria and then emits less than 100 tons per year in a later year must continue to submit an SO 2 inventory for tracking compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones until 2018 or until the WEB Trading Program has been fully implemented and emission tracking is occurring under R307-250-9, whichever is earlier.

(2) R307-150 contains enforceable requirements for WEB sources.

(a) Each source will submit an annual inventory of SO 2 emissions.

(b) Each source will use appropriate emission factors and estimating techniques and document the emissions monitoring or estimation methodology used.

(c) Each source will include emissions from start up, shut down, and upset conditions in the annual total inventory.

(d) Each source subject to the federal acid rain program will use methods from 40 CFR Part 75 to report emissions from all sources.

(e) Each source will include the rate and period of emissions, the specific installation that is the source of the air pollution, composition of air contaminant, type and efficiency of the air pollution control equipment and other information necessary to quantify operation and emissions, and to evaluate pollution control.

(f) Each source will retain records for a minimum of 10 years from the date of their creation, or if the record was the basis for an adjustment to a milestone, 5 years from the date of an implementation plan revision, whichever is longer.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 39 (3) The executive secretary will quality-assure the submitted inventory data as outlined in the Inventory Preparation Plan. The executive secretary will screen the inventories to identify changes in emission measurement techniques that would require an inventory and milestone adjustment as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(3) of this Plan.

(4) The executive secretary will retain historical emission inventory records for non-utilities from 2006 that may affect milestone calculations under paragraph E.1.c(3) and allocation decisions under paragraph E.3.a of this plan until the year 2018 to ensure that changes in emissions monitoring techniques can be tracked.



### b. Development of Emission Tracking System

The executive secretary will work cooperatively with the WRAP to ensure that an emission tracking system for the regional SO 2 inventory is developed and maintained.



### c. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking

Database

(1) During the pre-trigger phase when the executive secretary is tracking compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones, the executive secretary will work cooperatively with the participating states and tribes to ensure that an independent audit of the tracking database is conducted to make sure that the WRAP is accurately compiling the regional emissions report.

(a) The first audit will occur during the year 2006 and will review data collected during the first two years of the program.

(b) Subsequent audits will occur in 2011, which will cover emissions years 2005- 2009, and 2016, which will cover emissions years 2010-2014.

(2) The primary focus of the audit will be the process that is used to compile the regional inventory from the data provided by each state and tribe, and the tracking of accumulated changes during the period between SIP revisions. The audit will also review the accuracy and integrity of the regional reports that are used to determine compliance with the milestones. The audit will not be a full review of Utah’s process for compiling and reporting SO 2 emissions, but will include a broad review of Utah’s inventory management and quality assurance systems, including the presence and exercise of systems to assure data quality and integrity.

(3) The audit will discuss the uncertainty of emissions calculations, and whether this uncertainty is likely to affect the annual determination of whether the milestone is exceeded. It will identify any recommended changes to emissions monitoring or calculation methods or data quality assurance systems. It will also review and recommend any changes to improve the administrative process of collecting the annual emissions data at the state and tribal level, compiling a regional emission inventory, andSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 40 making the annual determination of whether the WEB Trading Program has been triggered.

(4) Changes to the SO 2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program, including any changes to the milestones due to the results of these periodic audits, will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision as part of the five-year SIP review required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

(5) The executive secretary will advertise the availability of the draft audit report by publishing a notice in newspapers of general circulation in Utah. A 30-day public comment period will be established, and a hearing will be held during the public comment period. The executive secretary will respond to comments and provide notice of the availability of the final audit report. The executive secretary will submit the final audit report to the EPA regional office.



### 3. WEB Trading Program Requirements

a. Initial Allocation of SO 2 

### Allowances

(1) Draft Allocation Report.

Within six months of the program trigger date, as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(11) of this plan, the executive secretary will submit a draft allocation report to all participating states and tribes and to the TSA. This report will contain the following information:

(a) A list of all WEB sources in Utah as defined in R307-250-2 that groups the sources into two categories:

(i) Category 1: WEB sources that commenced operation prior to January 1, 2008. These sources will receive a floor allocation and will be eligible for the reducible portion of the allocation.

(ii) Category 2: WEB sources that commenced operation on January 1, 2008 or a later date. These sources will receive a floor allocation, but will not be eligible for the reducible allocation. The floor allocation for Category 2 sources will be deducted from the new source set-aside.

WEB sources that have received a retired source exemption under R307-250-4(4) will be included in the allocation process in the same manner as WEB sources that are currently operating. However, sources that were permanently shut down prior to the program trigger date are not considered WEB sources under R307- 250-4(1) and would therefore not be included in the allocation process.

(b) The floor allocation for all WEB sources in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 41 (i) For non-utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor allocation will be asestablished in the E.H. Pechan Report, “Market Trading Forum NonUtility Sector Allocation Final Report from the Allocations Working Group” (November 2002). If any additional category 1 sources are identified, the executive secretary will calculate a floor allocation using the methodology outlined in the E.H. Pechan Report.

(ii) For utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor will be calculated by first assigning a “clean unit” emission rate to each unit. The clean unit emission rate will then be multiplied by an annual heat input (MMBtu) that represents a realistic upper bound for the unit.

(Note: The floor level approach described above is designed to address equity issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The State of Utah is participating in ongoing discussions with the other participating states, tribes and regional stakeholders to ensure that all equity issues have been addressed. The State of Utah will work with the other participating

states and tribes to ensure that the floor allocation is calculated in a consistent manner for all participants. As outlined further in this allocation methodology, the floor for both utilities and non-utilities is limited by the utility/non-utility split in Table 10. The floor allocation methodology will ensure that credits are available for early reduction s and renewable energy allocations. In addition, the regional number of allowances allocated for each year cannot exceed the milestone for that year under any circumstances.)

Principles

• Each unit will have enough allowances to operate as a clean source and at an operating rate (capacity factor) that is a realistic upper bound for the

unit.

• There will not be significant winners and losers in this process.

• The focus is on a fair approach that is applied equally to all sources rather than on state and tribal budgets.

• The allocation process will use data that reflect current conditions, including current monitoring methodologies.

Equity Issues

• Sources that are currently burning very low sulfur coal may see changes in their supply in the future. Historic actual emissions may not reflect future operations.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 42 • Sources that are currently operating at a low utilization may not reach full capacity in the future. Assumptions about growth that are realistic on the regional level may provide a windfall to some sources, and not provide adequate allowances for other sources.

• There are some utility units in the region that are not BART-eligible and are operating at a low level of control for SO 2 . The relative responsibility of BART-eligible vs. non-BART-eligible is a consideration in the process.

• Sources that are operating at a high level of control are already bearing the cost of control and this affects their ability to compete in the market.

• Sources that have no SO 2 controls are facing a large expense that could affect their ability to continue to operate.

• Emission rate disparities exist throughout the region.

(iii) For Category 2 WEB sources the floor allocation will be the lower of the permitted SO 2 annual emissions for the WEB source, or SO 2 annual emissions calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100% utilization of the WEB source.

(c) A list of certified early reductions, expressed as tons of SO 2 . Early reductions

will be calculated and certified as follows:

(i) Any WEB source that installs control technology and accepts new permit emissions limits that are, for a non-utility source, below its floor as established in this section, or, for a utility source, below BACT, may apply for an early reduction bonus allocation as outlined in R307-250- 7(5). The bonus allocation will be available for reductions that occur between 2008 and the program trigger year. The application must show

that the floor was calculated in a manner that is consistent with the monitoring requirements of R307-250-9(1)(a) and the new permit must contain monitoring requirements that are consistent with R307-250- 9(1)(a). Emission units that are monitored using the less stringent monitoring requirements of R307-250-9(1)(b) are not eligible for early

reduction bonus allocations. The bonus allocations accumulate from the time the new controls come on line until the program trigger date and will be allocated to the WEB source over a 10 year period. The use of early reduction bonus allocations in any control period is limited to no more than five percent, systemwide, of the existing available allowances, as provided in paragraph E.3.a(2)(e) of this plan.

(ii) The executive secretary will review the application and will certify early reductions for each full year between 2008 and the program trigger year that meet the requirements of R307-250-7(5) and this plan.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 43 (iii) A source’s certified early reductions for all years will be added together to obtain the total certified early reductions for that source.

(d) A list of all renewable energy plants and sources in Utah that began operation

after January 1, 2008 , and the MW of installed nameplate capacity for each of these resources. Renewable energy credits will be granted at a rate of 2.5 tons per MW, and will accumulate from the beginning of the facility’s operation. Their use in any control period is limited to no more than five percent, systemwide, of the existing available allowances, as provided in paragraph E .3.a(2)(f) of this plan.

(e) Historical SO 2 emissions data for all Category 1 sources for the purposes of calculating the reducible allocation.

(i) For utilities, annual SO 2 emissions for the year 2006. Another time period may be used for individual emission units, if needed, to be representative of normal operating conditions.

(ii) For non-utilities, the annual SO 2 emissions for the year 2006.

(f) (e) Changes due to settlements arising from enforcement actions or due to administrative or judicial orders. The adjustment will be determined in accordance with paragraph E.1.c.(4)(b)(3)(c) of this Implementation Plan. The difference between the WEB source’s allocations prior to enforcement and after the enforcement action will be removed from the allocation pool.

(2) Compiled Allocation Report.

The TSA will compile the information provided by all participating states and tribes into a draft regional allocation report, and will submit this draft regional report to the executive secretary and all participating states and tribes for review and comment thirty days after receiving the preliminary allocation reports. The draft regional allocation report will include a proposed budget for each state and tribe and the proposed allocation

for each WEB source in Utah.

The State of Utah will work closely with the other participating states and tribes to ensure that the regional allocation is distributed consistently and fairly and to address any change in status that may affect this process.

The following methodology distributes the allowances available under the milestone in the following order: tribal set-aside, new source set-aside, floor, early reduction credit, renewable energy credit, reducible allocation. The allocation process is limited by the number of allowances available under the milestone. It is not possible under this methodology to distribute more allowances that are available under the milestone. The State of Utah expects that there will be allowances available for all of the categoriesSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 44 listed above. However, if at any time in the process there are not enough allowances available to fully cover a particular category, then the sources eligible for that category will receive a pro-rated allowance, and the process will stop. For example, if the renewable energy allocation is greater than the remaining available allowances under the milestone, then each of the renewable energy sources would receive a reduced renewable energy allocation, and there would be no reducible allocation.

(a) Table 10 8 shows the major categories that will be used to allocate allowances under the milestone. The methodology to calculate the available allocation for existing sources is described below. The milestone for the 4-state region is the starting point.

NOTE: If the m ilestone for a particular year is adjusted due to the smelter

specific set

- aside provisions in paragraph E.1.a(2) of this plan, the milestone adjustment calculated in paragraph E.1.a (2) of this Plan will be allocat ed to that smelter, and will be in additi on to the allocations determined from the base

milestone as outlined in this subsection. References to the non

- utility allocation throughout the remainder of Part E will not include the potential allocation due to

the smelter

- specific set

- aside.

Table 8. Utility/Non-utility Split

Milestone

from Table 2 7 Tribal SetAside New Source

Set-aside Remaining

Allocation Utility

Portion Non-utility portion

2008 269,083 378,398 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 6,143

1 7

, 0 00 tons 260,444 352,898 tons 210,480 276,263 tons 76,635 tons

2009 234,903 336,160 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 6,143

1 7

, 0 00 tons 226,260 310,660 tons 176,299 234,025 tons 76,635 tons

2010 200,722

29 3

, 921 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 6,143

1 7

, 0 00 tons 192,079

2 68

, 421 tons 142,119 191,78 6 tons 76,635 tons

2011 200,722

29 3

, 921 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 6,143

1 7

, 0 00 tons 192,079

2 68

, 421 tons 142,119 191,78 6 tons 76,635 tons

2012 200,722

29 3

, 921 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 6,143

1 7

, 0 00 tons 192,079

2 68

, 421 tons 142,119 191,78 6 tons 76,635 tons

2013 185,795

2 7 8,985 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 12,286

3 4 ,000 tons 171,009

2 3 6,485 tons 121,048

1 59,850 tons 76,635 tons

2014 170,868

2 6 4,050 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 12,286

3 4 ,000 tons 156,082

2 2 1,550 tons 106,121

1 4 4,915 tons 76,635 tons

2015 155,940

2 49,114 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 12,286

3 4 ,000 tons 141,154

2 0 6,614 tons 91,194

1 29,979 tons 76,635 tons

2016 155,940

2 49,114 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 12,286

3 4 ,000 tons 141,154

2 0 6,614 tons 91,194

1 29,979 tons 76,635 tons

2017 155,940

2 49,114 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 12,286

3 4 ,0 00 tons 141,154

2 0 6,614 tons 91,194

1 29,979 tons 76,635 tons

2018 141,849

2 3 4,624 tons 8 2 ,500 tons 12,286

3 4 ,000 tons 127,063

19 2,124 tons 80,402

1 1 6,189 tons 75,935 tonsSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 45 (b) Subtract the floor allocation for all WEB sources in the region that were identified as Category 2 from the new source set-aside to determine the available allocation for new sources that begin operation after the program trigger date.

This allocation methodology treats all Category 2 sources as existing sources because these sources will be operating on the program trigger date. However, the allowances for all Category 2 sources are actually drawn from the new source set-aside. If new source growth exceeds the projections used to develop this plan, it is possible that the above calculation will result in a negative number. Therefore, to address this problem, Category 2 sources will be ranked based on the date the permit is

issued for each source. Sources will then be removed from the list of Category 2 sources, starting with the most recent permit, until the new source set-aside is no longer depleted. The last source on the list will receive a partial allocation. The sources that were removed from the list will be considered new sources as described in Part E.3.c of this plan. These sources will need to purchase allowances to cover their emissions because the new source set-aside for sources that begin operation after the program trigger date would be calculated as zero until it is replenished in the next 5-year period. The allocation process for these new sources is described in Part E.3.c of this plan.

Example calculation of the new source set-aside. The example uses the following assumptions:

• Emissions exceed the milestones based on an average of the years 2004-2006.

• The program trigger date is March 31, 2008.

• The first 5 years of the program are 2012-2016.

• New sources that commenced operation between January 1, 2008 and the program trigger date have a total floor allocation of 600 tons

.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Maximum Possible

Set-Aside 6,143

1 7

, 0 00 12,286

3 4 ,000 12,286

3 4 ,000 12,286

3 4 ,000 12,286

3 4 ,000 Floor for Category 2

Sources -600 -600 -600 -600 -600

Remaining New Source

Set-aside 5,543

1 6

, 4 00 11,686

3 3 ,400 11,686

3 3 ,400 11,686

3 3 ,400 11,686

3 3 ,400

(c) The remaining allocation shown in Table 11 8 is available for distribution to category 1 sources. The final two columns in Table 11 8 split this remaining allocation into a utility allocation and a non-utility allocation.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 46 (d) Subtract the floor allocations for all category 1 utility and non-utility sources in the region from the utility allocation or the non-utility allocation.

In the unlikely event that the total floor allocation for either utility or non-utility sources submitted by the participating states and tribes exceeds the total allocation available for that category, the TSA will notify the participating states and tribes of the discrepancy. The State of Utah commits to work with the participating states and tribes through a consensus process to ensure that the floor allocation has been calculated in a consistent manner for all participants and to

ensure that the floor allocation does not exceed the total allocation available for that category. The total number of allowances distributed can not exceed the milestone for any given year.

(e) Calculate the early reduction bonus allocation.

(i) Divide the number of certified early reductions for all WEB sources in the region by ten.

(ii) Add the utility allocation for 2018 to the non-utility allocation for 2018 and then multiply this total by 0.05.

(iii) If the product of paragraph (i) is no more than the product of paragraph (ii), the product of paragraph (i) is the early reduction bonus allocation, and each source is allocated ten percent of its early reduction

bonus allocation.

(iv) If the product of paragraph (i) is more than the product of paragraph (ii), the early reduction bonus allocation for the region is the product of paragraph (ii). To determine a source’s allocation, divide the product of paragraph (ii) by 0.10 times the total number of early reduction bonus allocations and apply that ratio to the certified early reductions for the

source.

(v) Split the regional early reduction bonus allocation based on the ratio of utility to non-utility allocations in 2018 and subtract the early reduction bonus allocation from the utility and non-utility allocation totals.

(vi) The early reduction bonus allocation will be calculated in a similar manner for the second five-year allocation period under this program, and will then be discontinued for any future allocation periods.

(f) Calculate the regional renewable energy allocation.

(i) Add together the reported MW of installed nameplate capacity for

renewable ene rgy facilities reported by the participating states and tribes, and then multiply this number by 2.5.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 47 (ii) Add the utility allocation for 2018 to the non

- utility allocation for 2018 and then multiply this total by 0.05.

(iii) If the product of paragra ph (i) is no more than the product of paragraph (ii), the product of paragraph (i) is the renewable energy

allocation.

(iv) If the product of paragraph (i) is greater than or equal to the product of paragraph (ii), the renewable energy allocation for the region is the product of paragraph (ii). To determine a source’s allocation, divide the product of paragraph (ii) by the total number of renewable energy credits and apply that ratio to the early reduction credits claimed by the source.

(v) Split the re gional renewable energy allocation based on the ratio of utility to non

- utility allocations in 2018 and subtract the renewable energy allocation from the utility and non

- utility allocation totals.

(g) Any remaining allowances in the utility allocation or the non-utility allocation after subtraction of the early reduction allocation and the renewable energy

allocation is considered the reducible allocation and will be assigned to Category

1 sources.

(i) For non-utility sources, add together the historic SO 2 emissions in accordance with paragraph E.3.a(1)( e d ) of this plan for all Category 1 non-utility sources in the region to determine an historic emission total. Determine a percent contribution of SO 2 emissions for each WEB source to the historic emission total. Multiply the non-utility reducible allocation by the percent contribution for each WEB source to determine a reducible

allocation for each WEB source.

(ii) For utility sources, the reducible allocation will be distributed to sources that emitted above their floor in the baseline period (2006) based on their percentage of total floor emissions for sources emitting above the

floor times the number of reducible allowances available for the first five years of the WEB Trading Program. The number of allowances for any source receiving a reducible allocation will not exceed a recent historic emission rate times a heat input that represents a realistic upper bound for

the unit.

[Note: The approach for distributing the reducible utility allocation described above is designed to address equity issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The State of Utah is participating in ongoing discussions with the other participating states, tribes and regional stakeholders to ensure that all equity issues have been addressed. The principles and equity issues that are under discussion are listed in paragraph E.3.a.(1)(b)(ii) of this plan.]Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 48 ( h ) (g) Add together the floor allocation, early reduction allocation, renewable energy resource allocation, and reducible allocation for each WEB source and each renewable energy source to determine the proposed allocations for the first five years of the WEB Trading Program.

( i ) (h) Add together the proposed allocations for all of the WEB sources in the jurisdiction of each participating state and tribe to determine a draft SO2 allowance budget for each state and tribe.

(3) Public Comment Period. The executive secretary will publish notice of av ailability of the draft regional allocation report in newspapers of general circulation throughout Utah. A 30-day public comment period will be established, and a hearing will be held during the comment period. The executive secretary will consider the comments, and will revise the draft report as needed if the recommended changes are consistent with the allocation process outlined in this plan. The executive secretary will prepare a written response that explains why each comment has either been accepted or has been determined to be inconsistent with the allocation process outlined in this plan.

(4) Proposed Changes Submitted to Tracking System Administrator. The executive secretary will submit a copy of all comments received, the response to those comments, and any proposed changes to the budget and source allocations to the TSA within sixty days of receipt of the draft regional allocation report.

(5) Compilation of Changes. The TSA will compile the comments, responses, and proposed changes to the report and will submit a final draft regional allocation report that is consistent with the allocation methodology outlined in this plan to the executive secretary within 90 days of the receipt of the draft regional allocation report. Final Regional Allocation Report. The executive secretary will review the final regional allocation report and will determine the budget for Utah and allocations for WEB sources within Utah in accordance with the allocation methodology outlined in this plan within thirty days of receipt of the final draft allocation report. The executive secretary will submit the budget and allocations for all WEB sources in Utah to EPA, and will notify the TSA that the WEB source allocations should be recorded in the allowance tracking system.

(6) Notification. The executive secretary will notify all WEB sources within Utah of the number of allowances that have been recorded in their compliance account. The notice will include a warning to the WEB sources that reported annual sulfur dioxide emissions may change due to the implementation of new monitoring methods as required by R307-250-9. Allocations for the first five years of the program will not be adjusted to account forchanges due to the new monitoring method. However, allocations during the next fiveSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 49 year distribution will be adjusted as needed to account for paper changes in emissions due to changes in monitoring methodology.



### b. Distribution of Allowances for Future Control Periods

By December 1 of the year five years after the initial allocation, the executive secretary will follow the process outlined in paragraph E.3.a of this plan to distribute allowances for the next five-year period. This process will continue every five years until allowances have been allocated through the year 2018.



### c. Distribution of the New Source Allocation

(1) The new source set-aside will be available for two categories of sources.

(a) A new WEB source is eligible to receive an annual floor allocation equal to the lower of the annual sulfur dioxide limit in the source’s approval order, or sulfur dioxide annual emissions calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100% utilization of the WEB source, beginning with the first full calendar year of operation and in accordance with the provisions of R307-250-7(6).

(b) An existing WEB source that has increased production capacity after obtaining a new approval order issued under R307-401 is eligible to receive an allocation from the new source set-aside equal to:

(i) the permitted annual sulfur dioxide emission limit for a new unit; or

(ii) the permitted annual SO 2 emission increase for the WEB source due to the replacement of an existing unit with a new unit or the modification of an existing unit that increased the production capacity of the WEB source.

Permitted emission increases due to fuel switching or other process changes that are not directly related to increased production capacity are not eligible for

allocations from the new source set-aside. The allocation from the new source set-aside in the first year of operation will be adjusted to account for the number of days that the source is operating in that first year.

EXAMPLE. A new unit with a nameplate capacity of 400 MW is constructed at a power plant with two existing units with nameplate capacities of 400 MW and 300 MW. The two existing units install SO 2 controls and reduce emissions to meet PSD requirements for the construction of the new unit. In this example, the source would continue to receive a floor and a reducible allocation for each of the existing units, and would also be eligible to receive an allocation from the new source set-aside for the new unit. Even though total SO 2 emissions will decrease at this plant due to the construction of the new unit, the allowances allocated to the source will increase to reflect the increase in production capacity of 400 MW of electricity. If the new unit comes on line on July 1 theSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 50 allocation for the first year will be reduced by 50 percent because the unit was operational for half of the year.

(2) Allocations from the new source set-aside will remain constant for the applicable WEB source and will be made on an annual basis by March 31 of each year for the current control period. When the next five-year allocation block is distributed as outlined in paragraph E.3.b of this plan, all sources with an allocation under the new source set-aside will receive a five-year allocation block from the new source set-aside, and will continue to receive this allocation in future five-year allocation blocks.

(3) Owners or operators of new WEB sources or modified WEB sources that meetthe eligibility requirements of (1) may apply for an allocation from the new source setaside by submitting a written request to the executive secretary as outlined in Subsection R307-250-7(6).

(4) The executive secretary will review the application for an allocation for accuracy and completeness, and will notify the source of intent to distribute allocations from the regional new source set-aside pending verification that allowances are available in the new source set-aside account. The executive secretary will then forward the request

to the TSA.

(5) The TSA will document the date that the request is received by the TSA. Requests for allocation of allowances from the new source set-aside will be processed in the order received. The TSA will deduct the number of allowances requested from the regional new source set-aside that was established by the participating states and tribes, and will then record an equal number of allowances in the source’s compliance account for each remaining year of the five-year period. The TSA will then send written notification to the source and to the executive secretary that the allowances have been recorded in the source’s compliance account.

(6) If there are insufficient allowances remaining in the new source set-aside to fulfill the request, the source must purchase the allowances required to demonstrate compliance. Any eligible WEB source that does not receive an allocation from the new source set-aside because the set-aside was depleted will be first in line to receive an allocation when the new source set-aside is increased in the next five-year period as

outlined in Table 10 8 of this plan. If there is more than one such source, their allocation requests will be processed in the order they were received by the TSA.

(7) A source that has received a retired source exemption and continues to receive an allocation as a retired WEB source is not eligible to receive an allocation from the new

source set-aside.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 51 

### d. Regional Tribal Set-aside

(1) Each year after the program is triggered for which allowances are allocated,

8 2 ,500 allowances will exist as a tribal set-aside.

(2) The tribal caucus of the WRAP has stated its intent to determine the means for distributing the allowances among the tribes within one year after the program trigger date. The executive secretary understands that there will be a process that will meet the tracking and data security requirements of the allowance tracking system by which a tribe will move its set-aside allowances into the trading program for the purposes of trading.

(3) The executive secretary recognizes that the tribal set-aside allowances are bonus allowances for the tribes and, as such, are separate and additional to any allowances included in a tribal budget or the new source set-aside as outlined in the allocation report that is prepared in accordance with paragraph E.3.a(6) of this plan.



### e. Opt-in Sources

The WRAP Market Trading Forum has recommended including provisions in this plan that would allow smaller sources to opt in to the program. Opt-in sources may provide a more cost-effective way to reduce overall regional SO 2 emissions, and therefore may strengthen the market incentives of this program. While the benefits of allowing sources to opt in to the program are important, the program must also provide safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the program is not affected. For example, it would be counterproductive to allow sources that were already planning to shut down to opt in to the program and then sell allowances to an existing source. In this example, regional emissions could slowly creep upward in a manner that is not consistent with the goals of

the SO 2 milestones.

The State of Utah is deferring inclusion of provisions for opt-in sources until a future SIP revision to allow time to thoroughly consider how to provide the flexibility and potential benefits to the market by expanding the program while also ensuring that the SO 2 emission reduction goals are maintained.



### f. WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS)

The participating states and tribes will provide a centralized system for the tracking of allowances and emissions. The centralized system will be referred to as the WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS or EATS). The WEB EATS must provide that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and transactions is publicly available in a secure, centralized database. The EATS must ensure that each allowance is uniquely identified, allow for frequent updates, and include enforceable procedures for recording data.

The executive secretary will work cooperatively with other states and tribes participating in the WEB Trading Program to design this system. The executive secretary will beSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 52 responsible for ensuring that all the EATS provisions are completed as described in this plan.

The EATS will not exist unless the program is triggered. Prior to the implementation of the WEB Trading Program, a separate emissions tracking database will be employed to track the ongoing emissions of sources emitting SO 2 at amounts equal to or greater than 100 tons per year. The emissions tracking database, which was used to track and measure

SO 2 emissions against the milestones, will still exist once the WEB Trading Program is triggered; however, it will become incorporated into the SO 2 Emissions and Allowance Tracking System. Both the emissions tracking database and the EATS will be centralized systems and data will be posted in an electronic, Web-based program and available to all

persons.

The participating states and tribes will contract with a common TSA to service and maintain the WEB EATS. It is envisioned that the EATS will require the use of a contracted consultant or database design engineer to create a secure, efficient and transparent tracking system. Because the EATS will be utilized by all states and tribes participating in the program, the design will require a uniform approach and level ofsecurity that will satisfy regional needs and concerns as well as meet the electronic, Webbased, access needs and security provisions. Due to the dynamic needs of the marketplace, the EATS will require a database that will reflect the current status of allowances and allowance transactions. The EATS will be operational within one year after the program trigger date.

Specifications of the WEB EATS such as emissions tracking, the recording of allowance transactions, account management, system integrity and transparency are outlined in the Utah TSD Supplement. The specifications will be used as a guideline for developing the EATS if the program is triggered. However, the overall design will be greatly affected by computer software and hardware changes that will occur between the adoption of this Plan and the program trigger date. The on-going experience gained from other trading programs also may lead to improvements in the design of the system. The specifications and related sections of R307-250 detail how a WEB source will register for the EATS and how the source will, through an account representative, establish accounts, transfer allowances, and track unused allowances from a previous year.

Neither the executive secretary nor the TSA will adjudicate any dispute between the parties concerning the authorization of any account representative with regard to any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the account representative.

As an example of how the WEB EATS will generally function, once the WEB Trading Program is triggered, a WEB source will have its allowance allocation determined. At the same time, the WEB source’s account representative will register for the EATS under R307-250-6, and a compliance account will be established under R307-250-8. Each allowance will be assigned a serial number. The allowance serial number will be used by the WEB EATS to track allowance allocations, transfers (R307-250-10), and deductions, and to account for any unused allowances from a previous year (R307-250-11). TheSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 53 serial number also will be assigned to each allowance recorded in a general account, which is an account for allowances that are not held to meet program compliance requirements. Furthermore, the EATS will track tribal allowance set-asides and new source allowance set-asides not yet assigned to either a compliance or general account.

It is important to note that while this plan has provided a design for and an operational understanding of the EATS, the components of the EATS will need to be examined and possibly altered upon each required SIP revision.



### g. Allowance Transfers

(1) Allowance transfers are defined as the conveyance from one account to another account (compliance account or general account) of one or more allowances by whatever means, including but not limited to purchase, trade, or gift in accordance with the procedures established in R307-250-10. This includes the transfer of allowances for the purpose of retirement. Once an allowance is retired, it is no longer available for transfer to or from any account. Allowances may be purchased by any person for the purpose of retirement.

(2) The TSA will have specific recording duties involving transfers. These required procedures will be detailed in the service contract and will include the following

activities.

(a) Recording of Allowance Transfers.

(i) Within five business days of receiving an allowance transfer, except when the transfer does not meet the requirements of R307-250-10, the TSA will record an allowance transfer by moving each allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified by the request, provided that the transfer is correctly submitted and that the transferor

account includes each allowance identified in the transfer.

(ii) Any allowance transfer that is submitted for recording following the allowance transfer deadline and that includes any allowances allocated for a control period prior to or the same as the control period to which the allowance transfer deadline applies will not be recorded until after completion of the compliance account reconciliation.

(iii) Where an allowance transfer submitted for allowance transfer recording fails to meet the requirements of R307-250-10, the TSA will not

record the transfer.

(3) Notification of the Recording of Allowance Transfers. The TSA has specific responsibilities involving the notification of the recording of any transferred allowances, including the failure to record any transfer of allowances. Again, these required procedures will be outlined in the service contract, but include the following.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 54 (a) Within five business days of the recording of an allowance transfer, the TSA will notify the transferor’s and transferee’s account representatives of both accounts, and make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet.

(b) Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that fails to meet the requirements of R307-250-10, the TSA will notify the account representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer.



### h. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year

(1) Background. Unused allowances may be kept for use in future years in accordance with R307-250-11

and there are restrictions on the use of the allowances in accordance with R307-250-11. R307-250-11 prohibits the use after the year 2017 of allowances allocated for the years 2003 – 2017. This provision ensures that actual emissions will be less than the 2018 milestone because only allowances allocated for the year 2018 could be used to show compliance in that year. The provision also maintains flexibility by resetting the baseline to the year 2018 and then allowing sources to once again use extra allowances to show compliance in any future year. This flexibility is important for sources that have variable operations because the source may build up a reserve of unused allowances for use in a high production year.

The Annex explains the benefits of allowing the WEB source to use unused allowances from previous years, including increased flexibility and early reduction stimulus. The risk in allowing the use of allowances carried from a previous year could be an increase in emissions in later years as the unused allowances are withdrawn for compliance.

Because the regional haze SIP is based on reasonable progress requirements related to the remedying or prevention of any future visibility impairment, it is important to assure the use of these allowances will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any reasonable progress goals. The safeguard employed here to mitigate this type of risk is termed, “flow control”, and is described in paragraph (2) below.

(2) Flow Control Provisions.

(a) At the end of each control period, WEB sources may transfer allowances in and out of their compliance account for a period of 60 days to ensure that the account will contain enough allowances to cover sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous year. At the end of the sixty-day transfer period, allowances will be deducted from the compliance account of each WEB sources in an amount equal to the sulfur dioxide emissions of that source during the control period.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 55 (b) After the deductions have been completed, the Tracking System Administrator will perform the following calculations and prepare a report according to paragraph E. 3.k(1)(b) of this Plan.

(i) Determine the total number of allowances remaining in the allowance tracking system that were allocated for the just completed control period and all previous control periods.

(ii) If the number calculated in (i) exceeds 10 percent of the milestone for the next control period, then the flow control procedures in R307-250-11 will be triggered for that next control period. These flow control provisions will discourage the excessive use of allowances that were allocated for an earlier control period without establishing an absolute limit on their use. WEB sources will maintain the option to use allowances allocated for an earlier control period, but will be required to use two

allowances for each ton of SO 2 emissions. Flow Control operates as

follows.

(A) The flow control ratio will be calculated by multiplying 0.1 times the milestone for the next control period, divided by the total number of unused allowances remaining in the system.

(B) To calculate the number of prior-year allowances that can be used without restriction by a source for the next control period, the TSA will multiply the prior-year allowances by the flow controlratio. The resulting number of allowances may be used on a oneto-one ratio to show compliance with the source’s allowance limitation as outlined in paragraph E.3.j of this Plan.

(C) The remaining prior-year allowances may be used on a two-toone ratio to show compliance. Thus, WEB sources will maintain the option to use allowances allocated for an earlier control period, but will be required to use two of those allowances for each ton of

SO 2 emissions.

Example: On March 1, 2010 (the compliance transfer deadline for the 2009 control period) the Tracking System Administrator deducts allowances from the compliance

account for each WEB source to cover 2009 SO 2 emissions from that source. After completing these deductions, the TSA reports the following information:

Total number of allowances still in the system for the years 2003 – 2009 = 40 30 ,000

2010 milestone = 29 3

, 9 21 200,722

Percent of milestone = 1 3. 61 14.94 %Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 56 Because the number of allowances not used in previous control periods is greater than 10% of the milestone, flow control procedures are triggered. In the annual report required in paragraph E.3.k of this Plan, the TSA will then calculate the flow control ratio for

2010:

0.1 x 2010 Milestone ÷ prior year allowances = flow control ratio

0.1 x 29 3

, 921 200,722 ÷ 4 3 0,000 = 0.7 0 3

On March 1, 2011 (the compliance transfer deadline for the 2010 control period) the TSA will apply the 2010 flow control ratio before deducting allowances from each WEB source’s compliance account

WEB Source A 2010 Allowances = 1,000 Remaining Prior Year Allowances = 600 2010 Emissions = 1,580

In this example, the TSA would multiply the prior year allowances by 0.7 0 3 to determinethe number of prior year allowances that could be used without restriction, at a one-toone ratio. This would equal 4 20 38 . The remaining prior year allowances would then be

used at a 2:1 ratio. 2 84 360 allowances would be needed to cover the remaining 1 42 180

tons of SO 2 emissions. The TSA would therefore deduct a total of 1, 780 7 22 allowances (1,000 + 438 420 + 284 360 ) to cover 1,580 tons of SO 2 emissions.



### i. Monitoring/Recordkeeping

(1) For WEB sources subject to 40 CFR Part 75, the TSA will use data that has been quality assured and finalized by the EPA. For WEB sources subject to the monitoring protocol in Appendix B of this Plan, the executive secretary will quality assure and finalize the data in accordance with these provisions for submission to the

TSA.

(2) The executive secretary will verify and submit the data to the emissions tracking database as soon as reasonably feasible after annual emissions are reported by the WEB sources. These timelines will be modified, as necessary, according to the monitoring protocols.

(3) Special Reserve Compliance Accounts. The WEB Trading Program requires most WEB sources to install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that meet the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 75. However, there are some emission units that are not physically able to install CEMS and there are also emission units that do not emit enough sulfur dioxide to justify the expense of installing these systems (see R307-250-9(1)(b)). The WEB Trading Program allows these emission units to continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the WEB source to transfer any allowances that were allocated to that unitSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 57 for use by another WEB source. The restriction on transferring these allowances is needed to ensure that an emission reduction of sulfur dioxide and the corresponding increase in sulfur dioxide are equal. The allowances associated with emission units that continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology are placed in a special reserve compliance account, while allowances for other emission units are placed in a regular compliance account. Allowances may not be traded out of a special reserve compliance account, even for use by emission units with CEMS at the same WEB source. However, the WEB source may transfer allowances into the account as needed to demonstrate compliance with the WEB source's allowance limitation.

R307-250-9(b) allows WEB sources with any of the following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve compliance account:

(a) any smelting operation where all of the emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; or

(b) any flare, except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion device at a petroleum refinery; or

(c) any other type of unit without add-on sulfur dioxide control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing.

The emission units described in (a) and (b) cannot physically be monitored using a CEM. The emission units described in (c) do not typically have add-on controls for sulfur dioxide. These units, described in R307-250-9(1)(b), are expected to operate within their floor-level allocation and therefore will not be affected by the market, unless they make a process change and wish to sell allowances on the market. Other sources that are meeting the more rigorous monitoring requirements opf R307-250-9(1)(a) and emit sulfur dioxide above their expected allocation will either need to purchase allowances or install sulfur dioxide controls. Therefore, it is important that all emission units that participate in emission trading have an accurate monitoring methodology that is comparable to other sources in the program to ensure that a ton of reductions is the same regardless of where the reductions originate.

The executive secretary will review the application to monitor under R307-250-9(1)(b).

If the emission units meet the criteria in R307-250-9(1)(b), the executive secretary will determine the portion of the WEB source's allocation that is associated with the emission units that will be monitored under R307-250-9(1)(b) and will require the TSA to record that portion of the WEB source's allocation in the special reserve compliance account. The executive secretary will use the methodology for determining allocations described in paragraph E.3.a of this Plan to determine the portion of the allocation that is associated with the Subsection R307-250-9(1)(b) emission units. The executive secretary will notify the WEB source that the application has either been accepted or rejected, including a notification of the allowances that are to be recorded in the WEB source's regular compliance account and the special reserve compliance account.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 58 If an emission unit that is monitored under R307-250-9(1)(b) is permanently retired, the TSA will transfer the portion of allowances that were associated with that emission unit from the WEB source's special reserve compliance account to the source's compliance account. These allowances will then be available for use or sale by the WEB source. The allowances will be transferred after the compliance deduction has taken place for the last control period that the unit was in operation.



### j. Compliance , Excess Emissions, and Penalties

(1) Compliance , Excess Emissions, and Penalties

. When a WEB source exceeds its allowance limitation in R307-250-12, the executive secretary will require the TSA to deduct allowances from the following year’s allocation in an amount equal to three times the WEB source’s emissions of SO 2 in excess of its allowance limitation. This deduction will be made from the WEB source’s compliance account after deductions for compliance are made under R307-250-12. If sufficient allowances do not exist in the compliance account for the next control period to cover this amount, the executive secretary will require the TSA to deduct the required number of allowances, regardless of the control period for which they were allocated, whenever

the allowances are recorded in the account.

Sources may also be liable for each day of vi olation of any other provision of the market trading program. (2) Smelter Specific Set

- aside. Each year, Kennecott Utah Co pper (KUC) may submit data to the executive secretary demonstrating that sulfur input and emissions are greater than the baseline levels listed in

Table 9 of this Plan. If the executive secretary determines that the criteria in paragraph E.1.a(3)(d) have been met, the executive secretary will require the TSA to record additional allowances in KUC's compliance account to cover the smelter specific set

aside. The allowances will be recorded prior to the allowance transfer deadline to ensure that KUC may use the additional allowances to demonstrate compliance with its

allowance limitation.



### k. Periodic Evaluation of the Trading Program

(1) Annual Report.

(a) Beginning one year after compliance with the trading program is required, the executive secretary will obtain from the TSA an annual report that contains the following information:

(i) the level of compliance program-wide;

(ii) a summary of the use and transfer of allowances, both geographically and temporally; Formatted: B u

Formatted: B uSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 59 (iii) a source-by-source accounting of allocations compared to emissions;

(iv) a report on the use of unused allowances from a previous year, in

order to determine whether these emissions have or have not contributed to emissions in excess of the cap; and

(v) the total number of WEB sources participating in the trading program and any changes to eligible sources, such as retired sources, or sources

that emit more than 100 tons of SO 2 after the program trigger date.

(b) Within 2 months after the allowance transfer deadline for each control period when compliance with the trading program is required, the TSA will prepare a draft report that lists:

(i) the total number of allowances deducted for the control period,

(ii) the total number of allowances remaining in the Allowance Tracking System allocated for that control period and any earlier control period,

(iii) a proposed determination that flow control procedures have either been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period, and

(iv) if flow control procedures have been triggered, a draft flow control ratio calculated according to paragraph E.3.h(2) of this Plan.

(c) The executive secretary will evaluate the draft report, and will propose a determination that flow control procedures either have been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period.

(d) The executive secretary will publish a no tice of availability of the draft report in newspapers of general circulation in Utah, and will hold a 30-day public comment period.

(e) After the comment period the executive secretary will make a final determination that the flow control procedures either have been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period. If the flow control procedures have been triggered, the executive secretary will notify all WEB sources in Utah that flow control procedures will be in effect during the next control period.

(2) Five-year Evaluation.

(a) The executive secretary will work cooperatively with other participating states and tribes to conduct an audit of the WEB Trading Program no later than three years following the first full year of the trading program, and at least every five years thereafter. This evaluation does not replace the Plan assessments in 2008,Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 60 2013, and 2018. The evaluation will be conducted by an independent third party and include an analysis of:

(i) whether the total actual emissions could exceed the values in Table 3 7 of this Implementation Plan of the WEB Trading Program even though sources comply with their allowances;

(ii) whether the program achieved the overall emission milestone it was intended to reach;

(iii) the effectiveness of the compliance, enforcement and penalty provisions;

(iv) a discussion of whether states and tribes have enough resources to implement the WEB Trading Program;

(v) whether the trading program resulted in any unexpected beneficial effects, or any unintended detrimental effects;

(vi) whether the actions taken to reduce sulfur dioxide have led to any unintended increases in other pollutants;

(vii) whether there are any changes needed in emissions monitoring and reporting protocols, or in the administrative procedures for program administration and tracking;

(viii) the effectiveness of the provisions for interstate trading, and whether there are any procedural changes needed to make the interstate nature of the program more effective; and

(ix) the integrity of the emissions and allowance tracking system, including whether the procedures for recording transactions are adequate, whether the procedures are being followed and in a timely manner, whether the information on sources’ emissions are accurately recorded, whether the emissions and allowance tracking system has procedures in place to ensure that the transactions are valid, and whether back-up systems are in place to account for problems with loss of data.

(b) The public will have an opportunity to participate in this trading program

evaluation.

(c) In the event that any audit results in recommendations for program revisions, the State of Utah, in consultation with the WRAP, will make appropriate modifications to this Plan. The State of Utah will revise this Plan if the program is not meeting its emission reduction goals.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 61 (d) The executive secretary will submit a copy of the report to the EPA regional

office.



### l. Retired Source Exemption

R307-250-4(4) outlines the procedure that a WEB source must follow to receive a retired source exemption. The exemption would allow the source to continue to receive an allocation, but would exempt the source from monitoring and recordkeeping requirements that would serve no useful function for a source that has ceased operations. The executive secretary will notify the source of its obligation to apply for a retired source exemption upon the cancellation or relinquishment of a permit.

To receive a retired source exemption, the source must submit a request for the exemption to the executive secretary. The executive secretary will review this request, and within 60 days of receipt of the request will notify the source that the retired source exemption has been granted or has been rejected. If the exemption has been rejected, the notification will contain an explanation of the reasons for rejecting the request.

The TSA will continue to record an allocation to a WEB source that has received a retired source exemption. However, the allowances will be recorded in a general account rather than a compliance account for the source. The TSA will transfer any existing allowances in the retired source's compliance account or special reserve compliance account into the general account for the retired source, and will close the compliance

accounts.

A WEB source that is permanently retired and that does not request a retired source exemption will forfeit all abandoned allowances in that source’s compliance account, as outlined in R307-250-4(4)(e). The forfeited allowances will not be redistributed to other sources, and will be permanently retired from the Allowance Tracking System, as outlined in R307-250-10(3). During the next fi ve-year allowance distribution period the retired source will not receive an allocation, and the allowances that would have been

distributed to that source will be added to the new source set-aside.



### m. Integration into Permits

It is expected that all WEB sources at least initially will be subject to Utah’s Title V permitting requirements. Under R307-415, Utah’s delegated Title V permitting program, the pre- and post-trigger requirements of the market trading program fall under the definition of “applicable requirement,” and will be incorporated into each source’s Title V permit according to the schedules and procedures contained in that rule. R307-250-14 requires that any source that for any reason and at any time is not required to have a permit under R307-415 must obtain a New Source Review permit pursuant to R307-401 et seq. that incorporates the same requirements by submitting a Notice of Intent within 90 days of the program trigger. Both types of permits are enforceable both federally and by citizens pursuant to Utah’s SIP.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 62 

### 4. 2013 SIP Revision; Backstop for Beginning of Second Planning Period

In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), the periodic SIP revision due in 2013 will include the following information:

a. Source specific allocations for all WEB sources in Utah for the year 2018; and

b. Either the provisions of a program designed to achieve reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO 2 beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision containing the provisions of such a program no later than December 31, 2016. The program will ensure that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 are achieved for the first planning period, including requirements that cannot be measured until after 2018, such as the determination of compliance with the 2018

milestone.

This 2013 SIP revision will provide certainty to sources regarding their potential liability under the special penalty provisions for the year 2018 outlined in paragraph E.1e of this Plan. The calculation of these allocations is delayed until 2013 to provide certainty about the number of sources that will qualify as WEB sources at that time; the allocations needed for new sources in the region, and the magnitude of renewable energy development and early reductions that will be included in the allocation process. It is difficult to estimate the impact of these factors in 2003 because circumstances may change during the next 10 years.

If the 2018 milestone is not met, the starting point for the next planning period will be the 2018 milestones, not actual emissions in 2018.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 63 

## F. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR MOBILE SOURCES

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

In its June 1996 Report, the GCVTC recommended EPA move forward on new national

vehicle emission and fuel standards to reduce emissions from mobile sources. The GCVTC also recommended other regional and local strategies be considered to manage mobile source emissions. One of the local strategies was to establish emission budgets for those pollutants in urban areas shown to significantly contribute to visibility impairment in any of the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. The budget caps were to be set at the

2005 emission levels.

When EPA finalized the regional haze rule in July 1999, the rule acknowledged the

GCVTC recommendations related to national ve hicle emission and fuel standards. EPA included a status of planned actions on those recommendations as of July 1999 (Preamble to the regional haze rule, 64 FR 35753). EPA noted these new measures were over and above those included in the regional haze rule for mobile sources that simply required a cap on emissions in significantly contributing urban areas at the 2005 level. EPA also indicated that emission reductions resulting from new standards adopted after the regional haze rule was approved would be creditable toward reasonable progress. EPA also committed to work with the states if new national standards impacted the efficacy of regional or local strategies.

After the regional haze rule was finalized, EPA established new standards for on-road vehicle emission and fuel standards (65 FR 6698) as well as standards for diesel vehicles and diesel fuel (66 FR 5002). As a result, current mobile source emission projections developed by WRAP for the GCVTC Transport Region indicate overall mobile source emissions will decline continuously from 2003 through the end of the SIP planning period in 2018, which is more than the level of emission reductions that EPA approved to meet reasonable progress by holding mobile source emissions constant from their 2005 level. In addition, new standards for off-road vehicles were proposed by EPA on April 15, 2003, and are expected to be finalized, which will further reduce overall mobile

source emissions.

At the April 2003 WRAP Board meeting, the WRAP approved a recommendation for EPA to modify the regional haze rule eliminating the current requirements related to mobile source emission significance determination and budgets for urban areas (40 CFR 309(d)(5)), and replacing those requirements with a new requirement focused on tracking mobile source emission reductions resulting from national standards to assure reasonableprogress. This action was based on the finding that emissions of all pollutants from onroad and off-road mobile sources are expected to decline significantly through 2018 except for sulfur dioxide from non-road sources. If EPA adopts new low-sulfur standards

for off-road mobile sources then off-road mobile source sulfur dioxide emissions will also decline continuously through 2018. The WRAP Board deliberations did not defineSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 64 criteria for mobile source significance, leaving the determination of significance under the current rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii)) to the states and tribes.

On July 3, 2003, EPA proposed a direct final rule (68 FR 39842) to amend the mobile sources provision of the Regional Haze Rule consistent with the recommendations of the WRAP. The rule was promulgated on December 22, 2003 (68 FR 71009). The revisions amended 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i) and eliminated the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii) and (iii) for setting mobile sources emissions budgets using the lowest projected level as a planning objective and performance indicator for each area. Instead, the new Section 51.309(d)(5)(i) requires statewide inventories to demonstrate a continuous decline in emissions of each pollutant of concern over the planning period. Should mobile source emission not decline as expected, the State of Utah will review control options for mobile sources and determine if additional controls are needed, consistent with the criteria for reasonable progress. If the State of Utah determines that additional controls are needed, Utah will prepare a revision to the implementation plan.

In addition to the revisions to Section 51.309(d)(5)(i) and the elimination of Sections 51.309(d)(5)(ii) and (iii), a backstop provision as outlined by the WRAP was added. Thenew Section 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B) requires the State of Utah to assess the need for any longterm strategies to address SO 2 from non-road mobile sources by no later than December 31, 2008. States may determine if a SIP revision is necessary to address SO 2 from mobile sources by considering whether the emission reductions anticipated or achieved by any Federal standards in place addressing fuel sulfur content for non-road engines are sufficient to meet reasonable progress. The direct final rule also renumbered the requirement to review other GCVTC mobile source strategies from (d)(5)(iv) to (d)(5)(ii).



### 2. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile

Sources

a. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from

Mobile Sources.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the State of Utah, in collaboration with the WRAP, assembled a comprehensive statewide inventory of mobile source emissions. This emission inventory showed the year with the lowest level of emissions will be at the end of the SIP planning period in 2018 instead of 2005 as anticipated by the GCVTC. The substantial reduction of projected mobile source emissions from 2003 to 2018 is due to the adoption of new on-road vehicle emission and fuel standards by EPA.

The values shown in Table 11 9 cannot be used for conformity determinations under 40 CFR 51 and 40 CFR 93, Subpart A. Subsection 40 CFR 93.102 states that conformity applies to nonattainment and maintenance areas. The visibility provisions of 40 CFR 51.301 - 309 are not health-based standards resulting in nonattainment designations.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 65 Table 9. Mobile Source Inventory for 2003 and 2018

Utah Emissions by Source Category Sulfur

Dioxide (SOx) Nitroge

n Oxide (NOx) Organic

Carbon

<2.5

Microns (OC) Elemental

Carbon

<2.5

Microns (EC) Other

Fine Mtrls

<2.5

Microns (Soils etc) (OFM) Course

Material (Soils, dust)

>2.5 & <10

Microns (CM) Volatile Organic

Carbon

Gases (VOC)

1996 1.4 79.6 0.6 0.3 1.4 0.1 63.0

2018 w/309 0.1 22.2 0.1 0.1 0.3

- 19.7 Mobile

SourcesOn-Road % Change -93% -72% -83% -67% -79%
- -69%

1996 10.2 52.3 1.2 0.6 2.0 0.2 27.4

2018 w/309 17.1 38.8 1.0 0.6 1.8 0.2 20.0 Mobile

SourcesNon-Road % Change 68% -26% -17% -25% -10% 0% -27%

1996 11.6 131.9 1.8 1.1 3.4 0.3 90.4

2018 w/309 17.2 61.0 1.1 0.7 2.1 0.2 39.7 TOTAL

MOBILE

EMISSIONS

IN UTAH % Change 48% -54% -39% -24% -38% -33% -56%



### b. Program to assure continuous decline in mobile source

emissions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the State of Utah commits to monitoring the

emissions from mobile sources to assure a continuous decline in emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(6). If Utah determines that a continuous decline in emissions is not being achieved, additional control measures will be reviewed to determine if they are needed to make reasonable progress. If Utah determines such measures are needed, Utah will submit an implementation plan revision to address the identified control measures.



### c. Backstop provision to address potential increase in nonroad emissions in the event Federal standards are not

finalized.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the State of Utah commits to provide for a SIP revision no later than December 31, 2008, containing long-term strategies necessary to

reduce emission of SO 2 from non-road mobile sources consistent with the goal of reasonable progress. The need for a SIP revision will be determined by a consideration of the emission reductions achieved or anticipated to be achieved by Federal standards should those standards addressing fuel sulfur content for non-raid engines not be in place.



### 3. Other GCVTC Strategies for Mobile Sources

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), the State of Utah has reviewed the other mobile source recommendations contained in the GCVTC report. The results of that review are included in Part J of this implementation plan that addresses all recommendation of the GCVTC report, including mobile source recommendations. Formatted T aSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 66 

## G. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR FIRE PROGRAMS

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

In its 1996 final report, the GCVTC recognized that past land management practices, including decades of fire suppression, have led to an increase of accumulated forest fuels. Thus, wildfires are becoming larger in size, unnaturally destructive, and more dangerous and costly to control. Fire is a component of most natural ecosystems in the West and must be a component of processes to meet land management, human health and visibility objectives. The GCVTC recognized that prescrib ed fire and wildfire levels are projected to increase significantly for decades to come, and that programs to minimize emissions and visibility impacts and educate the public should be implemented.

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)) requires documentation that all federal, state and private prescribed fire programs in the state evaluate and address the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application; that a statewide inventory and emissions tracking system be established for volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, elemental and organic carbon, and fine particle emissions from fire; that any administrative barriers to the use of alternatives to burning be identified and removed where possible; that enhanced smoke management programs considering visibility as well as health and nuisance objectives be included and that they be based on specific criteria; and that annual emission goals for fire be established in cooperation with states, tribes, federal land managers and private entities to minimize emissions increases from

fire to the maximum extent feasible.

The WRAP's effort to document and understand the incidence of fire and its effect on visibility in Class I areas has been extensive and productive. WRAP modeling shows that prescribed fire will continue to affect visibility. See the WRAP TSD Chapter 6 for

details.



### 2. Prescribed Fire Program Evaluation

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the State of Utah has evaluated all federal, state, and private prescribed fire programs in the state, based on the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, and how visibility protection from smoke is addressed in planning and operation. The State of Utah relied upon the WRAP report Assessing Status of Incorporating Smoke Effects into Fire Planning and Operation 37 as a guide for making this evaluation. The State of Utah has also evaluated whether these prescribed fire programs contain the following elements: actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program

37 All WRAP documents cited in Part G are available in the Utah TSD Supplement.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 67 evaluation. A description of the evaluation that was made in accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i) follows.



### a. Wildlands Fire

The Utah Smoke Management Plan (SMP), revised March 23, 2000, provides operating procedures for federal and state agencies that use prescribed fire, wildfire, and wildland fire on federal, state and private wildlands in Utah. The SMP includes the program elements listed in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), with the exception of alternatives to fire. In a letter dated November 8, 1999, the EPA certified the Utah SMP under EPA’s April 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (Policy) . EPA’s Policy also includes the elements that are listed in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i).

In 2001, the Utah SMP requirements were codified through rulemaking and comprise R307-204 of the Utah Administrative Code. R307-204 applies to all persons using prescribed fire or wildland fire on land they own or manage, including federal, state, and private wildlands. The Utah TSD Supplement includes copies of the Utah SMP.

Under R307-204, Land Managers are required to submit pre-burn information including the location of any Class I areas within 15 miles of the burn, a map depicting the potential impact of the smoke from the burn on any Class I areas, a description of fuels and acres to be burned, emission reduction techniques to be applied, and monitoring of smoke effects to be conducted. In addition, Land Managers are required to submit a more detailed burn plan that includes, at a minimum, information on the fire prescription or conditions under which a prescribed fire may be ignited.

Under R307-204, prescribed fires requiring a burn plan cannot be ignited and wildland fire used for resource benefits cannot be managed before the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board (AQB) approves or conditionally approves the burn request. The burn approval requirement provides for the scheduling of burns to reduce impacts on visibility

in Class I areas.

After the burn is completed, the Land Manager is required to submit post-burn information to evaluate the effectiveness of the burn and provide a record of acres treated by the burn. The procedures listed above serve as an evaluation of the degree of visibility impairment from smoke from prescribed fires that are conducted on federal, state, and private wildlands.

Information on the types of management alternatives to fire considered by Land Managers are included in programmatic or long-term management plans. These programmatic plans are developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and are reviewed by the Divisi on of Air Quality (UDAQ) on an individual basis. Typically, the Land Manager does not evaluate alternatives to fire once the decision has been made to use fire and the subsequent burn plan developed.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 68 

### b. Agricultural Fire

The WRAP inventory and a survey 38 conducted by Utah State University (USU) Extension indicate that agricultural burning is a very small portion of total emissions in Utah, and also of agricultural burning in the West. See Table 12 10 below. The USU survey results are included in the Utah TSD Supplement.

Table 10. Agricultural Burning Emissions Comparison

Agricultural Burning Emissions Comparison

Numbers were obtained from the Emission Inventories Spreadsheets in the

Technical Support Document provided by the WRAP for Section 309 SIPs.

These spreadsheets are available at www.wrapair.org

. (tons per year)

PMC PM 2.5 SO

x NO

x VOC CO

Utah Agricultural Burning 12 212 10 101 216 2,327

Total Ag Burning in WRAP region 1,125 20,901 1,352 10,094 20,310 216,732

*Total Utah emissions from all sources 63,718 85,347 66,796 269,557 172,231 1,685,503

Utah Ag burning as a % of WRAP Ag Total 1.03% 1. 01% 0.77% 1.00% 1.06% 1.07%

Utah Ag burning as a %

of Utah Total Emissions 0.02% 0.25% 0.02% 0.04% 0.13% 0.14%

*Total Utah emissions were obtained from WRAP spreadsheets by summing Utah's county emissions and then adding total emissi ons due to Wild Fire, Ag Burning and Rx

Fire.

Emissions from agricultural burning are less than 0.25% of total Utah emissions and therefore do not result in significant impacts on visibility in the 16 Class I areas or on regional haze in general. Since agricultural burning emissions are minimal and half of them occur far from the Colorado Plateau, agricultural land managers are currently not subject to the Utah Enhanced Smoke Management Plan.

(1) Decline in Agricultural Burning Since 1996. The USU survey makes clear the decline in agricultural burning--a reduction of 48% statewide--between 1996 and 2002, and documents the reasons for the change. Only 31,999 acres were burned in 2002 out of a total of 8.7 million acres harvested. Of the total acres harvested, only about one million acres is cultivated; the majority of land is rangeland. The survey documents three reasons for the decline in agricultural burning: stubble or residue was sold rather than burned, the stubble or residue was mowed or chopped and worked back into the soil, and livestock were used to graze the stubble or residue. One reason for the change in practices is that the drought that began in 1999 has reduced the available forage for

38 Utah State University Extension, in collaboration with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. Agricultural Burning in Utah and the Regional Haze Rule. Logan, Utah. July 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 69 livestock that normally graze native vegetation, thus making straw more valuable as a feed crop. However, the survey concludes that more stubble and residue was being grazed by livestock or tilled into the soil or baled and sold in 2002 than in 1996.

(2) Emission Reduction Techniques. Of Utah's 29 counties, there are seven in which no burning occurred in 1996 or 2002 and two more in which there was no burning in 2002. The USU survey documents count y-by-county the specific Emission Reduction Techniques commonly in use. Emission reduction techniques are common practice in

seventeen of the counties.

(3) Local Government Control Measures. Finally, more than half (16,600) of the acres burned are in Box Elder County in the northwestern corner of Utah, nearly 100 miles from any Class I area. Box Elder County has an ordinance in place to regulate when, where and how much burning can take place. A copy of the ordinance is in the Utah TSD Supplement.

(4) Program Evaluation. The State of Utah has determined that the appropriate local government controls and voluntary em ission reduction techniques are in place and these efforts meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i).



### 3. Emission Inventory and Tracking System

a. Wildlands Inventory

Under R307-204, Land Managers are required to submit an emissions inventory for particulate matter. A tracking system has been established to record the required inventory information. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii) and R307-204, the emissions inventory and tracking system for fire sources has been revised within the State of Utah to include volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, elemental and organic carbon, and fine particulate.

For consistency, the State of Utah will use the emissions tracking system developed by the WRAP as defined by the WRAP Fire Tracking System Policy

. 39 This policy identifies a process for gathering the essential post-burn activity information necessary to consistently calculate emissions for both man-made or anthropogenic and natural sources of fire and uniformly assess fire impact on regional haze. This policy is the basis for creating a fire emissions inventory for visibility purposes within the State of Utah, using an emission calculation mechanism developed by the WRAP. In addition, fire emission inventory updates will be provided in future progress reports as part of the reasonable progress demonstration specified in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). See the Utah SMP in the Utah TSD Supplement for copies of the tracking forms and further information on the emissions inventory and tracking system in the State of Utah.

39 All WRAP documents cited in Part G are available in the Utah TSD Supplement.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 70 

### b. Agricultural Lands Inventory

To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), the State of Utah will work collaboratively with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation and Utah State University Extension to develop and implement an inventory and emissions tracking system for agricultural burning. The survey conducted in 2003 by the Utah State University Extension, in collaboration with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation, will be used as a baseline for future emissions tracking activities. Since agricultural burning has been documented in Subsection 2.b above to be a very small proportion of total emissions in Utah and a very small proportion of agricultural burning in the West, the emission tracking activities will be conducted on a periodic basis to determine if any significant changes have been made since the 2003 survey. Results from the periodic emission tracking activities will be provided in future progress reports to EPA, as part of the reasonable progress demonstration specified in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).



### 4. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers

During the annual meeting for establishing the Annual Emissions Goal, the UDAQ staffand Land Managers for fire will assess whether administrative barriers to the use of nonburning alternatives exist. If a specific administrative barrier is identified during this annual meeting, UDAQ will investigate how this barrier may be removed, if feasible, and will work collaboratively with the Land Managers to remove the barrier as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii).

An evaluation of the administrative barriers to the use of the non-burning alternatives, if any, will be included in the formal progress report to EPA every five years as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii).

In addition, the State of Utah will use two documents prepared by the WRAP for this effort: (1) Nonburning Alternatives for Vegetation and Fuel Management , and (2) Burning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United States

.



### 5. Enhanced Smoke Management Program

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), all smoke management programs that operate

within Utah are consistent with the WRAP Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility Policy . This policy calls for programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impacts. The Enhanced Smoke Management Plan (ESMP) is found in the Utah TSD Supplement.

The following is a list of the elements of the Utah ESMP and the revisions made to the Utah SMP and R307-204 in order to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv).



### a. Actions to Minimize Fire Emissions

Utah’s ESMP focuses on three general approaches that are designed to minimize emissions from prescribed fire and wildland fire use for resource benefits: use ofSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 71 emission reduction techniques, establishing emission goals, and use of existing burn manager qualification programs.



### b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion

Under the Utah ESMP, the Land Managers will focus on improved weather data for more accurate spot weather forecasts, scheduling of prescribed fires by the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board to minimize cumulative effects of smoke from fires on Class I areas, burner qualification and certification programs, use of the latest modeling programs to assist in the evaluation of dispersion conditions, and use of field level data such as maps showing where smoke is likely to settle.



### c. Alternatives to Fire

Under the Utah ESMP, the types of management alternatives used and the acres treated on an annual basis will be tracked using Land Manager databases that are being developed. Land Managers evaluate and will continue to evaluate the use of alternatives to fire in programmatic or long-term management plans, and the ESMP requires Land Managers to provide a summary of the management alternatives that were used in a given

year.



### d. Public Notification of Burning

Under the Utah ESMP, a one-stop information center will be added to the Utah SMP website to provide a list of upcoming projects as a means to notify the public about prescribed fire or wildland fire projects.



### e. Air Quality Monitoring

Under the Utah ESMP, Land Managers will monitor the effects of prescribed fire and wildland fire on visibility in Class I Areas. At a minimum, visual monitoring and documentation of the direction of the smoke plume will be performed. Under R307-204, the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board may direct Land Managers to operate real-time air quality sampling equipment on large fires that are expected to last more than one day, or fires close to Class I areas. Monitoring of smoke impacts on visibility will lead to improved future operations and a better understanding of smoke accumulation problems and solutions. In addition, the Utah ESMP will provide a detailed description of the monitoring equipment that is available and its location within the region.



### f. Surveillance and Enforcement

The Utah ESMP builds upon the relationship that was established between the Land Managers and the UDAQ for the development of the Utah SMP. A good working relationship between the Land Managers and UDAQ can significantly reduce the need for surveillance and enforcement. UDAQ staff conduct site inspections on prescribed fires that are close to Class I areas to verify compliance with the burn plan on an as-needed basis. Reports are generated when site inspections are conducted.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 72 

### g. Program Evaluation

The UDAQ staff and Land Managers will conduct an annual effectiveness review for the Utah ESMP. A formal progress report will be completed every five years as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii).



### h. Burn Authorization

Under R307-204, since March 2000, Land Managers have been required to submit preburn information including the location of any Class I areas within 15 miles of the burn, a burn plan if requested, a map depicting the potential impact of the smoke from the burn on any Class I areas, and a description of fuels and acres to be burned. Prescribed fire requiring a burn plan cannot be ignited before the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board approves or conditionally approves the burn request. See the Utah SMP in the Utah TSD Supplement for more details on the burn authorization requirements.



### i. Regional Coordination

Coordination of fire projects is imperative to avoid cumulative smoke impacts in Class I areas. The Utah ESMP is designed to provide for information sharing among the Land Managers, UDAQ, and the public within Utah, as well as in neighboring states.



### j. ESMP for Agricultural Burning

The State of Utah has determined that appropriate emission reduction techniques and control measures for agricultural burning are in place in the agricultural community and at the local government level. This satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv).



### 6. Annual Emission Goals

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), efforts will be made within the State of Utah to minimize emission increases in fire, excluding wildfire, to the maximum extent feasible, through the use of annual emission goals, in accordance with the WRAP Annual Emission Goals for Fire Policy . The State of Utah intends to use this policy to quantifythe emission reduction techniques that are being used within the state on a projectspecific basis to reduce the total amount of emissions increases being generated from areas where prescribed fire is being used. The Utah TSD Supplement describes this process in more detail.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 73 

## H. ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS FROM PAVED AND

UNPAVED ROAD DUST

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, in its 1996 report to EPA, 40
believed that dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads are generally near-field transport issues rather than long-range transport issues, especially with respect to larger coarse materials that settle out of the atmosphere before being transported long distances. However, the GCVTC also recommended additional studies would be necessary to verify this assumption since the state of the science the GCVTC relied upon for characterizing the emissions and transport of dusts from roads was limited, and the projected growth of on-road emissions could contribute to regional haze, based on the projected growth of population and vehicle-miles-traveled.

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(7)) requires states to assess the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads on regional haze in the 16 Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau in the first implementation plans due December 2003. The Western Regional Air Partnership analyzed this issue, including efforts to improve methods for estimating road dust emission inventories as applied to regional scale modeling and characterization of the transport and deposition processes. Results of WRAP modeling work have demonstrated road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas on the basis of regional transport. Due to this finding, no additional road dust control strategies are needed in the current SIP.



### 2. State of Utah Long-term Strategy for Road Dust Sources

a. Assessment of Paved and Unpaved Road Dust Emissions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), an assessment was made by the WRAP of the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads from transport region states on the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. A complete description of this assessment is provided in Chapter 7 of the WRAP Technical Support Document. The State of Utah, in consultation with the WRAP, will track emissions and perform further assessments of road dust impacts on visibility in the 16 GCVTC Class I areas in the progress updates and status reports, and will submit implementation plan revisions as needed to make reasonable progress in the SIP amendments due in 2008, 2013, and 2018.

40 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page 46.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 74 

### b. Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7) and the results of the assessment of the impact of road dust emissions described above, the State of Utah, in collaboration with other states through the WRAP, determined that road dust emissions are not a significant contributor to regional haze visibility impairment within the Colorado Plateau 16 Class I areas. Based on these findings, no emission management strategies have been identified at this time. The technical and policy foundation for this determination can be found in Chapter

7 of the WRAP TSD.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 75 

## I. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RENEWABLE

ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Public Advisory Committee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recognized the importance of pollution prevention as a way to minimize per capita emissions that contribute to visibility impairment from regional haze. Thus, in 1996, the GCVTC recommended that one of the goals of states in the transport region "should be to achieve annual additions in order that renewable energy will comprise 10% of regional power needs by 2005 and 20% by 2015. Progress towards this goal should be evaluated every five years, in conjunction w ith regular reviews of emissions reductions and progress toward the national visibility goal." 41

Section 51.309 of the Regional Haze Rule outlines the information that must be included in each state’s first Regional Haze Implementation Plan to address visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas covered by the Commission’s Report. By meeting these requirements, Utah can address visibility in all of its Class I areas. Section 51.309(d)(8) of the Regional Haze Rule specifies the air pollution prevention requirements eligible States must meet and outlines the information each State must include in its Regional Haze Implementation Plan to address the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures to reduce the emissions causing regional haze. Table

13 11 summarizes the information requirements contained in Section 51.309(d)(8).

41 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page 30.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 76 Table 11. Summary of Information Requirement for Pollution Prevention

Citation Information Item Item 1. An initial summary of all air pollution prevention programs currently in place. Item 2. An inventory of all renewable energy capacity and productionin use or planned as of 2002 (expressed in megawatts and megawatthours). Item 3. Total energy generation capacity and production for the state. Item 4. Percent of total energy generation capacity and production that is derived from renewable energy. 309(d)(8)(i)

Item 5. The state’s anticipated contribution toward the 10/20 goals (based on the programs and policies each state relies on to achieve its renewable goals). 309(d)(8)(ii) Item 6. Programs providing incentives to reward efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early compliance with air pollution related requirements. 309(d)(8)(iii) Item 7. Programs to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. 309(d)(8)(iv) Item 8. An identification of specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to supply power where it is now lacking and where renewable energy is most cost-effective. 309(d)(8)(v) Item 9. Projections of the short- and long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with the renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and air pollution prevention activities. 309(d)(8)(vi) Item 10. A description of the programs relied on to achieve the state’s contribution toward the 10/20 goals and a demonstration of the progress made toward achievement of the renewable energy goals in the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. This description must include documentation of the potential for renewable energy resources, the percentage of renewable energy associated with new power generation projects implemented or planned and the renewable energy generation capacity and production.

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) was established in 1997 as the successor organization to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The WRAP was created by western states and tribes to coordinate and oversee the implementation of recommendations made by the GCVTC and to “identify regional or common air management issues, develop and implement strategies to address these issues, and formulate and advance western regional policy positions on air quality.” The WRAP develops policies, strategies and technical tools through an inclusive stakeholder-based process that includes state air agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), tribes, federal and state land management agencies, local government, industry, utilities, environmental groups, academia and other interested parties.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 77 The Air Pollution Prevention Forum (the Forum) was created in September, 1998 by the WRAP’s Initiatives Oversight Committee (IOC) and charged to “recommend legislative actions, economic incentives and regulatory policies states can adopt to meet the 10/20 renewable energy goal and increase the use of energy efficiency technologies in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport region.” St akeholders and regulators from the State of Utah were actively involved in the work of the Forum.

The objective of the Forum and its 25 members has been to provide the states and tribes in the WRAP region with the policy and analytical framework needed to respond to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8). To accomplish this purpose the Forum’s work plan called for the Forum to:

• Examine barriers restricting the penetration of renewable energy, energy efficient technologies, and adoption of energy effici ent practices in the Transport Region;

• Identify and evaluate economic incentives, legislative actions, and regulatory policies that will increase investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, including actions currently underway in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region; and

• Recommend market-based incentives and public policies that will support increased investment in renewable energy within the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region and improve the efficiency of the region’s energy production

and end-use sectors.

The Forum developed recommendations over a three-year period through a stakeholderbased consensus process supported, in part, by nationally recognized renewable energy and energy efficiency experts, including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The Forum and workgroups held more than 11 meetings and workshops to examine barriers and identify policies that would lead to increased investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region. The Forum also commissioned ICF Consulting Group to analyze the potential emissions reductions, energy cost savings, and secondary environmental and economic benefits of meeting the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission’s 10/20 goal and implementing a suite of cost-effective energy efficiency programs and policies the Forum identified as “best practices” for the region.

Following the findings of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Air Pollution Prevention Forum, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) found that energy efficiency and renewable energy can be effective tools to reduce regional haze and can reduce emissions, improve visibility, reduce energy costs and provide secondary environmental and economic benefits to the region. The WRAP also concluded that implementing both renewable energy and energy efficiency program and policy measures together will yield larger emissions benefits than either energy efficiency or renewable energy measures would alone. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made similar presumptions in promulgating Section 309(d)(8) of the Regional Haze Rule.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 78 The inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the State Implementation Plan and estimated emission reductions and impacts from them does not cause such programs and estimates to become mandatory and/or federally enforceable. These programs are voluntary state and local programs that were never intended to be federally enforceable. 42 The WRAP has explicitly expressed its expectation that these programs will be implemented consistent with local economic, regulatory, and political conditions while protecting cultural resources and values. As such, these programs may be modified, changed, expanded, redirected or eliminated and new programs may be adopted and implemented without seeking approval from the federal government. The projected emission reductions are estimates only. It is expected that these programs and their associated emissions impacts will change over time without requiring a SIP revision. Utah will, as required, report its progress toward meeting the regional 10/20 renewable energy goals in the periodic SIP reviews required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).



### 1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs in

Utah

Utah’s pollution prevention programs focus on improving the efficiency of energy usage by end-use consumers and increasing supplies of electrical power generated from renewable sources for Utah customers. Detailed descriptions of them can be found in the Utah TSD Supplement.



### 2. Inventory of Renewable Energy Generation Capacity and

Production in 2002

The State of Utah has based its inventory of existing installed renewable energy generation capacity on publicly available reports published by federal government agencies responsible for gathering energy information and/or licensing power plants. These sources maintain reliable data on larger renewable generating plant capacity and electric energy production. To supplement this information, the Utah Energy Office conducted surveys to estimate the capacity and electric energy production from medium, 25 kW to 10 MW, and small, less than 25 kW, renewable power generation systems installed within Utah that would not have been included in regularly maintained federal energy databases.

The State of Utah generates a substantial amount of power from hydroelectric sources. None of this hydroelectric capacity has been certified to meet the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute criteria that would be necessary for hydroelectric generation to be

42 The GCVTC goal is 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in 2005 and 20 percent in 2015. With respect to the requirements of Section 309(d)(8), achieving the 10/20 goal is not mandatory or “enforceable.” This section of the rule simply establishes an “enforceable” re quirement for States “to assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVT C with respect to renewa ble energy”. To the extent they are not able meet the goal, States are required to provide an explanation of why the goals

cannot be met. See Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, page 35754, July 1, 1999. Regional Haze Regulations Final Rule.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 79 considered “renewable energy” under the definition endorsed by the Air Pollution Prevention Forum of the WRAP. As a consequence no hydroelectric power or capacity has been included in the inventory of existing Utah renewable energy generation. Some existing hydroelectric plants in Utah may be cer tified in the future. If certified, they will be included as contributors toward meeting the regional renewable energy goals in future renewable energy inventories reported in the revisions to the Utah Regional Haze Implementation Plan.

Total renewable power generating capacity in Utah at the end of 2002, excluding all hydroelectric generation, was 42.136 Megawatts. Table 14 12 , prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes renewable energy generation capacity installed within Utah by 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 80 Table 12. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Capacity (Megawatts)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002
Utility Hydro 275 275 275 275
Non-Utility Hydro 10.496 10.496 10.496
Hydro Small Survey 0.037 0.046 0.055 0.059
Total Hydroelectric* 285.533 285.542 285.551 285.555
Geo Blundell (EIA) 26.1 26.1 26.1 26.1

Geo Cove Fort 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7

Total Geothermal 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8
Solar/PV Small Survey 0.013 0.016 0.018 0.018
Solar/PV Medium Survey 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.220

Total Solar/PV 0.233 0.236 0.238 0.238
Wind Small Survey 0.134 0.176 0.220 0.240
Wind Medium Survey 0.033 0.258 0.258 0.258

Total Wind 0.167 0.434 0.478 0.498

MSW Landfill Gas 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Wood and Wood Waste na na na na

Other Waste na na na na Total Renewable Capacity 327.333 327.612 327.667 327.691
Total w/o Hydro 41.800 42.070 42.116 42.136
*No Utah hydroelectric sites are currently certified as lo w-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI).

Sources: "Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, a nd 2000"; "Inventory of Nonutility Electric Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, and 2000"; FERC "Hydroelectric Projects U nder Commission License" and "Hydroelectric Projects Exempted from Licensing Requirements," NREL REPiS; Utah Energy Office Small and Large Renewable Plant Surveys.

Table 15 13 , prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes electric energy production from renewable generation sources in Utah over the past four years. Electric energy production from renewable sources over the last four years averaged 200,995 MWh annually. In 2002, 223,664 MWh of power were generated from renewable sources

located within Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 81 Table 13. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Generation (Megawatt-hours)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Utility and Non-Utility Hydro 1,255,142 746,125 500,203 484,357

Hydro Small Survey Generation* 107 133 159 170

Total Hydroelectric** 1,255,249 746,258 500,362 484,527

Total Geothermal 185,926 186,461 185,989 211,565

Solar/PV Small Survey Generation 23 29 32 32

Solar/PV Medium Survey Generation 385 385 385 385

Total Solar/PV 408 414 417 417

Wind Small Survey Generation 235 308 385 420

Wind Medium Survey Generation 58 452 452 452

Total Wind 293 760 837 872

MSW Landfill Gas 8,169 9,110 1,534 10,810

Wood and Wood Waste na na na na

Other Waste na na na na

Total Renewable Generation 1,450,044 943,003 689,139 708,191

Total w/o Hydro 194,796 196,745 188,778 223,664

*All medium survey hydro plants were included in EIA Utility and Non-Utility Data **No Utah hydroelectric sites are currently certified as lo w-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI)

Sources: EIA, Form EIA-759, "Monthly Power Plant Repor t"; Form EIA-867, "Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report"; Form EIA-860B, "Annual Electric Generator Report - Nonutility "; Form EIA-906 Database, "Monthly Utility Power Plant Data" and "Monthly Nonutility Power Plant Data"; and Utah Energy Office Small and Medium Renewable Plant Surveys



### 3. Inventory of Total Utah Capacity and Production in 2002

Total installed generation capacity within Utah in 2002 was 5,485 MW. Nonhydroelectric renewable energy generation capacity represented 0.77 percent of the total installed capacity. Table 16 14 , prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes the installed generation capacity in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 82 Table 14. Utah Capacity by Source (Electric Power Annual). (Megawatts)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coal 4,705 4,781 4,781 4,781

Petroleum 54 47 47 47

Natural Gas 320 327 327 327

Petroleum/Natural Gas or Other Gas (Combined) 50 2 2 2
Hydroelectric 286 286 286 286

Other Renewable 42 42 42 42

Total 5,456 5,485 5,485 5,485

% Renewable 5.999% 5.973% 5.974% 5.975%
% Non-Hydro Renewable 0.766% 0.767% 0.768% 0.768%

Sources: "Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, and 2000"; "Inventory of Nonutility Electric Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, and 2000"; a nd Utah Energy Office Estimates for Hydroelectric and

Other Renewables.



### 4. Percent of Total Energy Generation Capacity and Production Derived from Renewable Energy

Power plants located in Utah produced 36,496,500 MW-h on average over the past four years. In 2002, Utah generators produced 36,640,000 MW-h of electric energy. Renewable power contributed 0.61 percent of this total. Table 17 15 , prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes electric en ergy production from all generation sources in Utah over the past four years.

Table 15. Utah Net Generation by Source, 1999-2002 (Thousand Megawatt-hours)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coal 34,695 34,477 33,678 34,348

Petroleum 31 57 58 31

Natural Gas 668 1,146 1,454 763
Hydroelectric 1,255 746 500 485

Other Renewable 195 197 189 224

Total 36,844 36,623 35,879 36,640

% Renewable 3.94% 2.57% 1.92% 1.93%

% Non-Hydro

Renewable 0.53% 0.54% 0.53% 0.61%

Sources: Form EIA-906 Database, "Monthly Utility Powe r Plant Data" and "Monthly Nonutility Power Plant Data"; and Utah Energy Office Small a nd Medium Renewable Plant Surveys.

Updated: 04/10/03Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 83 

### 5. Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

Utah has relied on the Air Pollution Prevention Forum’s guidance to interpret this provision. The Air Pollution Prevention Forum determined that the proper metric for measuring progress toward the regional goals is the amount of renewable energy Utahns bring on-line through their programs and incentives to serve indigenous loads. The Air Pollution Prevention Forum chose this metric to foster economic efficiency in the development of renewable energy within the region. The choice of this metric allows states to take credit for renewable energy generated anywhere within the interconnected grid so long as that State relies on the renewable energy facility to serve its loads, one of its renewable energy programs supports the development and/or its consumers are paying for the power output. Table 18 16 prepared by the Utah Energy Office summarizes Utah’s consumption of power from renewable sources compared to all generating sources over the past three years .

Table 16. Utah Consumption of Rene wable Power; 2000-2002 (Gigawatt-hours)

2000 2001 2002 Average

Total Non-Hydro RE Off-Grid/Small-Scale 1.174 1.255 1.290 1.239

Blue Sky 0.673 3.799 7.810 4.094
Other Green Pricing

- - - -

Non-Hydro RE Pcorp 87.533 99.900 112.439 99.957

Non-Hydro RE Non-Pcorp 34.618 33.247 29.681 32.515

Non-Hydro RE Non-Utility 9.110 1.534 10.810 7.151

Total Non-Hydro RE Consumption 133.108 139.734 162.030 144.957

Total Electricty Consumption 23,198.084 23,390.443 23,384.241 23,324.256
% Non-Hydro RE 0.57% 0.60% 0.69% 0.62%

Sources: Utah Small and Medium Renewable Energy Surveys; Form EIA-906 (utility and non-utility) and EIA-826 Databases; Form EIA-759; Form EIA-867; Form EIA- 860B; ScottishPower Environmental Performance Report

2001/2002.



### a. States' Contributions to the Regional Renewable Energy

Generation Goal

Because only five of the nine transport regi on states plan to file state implementation plans under 40 CFR 51.309, it is not possible to allocate shares of the renewable energy generation goals to individual states. Even if an allocation of the goal to individual states were possible, any forecast of program performance would be uncertain. The states submitting implementation plans under Section 309 do not know if the nine-stateSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 84 transport region will achieve the regional goals of 10 percent of electric energy generation from renewable sources by 2003 and 20 percent by 2015.

Although only five states may submit plans under Section 309, efforts by other states in the transport region will contribute to achieving the regional goals. In addition to the efforts expected from the five states pl anning to address regional haze under Section 309, California and Nevada are aggressively pursuing renewable resources.

Nevada has adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring utilities in the state to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2004.

California, representing 48 percent of electricity sales in the nine-state transport region during 2000, recently enacted a more aggressive RPS than its earlier standard. The statutory requirements governing California's expanded RPS are contained in Senate Bill 1078 and Senate Bill 1038, which took effect on January 1, 2003, and are codified in Public Utilities Code (PUC) sections 399.11 through 399.15, and sections 381, 383.5, and

445.

SB 1078 establishes an RPS program that requires retail electricity sellers, such as investor-owned utilities, to increase the renewable content of their electricity deliveries by one percent per year over a baseline level to be determined by the California PUC. Retail sellers must meet a target of 20 percent renewable content in their electricity portfolio by December 31, 2017. SB 1038 revises the structure and funding allocation for the California Energy Commission's Renewable Energy Program, linking payments it makes to new renewable electricity generating facilities to the RPS, with the goal of increasing the amount of renewable generation in California.

The states filing plans under Section 309 will report on regional progress toward the renewable energy goals for the nine-state transport region in their 2008 submittals.



### b. Utah's Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

Utah has relied on the Air Pollution Prevention Forum's guidance to interpret this provision. The Forum determined that the proper metric for measuring progress toward the regional goals is the amount of renewable energy that Utahns bring on line through their programs and incentives to serve indigenous loads. The Forum chose this metric to foster economic efficiency in the development of renewable energy within the region. The choice of this metric allows each state to take credit for renewable energy generated anywhere within the interconnected grid so long as that state relies on the renewable energy facility to serve its loads, one of its renewable energy programs supports the development, and/or its consumers are paying for the power output. Table 1 7 15 prepared by the Utah Energy Office summarizes Utah's consumption of power from renewable sources compared to all generating sources over the past three years.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 85 The Forum estimated that approximately 20 GW or 20,000 MW of new renewable energy generating capacity would need to be added to the interconnected grid by 2018 for the region to meet its goals of producing 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2005 and 20% by 2015. Using information from the Energy Information Administration and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), the Utah Energy Office estimates that Utah’s peak summer electricity demand is about 2.8% of the overall WECC peak summer electricity demand. WECC includes all of the states comprising the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region. If Utah consumers were allocated a portion of the 20,000MW required to meet the regional 10/20 goals based on the proportion of peak summer electricity demand they now represent, Utah would need to contribute 560 MW of new renewable generation capacity toward meeting the goals. Utah estimates that it will contribute about 550 MW of new renewable generating capacity through its various programs to meet the regional goals by 2013. At this time, there is not enough information available to reasonably estimate what additional renewable generating capacity Utah will bring on line to serve indigenous loads from 2013 to 2018. The WRAP’s Air Pollution Prevention Forum and Utah both expect wind power production to provide most of the new capacity. In addition to reporting on its progress toward meeting the regional renewable energy goals, Utah will update and revise its current estimate of its contribution to the goals when it makes its 2008

submittal.



### 6. State of Utah Programs to Encourage Early Compliance

a. Western Backstop SO 2 

### Trading Program Early

Reduction Credits.

As further described in Part E.3.a(1)(c) of the stationary source provisions of this plan,

industrial sources of SO 2 subject to the trading program which, upon verification by the State, reduce emissions to levels below their floor amount prior to the program trigger date shall receive additional emission allowances. Such allowances may be used by the source for compliance purposes or may be sold to other parties, hence providing an incentive for sources to go beyond compliance (i.e., their floor) or to achieve early compliance (i.e., reductions prior to the program trigger date).



### b. Western Backstop SO 2 

### Trading Program Renewable Energy Credits.

As further described in Part E.3.a(1)(c) of the stationary source provisions of this plan, allowances shall be provided to the owners of renewable energy facilities installed since October 1, 2000. Such allowances will hold a market value and therefore provide an incentive for power suppliers to invest in renewable energy facilities with zero or very low air pollutant emissions.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 86 

### 7. Summary of Utah Programs to Expand Energy Conservation

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), Table 19 17 lists programs that are offered in Utah to preserve and expand existing energy conservation efforts. Detailed information about these programs is provided in the Utah TSD Supplement.

Table 17. Programs to Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts

PROGRAM TYPE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS PacifiCorp Integrated Resource Planning – Demand Side Management Utility Integrated Resource Planning UAMPS Integrated Resource Planning – Demand Side Management Low-income Weatherization Program Residential Energy Efficiency Residential Energy Efficiency Program Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Demonstration Program Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Industries of the Future Program

State Buildings Energy Efficiency Program Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency Program Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan Program Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency

Salt Lake Airport Electricity Conservation Program Energy Education in Schools Program Technical Assistance “PowerForward” Program



### 8. Areas Where Power Is Lacking and Renewable Sources Can Supply It

Supplying power from renewable sources where it is now lacking is linked fundamentally to whether or not line extensions are affordable compared to off-grid renewable power applications. Most populated areas of Utah a nd their associated electrical loads are being served from the interconnected transmission and distribution system. There are very limited opportunities to supply power from renewable sources to areas without existing service. Where off-grid power production is appropriate, it probably will be solar generation and will offset on-site diesel generation. In areas without electrical service, the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy generation can only be determined within the context of site-specific resource availability, the conversion technology and its capitalcosts, alternative power generation costs, fuel prices and volatility, proximity to gridconnected distribution lines, the cost of line extensions, and other relevant variables. Utilities’ line extension policies may also encourage or dissuade off-grid renewable power development. In general, small loads located more than 3 miles from the transmission and distribution grid have the highest potential for being served cost effectively by on-site renewable power genera tion. A map of Utah’s transmission system is shown below. It can be compared to the maps depicting Utah’s renewable energySection XX - Regional Haze. Page 87 resource distribution (Figures 12 - 15) to get a rudimentary sense for the areas where renewable power might be used to serve loads that do not have power today.

Figure 5. Utah's Transmission and Distribution Network.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 88 

### 9. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from

Pollution Prevention and EERE Measures

a. Regional Approach to Analyses

The goal of serving 10 percent of “the regional power needs” from renewable generation sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015 is a regional one. The goal was not apportioned to the individual states comprising the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region. Instead, each state has been required to take steps that contribute to achieving an overarching regional outcome. This approach appropriately reflects the nature of the western electricity grid. Load growth in one area of the western electricity system is regularly met by generation additions in another, geographically separated location within the interconnected western system. This fosters economic efficiency and helps to keep electricity rates for retail customers low. While it may be feasible to forecast where load growth is most likely to occur within the western region, it is not realistic to suggest anyone can predict where and when new generation additions from renewable or any other sources might come onto the interconnected system to serve it.

Because they depend largely on how the interconnected electricity system expands and may be developed, the emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with meeting the regional renewable energy goals, preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts and operating pollution prevention programs cannot be rationally tied prospectively to any particular state. Further, these derived benefits are small. The pollution prevention recommendations of the GCVTC were part of an overall strategy for reducing haze causing emissions across the entire geographic region affecting the visibility at Class I areas on the Colorado plateau. All benefits whether environmental or economic were intended to be accrued to the region. Attempting to apportion them to individual states is not reasonable and could be misleading.

The WRAP analyzed the emissions reductions, cost savings, and secondary benefits the Transport Region, all nine states and the tribal lands within them, could expect from implementing the pollution prevention recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The analysis focused on stationary sources, including electricity generation and industrial steam production plants and refineries, smelters and other

facilities that emit SO 2 from processing. The assessment assumed every state would participate to implement the pollution prevention recommendations. Five of the Transport Region states are preparing Regional Haze Implementation Plans under Section 309. Two others, California and Neva da, have adopted aggressive sets of policies including Renewable Portfolio Standards and System Benefits Charges to promote the development of new renewable power plants before 2018. Because these states are all taking steps to achieve the regional 10/20 goal and represent an overwhelming portion of the load within the Transport Region, the assumptions used by WRAP to model emission reductions, cost savings, and secondary benefits should beSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 89 representative. Utah has relied on their analysis 43 to prepare this section of the UtahRegional Haze Implementation Plan. Additional modeling using different or statespecific assumptions seems unlikely to yield any significant, substantive improvement over the projections the WRAP has developed.



### b. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits

from Pollution Prevention and EERE Measures

(1) Modeling Method and Assumptions. The Air Pollution Prevention Forum of the WRAP developed a three-phase analytical framework to assess the potential emissions reductions, cost savings and secondary regional economic impacts of implementing the 10/20 goals and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts within the Transport region. These included: (1) assumptions and scenario development, (2) modeling of the electric, steam and process source sectors, and (3) modeling of the secondary regional economic impacts.

The Air Pollution Prevention Forum developed two types of scenarios to examine the emissions reductions, cost savings and secondary regional economic impacts of meeting the 10/20 goals and preserving and expanding en ergy conservation efforts. The first was

a Business-As-Usual scenario that character ized how the future might unfold with the proposed, “backstop,” regional SO 2 trading program but without any policy measures designed to achieve the 10/20 goals or enhance energy efficiency. The second set of scenarios reflected a future with the regional SO 2 trading program and policy drivers designed to meet the 10/20 goals or preserve and expand energy conservation efforts, or both. Assessments of emissions reductions, cost savings and secondary regional economic impacts were estimated by analyzing the differences between the policy scenarios compared to the Business-As-Usual scenario.

(2) Forecast Power Supply Changes. Achieving the 10/20 goals and implementing the Air Pollution Prevention Forum energy efficiency recommendations will stimulate significant renewable energy capacity additions, 20,000 MW by 2018. Figure 6 summarizes the growth in renewable energy capacity spawned by meeting the 10/20 goals. Figure 7 contrasts the generation mix in 2018 between the Business-As-Usual and 10/20 goal policy scenario.

43 Prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership Air Pollution Prevention Forum. Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/20 Goal s and Energy Efficiency Recommendations. Draft Report of October, 2002;Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 90 Figure 6. Forecast Renewable Energy Capacity Additions to Meet 10/20 Goals.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Wind Geothermal Landfill GasCapacity Additions by 2018 (GW)

Figure 7. Generation Mix in 2018: Business-As-Usual and Meeting 10/20 Goals.

Business as Usual Meeting 10/20 Goals

As illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, wind power dominates the growth in new renewableenergy generation capacity and the increased use of renewable energy displaces new gasfired generation. While these results illustrate only the impact from meeting the 10/20 renewable generation goal, similar impacts occur with increased energy efficiency. The key point illustrated by the projected change in the mix of generation capacity from meeting the 10/20 goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts is that new renewable power generation and energy conservation compete against new conventional capacity additions without significantly affecting existing electricity generating sources.

(3) Emissions Reductions. The analyses completed by the WRAP indicate that meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and implementing the recommendations developed by the Air Pollution PreventionForum as “best practices” to preserve and expand energy conservation can serve as cost31%

0%

37% 4% 8% 14% 6%

29%

0%

26% 4% 7% 14% 6% 14%

Coal

O/G Steam & Turbines

Combined Cycles

Existing Renewables

Cogens

Hydro

Nuclear

New RenewablesSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 91 effective air pollution prevention strategies because they provide emissions reductions at modest costs or with some savings.

The fact that renewable energy capacity additions and energy efficiency are likely to compete against generation from new gas-fired facilities affects the projected emissions reductions from meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and implementing more aggressive energy efficiency programs. As illustrated in Figure 8, the WRAP estimates the potential reduction in NO

x emissions from meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts will likely be between 8,000 tons and 14,000 tons, 1 percent to 2 percent relative to Business-As-Usual. In Figure 8, the bar labeled “10/20 goals” represents NO

x emissions reductions from a scenario in which the 10/20 goal is meet, the one marked “EE” represents NO

x emissions reductions from a scenario in which the Air Pollution Prevention Forum energy efficiency recommendations are implemented and the one labeled “EE + 10/20 goals” represents

NO

x emissions reductions from the policy scenario in which both the 10/20 goal and the energy efficiency recommendations have been fully accomplished.

Figure 8. Potential NO

x Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations.

- 2

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

2005 2010 2015 2018Change in NOxEmission Relative to BAU(Thousands Tons of NOX) 10/20 Goals

EE

EE + 10/20 GoalsSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 92 Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and pursuing energy efficiency aggressively

also leads to reductions in CO 2 emissions through the displacement of new fossil fuel generation. As illustrated in Figure 9, CO 2 emissions reductions in 2018 from meeting the 10/20 goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts have been projected to range between 40 million and 55 million metric tones, 10 percent to 14 percent relative to Business-As-Usual.

Figure 9. Potential CO 2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE.

- 10 20 30 40 50 60

2005 2010 2015 2018Change in CO2Emissions Relative to BAU(Million Metric Tonnes of CO2) 10/20 Goals

EE

EE + 10/20 Goals

The WRAP modeling suggests accomplishing the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts do not reduce SO 2 emissions because the regional SO 2 trading program proposed under the Annex is the controlling factor in reducing SO 2 emissions. Since the trading program creates a monetary value for emissions reductions, any potential for emissions reductions is fully offset by increases in

SO 2 emissions from sources affected by the trading program. In other words, SO 2 emissions in 2013 and 2018 will reflect the emissions caps specified by the Annex. However, meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy

conservation efforts could decrease the cost of the SO 2 trading program by as much as $7 million in 2018, about 10 percent of its projected cost, 44 and could displace 1,200 MW to 1,700 MW of new scrubber capacity by 2018.

(4) Visibility Improvements. Projections of visibility improvements for the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau are provided in Table 25 23 found in Part K. These projections include the combined effects of all measures in this SIP, including air pollution prevention programs. Although emission reductions and visibility improvements from air pollution prevention programs are expected at some level, they were not explicitly calculated because the resolution of

44 Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/ 20 Goals and Energy Efficiency Recommendations , page 36.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 93 the regional air quality modeling system is not currently sufficient to show any significant visibility changes resulting from the marginal nitrogen oxide emission reductions described above for air pollution prevention programs.

(5) Cost Savings and Secondary Regional Economic Impacts. Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and implementing the Air Pollution Prevention Forum efficiency recommendations could be done for a modest production cost increase or with some financial savings. In particular, preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts could yield net, levelized annual production costs 45 savings of $750 million to $1 billion, 4 percent to 7 percent relative to Business-As-Use. These net savings reflect the cost of implementing the energy efficiency recommendations, the avoided investment costs for transmission and distribution system upgrades, and the reductions in electricity and steam production costs resulting from lower electricity demand. Figure 10 compares the production costs estimated for Business-As-Usual and those resulting from taking recommended steps to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts across the transport region.

Figure 10. Annual Levelized Production Costs for Business-As-Usual and Efficiency.

$16.4 $16.7 $17.4

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20

BAU EE EE + 10/20 GoalsAnnual Levelized Production Costs (Billion2001$)

Accomplishing the10/20 renewable energy goal by itself will increase annual levelized production costs modestly. Electricity pr oduction costs could rise between $300 million and $900 million, 2 percent to 5 percent compared to Business-As-Usual. This increase is largely driven by the capital investments in new renewable energy generation capacity and is offset by production cost savings from displaced fossil fuel generation. Figure 11 compares the annual levelized production costs associated with Business-As-Usual and meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal with and without cost and performance improvements that may occur over the planning period.

45 Annual levelized production costs reflect the capital, fuel and operation and maintenance expenditures associated with the production of electricity and industrial steam levelized over the years 2005 – 2022. These modeled production costs do not include the sunk costs (capital cost or carrying charges) of existing units.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 94 Figure 11. Annual Levelized Production Costs for BAU and Meeting the 10/20

Goal.

$17.7 $18.3
$17.4

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20

BAU 10/20 Goals 10/20 Goals with No Cost & Performance ImprovementsAnnual Levelized Production Costs (Billion 2001$)

Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts has little or no impact on the regional economy. Most of the estimated regional impacts are less than one half of one percent. Table 20 18 summarizes the annual average secondary region economic impacts from meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and pursuing energy effi ciency improvements more aggressively.

Table 18. Annual Average (2005-2020) Changes for Key Economic Indicators

Employment Gross Regional Product Personal Disposable Income (Persons) (% Change) (Million 2001$) (% Change) (Million 2001$) (% Change)

10/20 Goals 627 0.00% -312 -0.01% 73 0.00% Energy Efficiency (EE) 8,415 0.02% 450 0.02% 776 0.04%
10/20 Goals + EE 4,097 0.01% -58 0.00% 547 0.03%

The regional economic analysis suggests that meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts may, on average, lead to an increase in economic activity. Over time, there may be small increases in regional economic activity in the early years and a small decline in later years from air pollution prevention programs. The impacts from 2005 to 2015 are largely the result of investments made in new renewable energy generation that increase labor demand and have secondary impacts on output and income. Following the investment and construction boom, the region could see some decline in employment, gross regional product and personal disposable income.

In general, accomplishing the 10/20 renewable energy goal probably will lead to small increases in employment and personal income along with a small decline in grossSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 95 regional product. Preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts within the Transport Region results in small increases in employment, personal disposable income and gross regional product. This is sparked by new energy conservation investments.



### 10. Utah Programs to Meet the Regional Renewable Energy

Goals

a. Summary of Utah Programs

Following the findings of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Air Pollution Prevention Forum, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) found that energy efficiency and renewable energy can be effective tools to reduce regional haze and can reduce emissions, improve visibility, reduce energy costs and provide secondary environmental and economic benefits to the region. The WRAP also concluded that implementing both renewable energy and energy efficiency program and policy measures together will yield larger emissions benefits than either energy efficiency or renewable energy measures al one would yield. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made similar presumptions in promulgating Section 309(d)(8) of the Regional Haze Rule.

The inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the State Implementation Plan and estimated emission reductions and impacts from them does not cause such programs and estimates to become mandatory and/or federally enforceable. These programs are voluntary state and local programs that were never intended to be federally enforceable. 46 The WRAP has explicitly expressed its expectation that these programs will be implemented consistent with local economic, regulatory, and political conditions while protecting cultural resources and values. These programs may be modified, changed, expanded, redirected or eliminated and new programs may be adopted and implemented without seeking approval from the federal government. The projected emission reductions are estimates only. It is expected that these programs and their associated emissions impacts will change over time without requiring a SIP revision. Utah will, as required, report its progress toward meeting the regional 10/20 renewable energy goals in the periodic SIP reviews required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), Table 21 19 lists the programs that the State of Utah will employ to make its contribution toward meeting the regional renewable energy goals of supplying 10 percent of its power needs from renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015.

46 The GCVTC goal is 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in 2005 and 20 percent in 2015. With respect to the requirements of Section 309(d)(8), achieving the 10/20 goal is not mandatory or “enforceable.” This section of the rule simply establishes an “enforceable” re quirement for states “to assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVT C with respect to renewable energy.” To the extent they are not able meet the goal, states are required to provide an explanation of why the goals cannot be met. See 64 FR 35754, July 1, 1999. Regional Haze Regulations Final Rule.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 96 Table 19. Utah Renewable Energy Program Descriptions

PROGRAM TYPE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS PacifiCorp Integrated Resource Planning – Renewable

Additions Utility Integrated Resource Planning UAMPS Integrated Resource Planning Net Metering Utah Net Metering Program Green Pricing PacifiCorp Blue Sky Marketing Program Financial Incentives Renewable Energy Systems Tax Credit Program Supplemental Environmental Project Program Government Endorsed

Green Power

Purchases Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan Program

Technical Assistance Million Solar Roofs Partnership Program



### b. Potential for Renewable Energy Resources

(1) Renewable energy potential and areas where renewable energy can supply

power. The renewable energy resource potential in Utah and its geographic distribution across the state have been characterized succinctly in the Renewable Energy Atlas of the West

. 47
The Atlas was assembled using best available renewable energy resource maps and data. Data and map sources have been scrupulously documented. The Atlas was used as a source for preparing this section. The existing data and maps are useful to policymakers as a tool for planning. They serve their intended function within the context of the Utah Regional Haze Implementation Plan.

The potential to generate power from renewable energy sources reported in this section is based on the total estimated availability of each type of renewable energy source within Utah. The power production potential for each type of renewable resource is an estimate of what could be developed, not an estimate of what will be developed during any future period of time. The estimates are presented to document that Utah has sufficient renewable energy resource potential to meet the regional goals of generating 10% of its power from renewable resources by 2005 and 20% by 2015. In fact, Utah has the potential to generate much more than would be required to simply meet the regional goals. During the periodic SIP reviews re quired under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), an update of information required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) will be incorporated into the Utah Regional Haze Implementation Plan revisions.

47 Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development, and GreenInfo Network with support from the Hewlett Foundation and the Energy Foundation. Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A Guide to the Region’s Resource Potential . Available at www.energyatlas.org

.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 97 (a) Solar energy potential and distribution. The potential to generate power from incident solar radiation in Utah is estimated to be 69,000,000 MWh/yr. Most of this potential is located in the southern and southwestern portions of Utah. Assuming that the systems used to transform Utah's solar energy potential to power operate at a 20 percent capacity factor 48 , there is potential to install approximately 39,400 MW of solar power capacity in Utah. Presently, solar power production costs significantly more than other means for generating power. As a consequence, the vast majority of Utah's solar power potential is not economical to develop for utility system electricity sales at this time. Figure 12 characterizes the distribution and relative potential of the solar energy resource in

Utah.

48 "Capacity factor" is a value used to expre ss the average percentage of full power production capacity achieved or expected over a given period of time. For example, a generating facility that operates at an average of 60% of its normal full cap acity over a measured period has a capacity factor of 0.6 for that period. A capacity factor can apply to an individual generating unit or any collection of generating units. In mathematical terms this can be expressed as:

Installed renewable x capacity factor = renewable power production

capacity for the renewable source

Since the availability of many renewable energy s ources varies throughout the day and from day to day, renewable power generators operate at only a por tion of their full power production capacity. The capacity factors used in this section to convert th e potential power production in Utah from each type of renewable energy source to an estimate of the pot ential installed renewable energy capacity for each type of renewable resource were developed by the Utah Energy Office based on their experience and information reported in professional papers. It was done to permit readers to more easily compare Utah's existing installed capacity and power production with the installed capacity and power production that might be possible in the future from Utah's renewable energy resources.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 98 Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 99 (b) Geothermal energy potential and distribution. Utah is one of the few states to have developed geothermal power plants, 39.8 MW of generation capacity. Utah has substantial, additional, undeveloped geothermal power production potential. The potential to generate power from geothermal sources in Utah is estimated to be 9,000,000 MWh/yr. Assuming that systems used to transform Utah's geothermal energy potential to power operate at a 60 percent capacity factor, there is potential to install approximately 1,700 MW of geothermal generating capacity in Utah. Figure 13 characterizes the distribution and relative potential for producing electricity from geothermal sources in Utah.

Figure 13. Geothermal Energy Potential in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 100 (c) Wind energy potential and distribution. Some areas of Utah have excellent wind energy resources that may be suitable for utility-scale development. The potential to generate power from wind in Utah is estimated to be 23,000,000 MWh/yr. Figure 7 roughly characterizes the distribution and relative potential of the wind energy resource in Utah. The most recent map and estimate of the developable wind resource potential in Utah has been prepared by the Utah Energy Office and the National Renewabl e Energy Laboratory, and is included below as Figure 14. Assuming that systems used to transform Utah's wind energy potential to power operate at a 32 percent capacity factor, there is potential to install approximately 8,200 MW of wind generating capacity in Utah. Most of the wind energy potential in Utah comes from areas with lower power production capability. Wind power developers generally want to build only in the windiest areas to assure their competitiveness in electricity markets. As a consequence, only a fraction of Utah's overall wind potential will be attractive for wind development in the near term.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 101 Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 102 (d) Biomass energy potential and distribution. The potential to generate power from landfill gas and plant and animal wastes in Utah is estimated to be 1,000,000 MWh/yr. Most of this potential is located in the northern and northwestern portions of Utah. Assuming that systems used to transform Utah's biomass energy potential to power operate at an 80% capacity factor, there is potential to install approximately 140 MW of biomass generating capacity in Utah. Figure 15 characterizes the distribution and relative potential for generating power from

biomass in Utah.

Figure 15. Biomass Energy Potential in Utah.

(e) Landfill gas energy potential. The estimated power production potential from landfill gas in Utah that is embedded in the biomass map and energy production projections was derived from the Environmental Protection Agency Landfill Methane Outreach Program database (2001). The detailed landfill gas database for Utah is presented in Table 22 20

.Section XX - Regional Haze.Page103Table 20. Utah Land-fill Gas ResourcesProjectID #LandfillID #LMOPTerritoryLandfill NameLandfill CityLandfillCountyLandfillStateWIP (tons)YearLandfillOpenedLandfillClosureYearLandfill OwnerProject StatusProjectDeveloperUtilization Type(Direct-Use vsElectricity)SpecificUtilizationTypeCapacity(MW)LFG Flowto Project(mmscfd)EmissionReductions(MMTCO2E)1619 1542 3 Salt Lake Valley LF Salt Lake Salt Lake UT 6,700,000 1982 2020Salt Lake ValleySolid WasteManagement Council ConstructionDTEEnergy Direct Boiler 0.2421604 1527 3City of Logan SanitaryLandfill Logan Cache UT 1,400,00019612016 City of Logan Potential Electricity1630 1553 3 Beaver County LF Beaver Beaver UT 107,648 1968 2014 Beaver City Unknown Direct1625 1548 3 Blanding LF Blanding San Juan UT 50,780 1956 1995Blanding City Unknown Direct1617 1540 3Bountiful City SanitaryLFWestBountiful Davis UT 2,171,531 1960 2058 City of Bountiful Unknown Direct1598 1521 3 Brigham City LF Brigham Box Elder UT 693,000 19601995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1606 1529 3 Callao LFJuab UT 1970Unknown Direct1621 1544 3 Carbon County LF Price Carbon UT 280,000 1956 1995Carbon County Unknown Direct1626 1549 3 City of Monticello LF Monticello San Juan UT36,000 1960 1995 Max Dalton Unknown Direct1618 1541 3Davis County SolidWaste ManagementSSD LFLayton Davis UT 1,840,150 1959 2022Wasatch EnergySystemsUnknown Direct1642 1565 3 Duchesne County LF Duchesne Duchesne UT 1984 2044Duchesne & WasatchCounties Unknown Direct180128 2074 3 ECDCEast CarbonUTUnknown1622 1545 3 Emery County LF Castledale Emery UT 212,184 19832024 Emery County Unknown Direct1609 1532 3 Eskdale LFMillard UTUnknown Direct1631 1554 3Garfield County/John'sValley LFGarfield Garfield UT 16,200 1992 2044 Garfield County Unknown Direct1632 1555 3GarfieldCounty/Ticaboo LF Garfield Garfield UT 8,852 1993 2014 Garfield County Unknown Direct1610 1533 3 Garrison LF Garrison Millard UT 660 1986 2094 Millard County Unknown Direct1624 1547 3 Grand County LF Moab Grand UT 76,300 1960 2004Grand County Unknown Direct1623 1546 3 Green River LF Green River Emery UT 79,205 1965 1995Green River City Unknown Direct1599 1522 3 Grouse Creek LFGrouseCreek Box Elder UT 1,760 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1633 1556 3Iron County/ ArmstrongPit LFCedar Iron UT 44,962 1993 2014 Iron County Unknown Direct1635 1558 3Kane County/GlendaleLF GlendaleKaneUT6,56019882094Western Kane CountySSD# 1Unknown Direct1634 1557 3 Kane County/Kanab LFKanab Kane UT 39,680 1981 2044Western Kane CountySSD# 1 Unknown Direct1641 1564 3 Manila City LF Manila Daggett UT 32,120 1974 1995Manila City/DaggettCounty Unknown Direct1611 1534 3 Millard County LF Delta Millard UT 67,650 1986 2034 Millard County Unknown Direct1607 1530 3 Nephi LF Nephi Juab UT 18,300 1987 2044 NephiCity Unknown DirectSection XX - Regional Haze.Page104Table2220. (Continued) Utah Land-fill Gas ResourcesProjectID #LandfillID #LMOPTerritoryLandfill NameLandfill CityLandfillCountyLandfillStateWIP (tons)YearLandfillOpenedLandfillClosureYearLandfill OwnerProjectStatusProjectDeveloperUtilizationType (DirectUse vsElectricity)SpecificUtilizationTypeCapacity(MW)LFG Flowto Project(mmscfd)EmissionReductions(MMTCO2E)1645 1568 3North Utah CountySpecial Service DistrictLFUtah UT 1,707,965 1964 1993Unknown Direct1600 1523 3 Park Valley LF Park Valley Box Elder UT 2,400 19801995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1608 1531 3 Partoun LFJuab UTUnknown Direct1614 1537 3 Payson City LF Payson Utah UT 616,029 1950 2014Payson CityCorporation Unknown Direct1646 1569 3 Provo LFProvo Utah UT 1,131,000 1963 1991 City of Provo Unknown Direct1605 1528 3 Rich County LF Laketown Rich UT 40,688 19812030 Rich County Unknown Direct1627 1550 3San Juan County/BluffLFBluff San Juan UT 1,600 1980 1995 San JuanCounty Unknown Direct1628 1551 3San Juan County/HallsCrossing LFHallsCrossing San Juan UT 9,464 1970 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct1629 1552 3San JuanCounty/Mexican Hat LF Mexican Hat San Juan UT 1,600 19801995 San Juan County Unknown Direct1612 1535 3 Sanpete SLF Coop Spring City Sanpete UT 108,396 19892066 Sanpete SLF Coop Unknown Direct1615 1538 3 Santaquin County LFSantaquin Utah UT 262,080 19001995 Santaquin City Unknown Direct1613 1536 3Sevier County/Sage FlatLF GlenwoodSevierUT70,20019932024SevierCounty Unknown Direct1601 1524 3 Snowville LF Snowville Box Elder UT 8,100 1970 Snowville Town Unknown Direct1616 1539 3South Utah CountySSD/Bayview LF Utah Utah UT 1,100,000 1991 2094South Utah ValleySolid Waste District Unknown Direct1637 1560 3Summit County/ThreeMile Canyon LF Wanship Summit UT 358,896 1986 2026 Summit County Unknown Direct1638 1561 3Tooele Army Depot LF#1Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct1639 1562 3Tooele Army Depot LF#2Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct1620 1543 3 Transjordan LF South Jordan Salt Lake UT 8,622,936 1955 2021 Trans-Jordan Cities Unknown Direct1602 1525 3 Tremonton LF Tremonton Box Elder UT 184,600 1970 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1643 1566 3Uintah County/VernalCity LFVernal Uintah UT 2,773,000 1950 2008Uintah County andVernal City Unknown Direct1636 1559 3Washington CountySolid Waste SSD #1 LF Washington Washington UT 1,292,000 19782067 Washington County Unknown Direct1644 1567 3 Weber County LF Ogden Weber UT 3,500,000 1966 1996Weber County Unknown Direct 0.81640 1563 3 Wendover City LF Wendover Tooele UT 118,260 1970 1996Wendover City Unknown Direct1603 1526 3 Yost LFYost Box Elder UT 800 1980 1995 BoxElder County Unknown Direct105 

## J. OTHER GCVTC RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

The recommendations of the GCVTC are presented throughout the June 1996 final report with varying degrees of specificity. Not all are included in the Regional Haze Rule. However, some of the recommendations were intended as a menu of options, with no expectation that any geographic area would implement all of them. The GCVTC pointed out in its final report that:

“Some of the Commission's recommendations ask the EPA to take specific actions or institute particular programs , in cooperation with the tribes, states and federal agencies as implementing bodies. Other recommendations provide a range of potential policy or strategy options

for consideration by the EPA and implementing entities. As the EPA develops policies and takes actions based on this report, this distinction between "actions" and "options" should be maintained with diligence. That is, recommendations intended as policy options should not become mandated actions or regulatory programs.” [ BOLD emphasis in original.] 49



### 2. Other State of Utah Long-term Strategy Components

a. Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Recommendations.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), Utah has evaluated the “additional” recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to determine if any of these recommendations can be practicably included in this implementation plan. Utah reviewed the GCVTC's 1996 report, Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas , to identify those recommendations that were not incorporated into Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule.



### b. Implementation of Additional Recommendations.

Based on the evaluation made by the State of Utah, no additional measures have been identified as being practicable or necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress. Report to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Public to Satisfy the Requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9) includes a complete list of all additional recommendations and their

status. 50 This report is to be reviewed and updated if necessary in 2008, 2013, and 2018.

49 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page i.

50 Utah Division of Air Quality. Report to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Public to Satisfy the Requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9) . Salt Lake City, Utah. December, 2003.106 

## K. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT

ANTICIPATED FROM LONG-TERM STRATEGY

The Western Regional Air Partnership performed extensive analysis and modeling in order to determine the impact of the regional haze program on visibility at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. This work was performed by several contractors under the direction of various technical and policy forums of the WRAP.

This work began with development of a comprehensive inventory of emissions throughout the region for all categories of sources. In addition, econometric models and new technology profiles were used to project changes in those emissions over time that are expected from implementation of current requirements under the CAA. The WRAP also estimated emission changes resulting from the programs contained in the long-term strategy for regional haze under 40 CFR 51.309.

The emission inventories and projections were used by the WRAP Regional Modeling Center to estimate aerosol concentrations and visibility at each of the 16 Class I areas.WRAP also developed estimates of aerosol concentrations and visibility for the nonGCVTC Class I areas. The WRAP Regional Modeling Center used the Community Multi-scale air Quality (CMAQ) model to estimate aerosol concentrations from the emission inventories and projections.

Emission inventories and modeling results are generated from the technical work conducted by the WRAP, which evaluated the visibility improvements resulting from the application of the regional haze control strategies and programs. The WRAP developed a Technical Support Document (TSD) that contains detailed descriptions of the emissions inventory and projection methods as well as the air quality modeling techniques and results. The following sections contain an overview of the projected changes in emissions and visibility resulting from the implementation of the Regional Haze Rule.



### 1. Effect on Emissions of Long-term Strategy Components

a. Inventory Methodology and Scope

The base WRAP emission inventories used for assessment of visibility included the following pollutants:

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs);

• Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X );

• Carbon Monoxide (CO);

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 );

• Particulate Matter smaller than 10 microns (PM 10 );

• Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ); and

• Ammonia (NH 3 ).107 For visibility modeling, the PM 2.5 emissions inventory was broken into components, or species, representing the key visibility impairing species of interest. This breakdown is necessary since each component has a different effect on visibility. These PM 2.5 species are organic carbon particles (OC), elemental carbon particles (EC), and other fine particles such as soils and dusts. The factors used to allocate PM 2.5 into its components are based on source specific speciation factors. In addition, the coarse material (CM)

fraction of PM 10 (i.e., PM 10 minus PM 2.5 ) was also computed, since coarse particulate matter has a different effect on visibility than fine particulate matter.

The geographic domain for the inventory included the 22 states west of the Mississippi River, and portions of Mexico and Canada. A detailed base year emission inventory was developed for 1996 and included emissions from all of the following categories of

sources:

• Area Sources;

• Stationary Point Sources;

• Mobile Sources (both on-road and non-road);

• Road Dust (from both paved and unpaved road surfaces);

• Fire Emissions (agricultural burning, prescribed fire, and wild fire); and

• Biogenic Sources.

In support of the WRAP Regional Haze air quality modeling efforts after 2003, the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) deve loped annual emissions inventories for the 2002 actual emissions base case, a planning case to represent the 2000-04 regional haze baseline period using averages for key emissions categories, and a 2018 base case of projected emissions determined using factors known at the end of 2005 and 2007 with a final update in 2008. Each of these inventories has undergone a number of revisions throughout the development process with input from UDAQ staff, to arrive at the final versions used for air quality modeling. The WRAP emission inventories developed by the

RMC include:

• The 2002 base case emissions scenario is referred to as “2002 Base Case” or “Base02”. The purpose of the Base02 inventory is to represent the actual conditions in calendar year 2002 with respect to ambient air quality and the associated sources of criteria and particulate matter air pollutants. The Base02 emissions inventories are used to validate the air quality model and associated databases by demonstrating acceptable model performance with respect to replicating observed particulate matter air quality.

• The 2000-04 baseline period planning case emission scenarios are referred to as the “Plan02”series. The purpose of the Plan02 inventories is to represent baseline emission patterns based on average, or “typical”, conditions. This inventory series (cases Plan02 a, b, c) was developed in sequence to diagnose inventory problems and true up the representativeness and accuracy of the emissions for108 planning purposes. This inventory provides a basis for comparison with the future year 2018 projected emissions.

• Three 2018 future-year emission scenarios were developed. These emission inventories are used to represent conditions in 2018 with respect to sources of criteria and particulate matter air pollutants, taking into consideration growth and controls. Modeling results based on this emission inventory are used to define the future year ambient air quality and visibility metrics.

• Base Case (base18b) is a modeling case with estimated emissions growth plus all

controls “on the books” as of December 2004 without BART or the Section 309

SO2 milestone reductions.

• Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case (PRP18) is the modeling case with a refined emissions growth estimate plus all emission controls “on the books” as of May 2007, including presumptive limits or known SO2 BART controls on electric generating units (EGU).

• Final Reasonable Progress Case (FRP18) is a future modeling case with a refined emissions growth estimate plus all emission controls “on the books” as of May 2007, including all BART controls in the WRAP region and limits defined in the Section 309 SO2 milestone “better than BART” program.” The RMC anticipated that FRP 18 modeling will be complete by the third quarter of 2008.

UDAQ staff reviewed the Utah emission i nventory for consistency and provided feedback to WRAP on areas of the inventory that should be improved in the future. UDAQ staff concluded that the 1996 and 2002 i nventories were adequate for regional haze modeling given the uncertainties in a ny emission inventory process. UDAQ staff also reviewed the 2018 emission growth and projection factors used to develop the 2018 inventory and found the projection to be within the range expected from long range economic projections.



### b. Projected Changes in Emissions for Utah and the GCVTC Region

The changes in overall emissions for the State of Utah are summarized in Table 2 3 21 . As shown, emissions of sulfur dioxide are expected to decrease by 33% by 2018 from the 1996 levels. This reduction is due primarily to the long-term strategy for stationary sources of sulfur dioxide described in Part E that will generate a 48 60 % reduction in emissions from stationary sources in the four three states that are participating in the Western Regional Milestones and Backstop Trading Program by 2018 from a 1990 baseline. Also, emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) in the state are expected to decline by 36% and 38%, respectively, due to the implementation of new federal engine standards and fuel standards described in Part F and BART controls for

NO

x and PM 2.5 described in Part D. The emission inventories for VOC and coarse particulate matter (CM) are also shown, but it is difficult to compare the 1996 and 2018 inventories for these pollutants due to significant changes in the methodology for109 estimating emissions from dust, fire, and oil and gas production. Therefore a percent change is not shown for those pollutants.

Table 21. Summary of the Change in Emissions from 1996-2018 for Utah Sources (Thousands of Tons per Year)(Plan 02d – PRP 18a)

N O

x SO 2 PM 2.5 *

1996 172 270 67 85 64

2002 186 227 54 53 98

2018 233 172 45 53 110 % Change (1996- 2018) -36% -33% -38%

*PM 2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts.

Table 2 4 22 shows similar emission reductions for the nine-state GCVTC region, except that regionally, sulfur dioxide emissions will be reduced by 53% by 2018 from 1996

levels. The reason Utah’s reduction of sulfur dioxide is smaller than that in the nine states is that the level of pollution controls on facilities in Utah was generally better than

that in several other states. Emissions of NO

x and PM will decrease in the region by 57% and 31% respectively. The detailed county-level emission inventories for the entire WRAP region are included in the 2003 and 2008 WRAP TSDs.

Table 22. Changes in Emissions from 1996 - 2018 for 9 GCVTC States (Thousands of tons per year)(Plan 02d – PRP 18a)

VOC NO

x SO 2 PM 2.5 * CM
1996 3,325 3,952 1,063 1,197 1,171
2002 2,449 2,241 675 832 1,886
2018 2,760 1,683 503 832 2,104 % Change (1996-2018) -17% -57% -53% -31% 80%

*PM 2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts.110 Figure 16 . Class I Areas in the WRAP Region

The emission reductions in Utah occur throughout the state and will therefore benefit all Class I areas outside of Utah that might be impacted by emissions from Utah. Figure 16 shows the Class I areas in the WRAP region. The Class I areas that are not on the Colorado Plateau are indicated by green dots.

• Northern Utah. The urban area in northern Utah that may impact Class I areas in Idaho, Nevada and Wyoming will have a significant reduction in NOx emissions from mobile sources as described in Section XX.F of this plan. Mobile (on-road and non-road) NOx emissions in the four main urban counties (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah) are projected to decrease by 42,000 tons/yr or 61% between 2002 and 2018. Mobile sources dominate the NOx emission inventory in Utah’s urban area. Class I areas that have some days when nitrates are a significant contributor to visibility impairment, such as Craters of the Moon National Park, will benefit from the NOx emission reductions during those episodes. As can be seen from the following graphs in Figure 17, the contribution to nitrate on the 20% worst111 days from sources in Utah decreases substantially between 2002 and 2018 at Craters of the Moon in Idaho, Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas in Wyoming, and Jarbidge Wilderness Area in Nevada. The contribution to sulfates at the same Class I areas is also shown, but significant at any of the sites.112 Figure 17 . Class I Areas with Contributions from Northern Utah

• Central and Southern Utah. As described in Section XX.D.6 of this plan, two BART-eligible plants in central Utah are projected to decrease SO 2 emissions by Formatted: K e

Formatted: C a113 13,200 tons and NOx emissions by 6,200 tons between 2002 and 2018. Central and Southern Utah are sparsely populated and the inventory is dominated by point sources. The exception is Washington County that is becoming more urban due to the growth of St. George and the inventory is therefore dominated by mobile source emissions. In Washington County, NOx emissions from mobile sources (on-road and non-road) are projected to decrease by 2,300 tons or 57% between

2002 and 2018. These emission reductions will benefit Class I areas in southern Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona that may be affected by emissions from

Utah. The nearby Class I areas that would see the greatest benefit are part of the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. As can be seen in Figure 18, Class I areas that are not on the Colorado Plateau show some benefit, but in general the impact from sources in Utah is not significant at La Garita Wilderness Area and Great Sand Dunes National Monument in Colorado, Bandalier National

Monument in New Mexico and Mazatal and Pine Mountain Wilderness Areas in

Arizona.114115 Figure 18 . Class I Areas with Impacts from Central Utah.

• Eastern Utah. Oil and Gas emissions dominate the inventory in eastern Utah and are increasing between 2002 and 2018. Approximately 90% of current emissions Formatted: K e

Formatted: C a116 from oil and gas development in Uintah and Duchesne Counties in Eastern Utah occur on land that is under the jurisdiction of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Ouray Reservation and is therefore not covered by Utah’s SIP 51

. The Deseret Generation and Transmission, Bonanza Power Plant is also under the jurisdiction

of the Ute Indian Tribe. The inventory compiled by the WRAP does not currently separate out these emissions that are not und er Utah’s jurisdiction. These emissions may affect Class I areas in Northeastern Colorado and the State of Utah expects that this impact will be addressed in the TIP or FIP that is developed for

the Ute Tribe.

51 Phase III Oil and Gas Inventory: Final Report, Development of Baseline 2006 Emissions from Oil and Gas Activity in the Uinta Basin , Environ, March 25, 2009, page

39. Formatted: I n117 Figure 19 . Class I Areas with Impacts from Eastern Utah, including the Ute Indian Reservation that is not covered by Utah’s Regional Haze SIP.



### 2. Projected Changes in Visual Air Quality

a. Applicable Class I Areas

This projection of visibility improvement covers the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(1).



### b. Projected Visibility Improvement

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), Table 25 23 indicates the projected visibility improvement for each of the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau. The table below compares the monitored 2000-04 baseline visibility conditions in deceviews 52 for the 20% Best and 20% Worst days to the projected visibility improvement resulting from the 2018 Base Case (Base 18b) and 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP18) modeling scenarios completed to date.

When SO 2 and NOx controls for all BART sources have been adopted in the WRAP region, and the §309 states re-adopt the SO 2 milestone program, a 2018 Final Reasonable Progress (FRP18) modeling scenario will then be analyzed.

All 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas show a projected visibility improvement for 2018 using the monthly averages on the 20% Worst average visibility days, and no degradation on the 20% Best average visibility days for each monitoring site. The monthly average

52 Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. Its method of calculation is defined in 40 CFR 51.301, and is reprinted in Appendix A. Lower deciview numbers indicat e better visibility, while higher numbers indicate more impaired visibility. Formatted: K e

Formatted: C a

Formatted: I n118 method for projecting visibility improvement is an allowed variation of EPA guidance. 53 The monthly averaging method was chosen because it was the shortest averaging period for making the future visibility projections, while avoiding the use of the EPA specific days method that only assesses improvements on the Worst and Best days observed during one year (2002) of the 2000-04 baseline monitoring period.

The visibility improvement observed in the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas is not as significant as might be expected considering the large emission reductions that are projected to occur in the region. This is because the 20% worst days are dominated by wildfire emissions that temporarily overwhelm all other sources in the region. International emissions and dust storms can also be a major factor on the 20% worst days. These emission sources are not controllable and therefore little improvement is seen during these episodes. The metric required by the regional haze rule focuses on the 20% worst days; thus the visibility benefits on those days when fires and other uncontrollable sources are not dominating the inventory are not as apparent. It is perhaps more revealing to focus on the improvements that will occur on the 20% best days when visibility is already excellent. Visibility is expected to improve on the best days at most of the Colorado Plateau Class I areas (including all five Class I areas in Utah). The emission reductions from stationary sources, mobile sources and controllable fire emissions will provide a benefit every day of the year even though that benefit may not be as obvious when fires are burning in the region.

53 WRAP Technical Analysis Forum, Technical Recommendations on Monitoring Metrics for Regional Haze Planning, 3/23/2007119Table 23. Projected Visibility ImprovementVisibility Impairment in Deciviews*20% Worst Visibility Days20% Best Visibility DaysProjected Visibility(Monthly Average Method)Projected Visibility(Monthly Average Method)Colorado PlateauClass I areasunder §309(d)(2)State2000-04RegionalHaze RuleBaselineMonitoringData2018BaseCase(Base18b)2018PreliminaryReasonableProgress Case(PRP18)2018FinalReasonableProgress Case(FRP18)2000-04RegionalHaze RuleBaselineMonitoringData2018BaseCase(Base18b)2018PreliminaryReasonableProgress Case(PRP18)2018FinalReasonableProgress Case(FRP18)Grand Canyon National Park AZ 11.7 11.4 11.32.2 2.2 2.1Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ 11.9 11.5 11.43.0 2.9 2.8Petrified Forest National Park AZ 13.2 12.9 12.95.0 4.9 4.8Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ 15.3 15.1 15.15.6 5.6 5.6Black Canyon of theGunnison National ParkWildernessCO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9Flat Tops WildernessCO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5Maroon Bells WildernessCO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5Mesa Verde National Park CO 13.0 12.8 12.64.3 4.1 4.0Weminuche WildernessCO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9West Elk WildernessCO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM 10.2 10.0 9.81.5 1.3 1.2Arches National ParkUT 11.2 11.0 10.93.8 3.6 3.5Bryce Canyon National Park UT 11.6 11.3 11.22.8 2.7 2.6Canyonlands National Park UT11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5Capitol Reef National Park UT 10.9 10.6 10.54.1 4.0 3.9Zion National ParkUT 13.2 13.0 13.05.0 4.7 4.7* Data are from:http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx--> Modeling --> Visibility ProjectionsSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 120 

## L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS

1. Periodic Progress Reports fo r Demonstrating Reasonable Progress.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), the State of Utah shall submit to EPA, as a SIP revision, periodic progress reports for the years 2013 and 2018 for the purpose of demonstrating reasonable progress in Class I ar eas within Utah, and Class I areas outside Utah that are affected by emissions from Ut ah. This demonstration may be conducted by the WRAP, with assistance from Utah, and shall address the elements listed under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G), as summarized below:

• Implementation status of 2003 SIP measures;

• Summary of emissions reductions;

• Assessment of most/least impaired days;

• Analysis of emission reductions by pollutant;

• Significant changes in anthropogenic emissions;

• Assessment of 2003 SIP sufficiency; and

• Assessment of visibility monitoring strategy.



### 2. Actions To Be Taken Concurrent with Periodic Progress Reports.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), the State of Utah shall take one of the following actions based upon information contained in each periodic progress report:

• Provide a negative declaration statement to EPA saying that no implementation plan revision is needed if reasonable progress is being made, in accordance with section L.1 above;

• If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from outside the state, Utah shall notify EPA and the other contributing state(s), and initiate efforts through a regional planning process to address the emissions in question. The State of Utah shall identify in the next progress report the outcome of this regional planning effort, including any additional strategies that were developed to address the plan’s deficiencies;

• If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from another country, Utah shall notify EPA and provide information on the impairment being caused by these emissions; or

• If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from within Utah, Utah shall develop additional121 strategies to address the plan deficiencies and revise the implementation plan no later than one year from the date that the progress report was due.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 122 

## M. STATE PLANNING/INTERSTATE COORDINATION

AND TRIBAL IMPLEMENTATION

1. Participation in Regional Planning and Coordination

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the State of Utah has participated in regional planning and coordination with other states in developing its emission reduction strategies under 40 CFR 51.309, related to protecting the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. This participation was through the Western Regi onal Air Partnership (WRAP). Appendix D of this implementation plans illustrates the interstate planning and coordination programs developed by WRAP and the State of Utah’s participation in regional planning and

interstate coordination.



### 2. Applicability to Tribal Lands

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(12), and in accordance with the Tribal Authority Rule, the Tribe whose lands are surrounded by the State of Utah has the option to develop a regional haze TIP for its lands to assure reasonable progress in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. As such, no provision of this chapter of the implementation plan shall be construed as being applicable to tribal lands.



### 3. Interstate Coordination

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), the State of Utah has participated in regional planning and coordination with other states in developing management strategies for emissions from within the State that would contribute to visibility impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area outside of the State. The 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau are excluded from the consultation provisions of 51.308 given the reasonable progress and visibility improvement requirements under Section 309. Consultation participation was conducted through the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). A more detailed description of the goals, objectives, management, and decision-making structure of the WRAP has been included in Appendix D. The following WRAP forums have provided consultation opportunities between states on emission management strategies:

• Economic Analysis Forum

• Stationary Sources Forum

• Emissions Forum

• Technical Analysis Forum

• Fire Emissions Forum

• Sources In and Near Class I Areas Forum

• Air Pollution Prevention Forum123 • Mobile Sources Forum

• Dust Emissions Forum

Opportunities for consultation on emission strategies provided through the WRAP are documented in more detail in Appendix D.

Changes in visibility impairing emissions from sources in the State of Utah are projected to show significant decreases by 2018 from 1996 levels. Based on WRAP modeling projections and current emission inventories, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) are expected to decrease in Utah 36%, 33% and 38% respectively. These reductions are due primarily to the long-term strategy developed in conjunction with western states through the WRAP. Decreases in SO 2 for stationary sources are described in Part E. Emission reductions of NOx and PM 2.5 are due to the implementation of new federal engine standards and fuel standards described in

Part F and BART controls for NO

x and PM 2.5 described in Part D.

# Utah State Implementation Plan

Section XX

Regional Haze



# APPENDICES

Addressing Regional Haze Visibility Protection for the Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309



## Complete Document Available On-line at http://www.airquality.utah.gov/SIP/Regionalhazesip/ regionalhaze.htm

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................... 1 Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.301, in effect on July 1, 2007................. 1 Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.309, in effect on July 1, 2003................. 4 Definitions for the Fire Program........................................................................... 4 5

Definitions for the Western Emi ssion Backstop Trading Program ........................ 5

B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS........................................ 9

C. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT...................................... 19 18 A. Modeling Scenarios .................................................................................. 19 18 Visibility Measuremen ts over the Years........................................................... 20 19

D. WRAP INTERSTATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES........ 23 22Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 1 

## A. DEFINITIONS

Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.301, in effect on July 1, 2007

BART-eligible source means an existing stationary facility as defined in this section.

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant, which is emitted by an existing stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining us eful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.

Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calculated based on the following equation (for the purposes of calculating deciview, the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol measurements):

Deciview haze index = 10 1n

e (b ext /10 Mm -1 ).

Where b ext = the atmospheric light extinction coefficient, expressed in inverse megameters (Mm -1 ).

Existing stationary facility means any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants, including any reconstructed source, which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant. In determining potential to emit, fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, must be counted.

Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers), Kraft pulp mills, Portland cement plants, Primary zinc smelters, Iron and steel mill plants, Primary aluminum ore reduction plants, Primary copper smelters, Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, Petroleum refineries,Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 2 Lime plants, Phosphate rock processing plants, Coke oven batteries, Sulfur recovery plants, Carbon black plants (furnace process), Primary lead smelters, Fuel conversion plants, Sintering plants, Secondary metal production facilities, Chemical process plants, Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels, Taconite ore processing facilities, Glass fiber processing plants, and Charcoal production facilities.

Federal Class I area means any Federal land that is classified or reclassified Class I.

Federal Land Manager means the Secretary of the department with authority over theFederal Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-Campobello International

Park Commission.

Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions which are enforceable by the Administrator under the Clean Air Act including those requirements developed pursuant to parts 60 and 61 of this title, requirements within any applicable State Implementation Plan, and any permit requirements established pursuant to Sec. 52.21 of this chapter or under regulations approved pursuant to part 51, 52, or 60 of this title.

Geographic enhancement for the purpose of §51.308 means a method, procedure, or process to allow a broad regional strategy, such as an emission trading program designed to achieve greater reasonable progress than BART for regional haze, to accommodate BART for reasonably attributable impairment.

Implementation plan means, for the purposes of this part, any State Implementation Plan, Federal Implementation Plan, or Tribal Implementation Plan.

Indian tribe or tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village, which is federally recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians

because of their status as Indians.

In existence means that the owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site construction of the facility or (2) entered into bindingSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 3 agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time.

Least impaired days means the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest amount of visibility impairment.

Major stationary source and major modification mean major stationary source and major modification, respectively, as defined in Sec. 51.166.

Mandatory Class I Federal Area means any area identified in part 81, subpart D of this

title.

Most impaired days means the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amount of visibility impairment.

Natural conditions includes naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration.

Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable. Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary source.

Reasonably attributable means attributable by visual observation or any other technique the State deems appropriate.

Reasonably attributable visibility impairment means visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small number of sources.

Regional haze means visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and

area sources.

State means ``State'' as defined in section 302(d) of the CAA.

Stationary Source means any building, structure, facility, or installation, which emits or may emit any air pollutant.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 4 Visibility impairment means any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under

natural conditions.



### Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.309, in effect on July 1, 2003

16 Class I areas means the following mandatory Class I Federal areas on the Colorado Plateau: Grand Canyon National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park,

and Zion National Park.

Transport Region State means one of the States that is included within the Transport Region addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming).

Commission Report means the report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission entitled ``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas,'' dated June 10,

1996.

Fire means wildfire, wildland fire (including prescribed natural fire), prescribed fire, and agricultural burning conducted and occurring on Federal, State, and private wildlands and

farmlands.

Milestone means the maximum level of annual regional sulfur dioxide emissions for a given year, assessed annually, through the year 2018, consistent with paragraph (d)(4) of

this section.

Continuous decline in total mobile source emissions means that the projected level of emissions from mobile sources of each listed pollutant in 2008, 2013, and 2018, are less than the projected level of emissions from mobile sources of each listed pollutant for the previous period (i.e., 2008 less than 2003; 2013 less than 2008; and 2018 less than 2013).

Base Year means the year for which data for a source included within the program were used by the WRAP to calculate emissions as a starting point for development of the milstone required by paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section.



### Definitions for the Fire Program

Agricultural Fuel or Agricultural Burning means any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives (i.e., managed to achieve resource benefits) on agricultural land.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 5 Alternatives to Fire means non-burning techniques that replace fire and that are used to achieve a particular land management objective, including but not limited to reduction of fuel loading, manipulation of fuels, enhancement of wildlife habitat, and ecosystem restructuring.

Emission Reduction Techniques means techniques for controlling emissions from prescribed fires to minimize the amount of emission output per unit or acre burned.

Fire means wildfire, wildland fire( including prescribed natural fire), prescribed fire, and agricultural burning conducted and occurring on federal, state and private wildlands and

farmlands.

Land Manager means any federal, state, local, or private entity that owns, administers, directs, oversees or controls the use of public or private land, including the application of

fire to the land.

Prescribed fire or prescribed burn means any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives, such as achieving resource benefits.

Wildfire means any unwanted, non-structural fire.

Wildland means an area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for pipelines, power lines, roads, railroads, or other transportation or conveyance facilities.

Wildland Fire means all types of fire occurring in the wildland, except for fire on agricultural land.

Wildland Fire Used for Resource Benefits means naturally ignited wildland fire that is managed to accomplish specific prestated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas.



### Definitions for the Western Emi ssion Backstop Trading Program

Account Certificate of Representation means the completed and signed submission required to designate an Account Representative for a Western Emission Backstop (WEB) source or an Account Representative for a general account.

Account Representative means the individual who is authorized through an Account Certificate of Representation to represent ow ners and operators of the WEB source with regard to matters under the WEB Trading Program or, for a general account, who is authorized through an Account Certificate of Representation to represent the persons having an ownership interest in allowances in the general account with regard to matters concerning the general account.

Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 6 Actual Emissions means total annual SO 2 emissions as reported to the executive secretary in accordance with the requirements R307-250-9 or R307-150, as applicable.

Allocate means to assign allowances to a WEB source in accordance with sections XX.E.3.a. through XX.E.3.e of this plan.

Allowance means the limited authorization under the WEB Trading Program to emit one

ton of SO 2 during a specified control period or any control period thereafter subject to the terms and conditions for use of unused allowances as established by R307-250.

Allowance limitation means the tonnage of SO 2 emissions authorized by the allowances available for compliance deduction for a WEB source for a control period under R307- 250-12(1) on the allowance transfer deadline for that control period.

Allowance Tracking System means the system where allowances under the WEB Trading Program are recorded, held, transferred and deducted.

Allowance Tracking System account means an account in the Allowance Tracking System established for purposes of recording, holding, transferring, and deducting

allowances.

Compliance account means an account established in the Allowance Tracking System under R307-250-8(1) for the purpose of recording allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance limitation.

Control period means the period beginning January 1 of each year and ending on December 31 of the same year, inclusive.

Emissions tracking database means the central database where SO 2 emissions for WEB sources as recorded and reported in accordance with R307-250 are tracked to determine compliance with allowance limitations.

Emission Unit means any part of a stationary source, which emits or has the potential to emit any pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

EPA Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Administrator’s duly authorized representative.

Existing source means a stationary source that commenced operation before the Program Trigger Date.

Floor allocation means the amount of allowances set by the executive secretary in accordance with this Plan that represents the minimum necessary for a source to operate under stringent control assumptions.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 7 General account means an account established in the Allowance Tracking System under R307-250-8 for the purpose of recording allowances held by a person that are not to be used to show compliance with an allowance limitation.

Milestone means the maximum level of stationary source regional sulfur dioxide emissions for each year from 2003 to 2018, established according to the procedures in section XX.E.1 of this plan.

New WEB Source means a WEB source that commenced operation on or after the Program Trigger Date.

New Source Set-aside means a pool of allowances that are available for allocation to new WEB sources and modified WEB sources that have increased capacity in accordance with the provisions of Section E.3.c of this plan.

Opt-in means to choose to participate in the WEB Trading Program by following the procedures in R307-250-4(4) and to comply with the terms and conditions of the R307-

250.

Program Trigger Date means the date that the executive secretary determines that the WEB Trading Program has been triggered in accordance with the provisions of section XX.E.1.b of this plan.

Reducible allocation means the amount of allowances set by the executive secretary in accordance with section XX.E.3.a(2)(i) of this plan that represents, for each source, emissions in excess of the floor allocation that shall be reduced over time as the regional

milestone is decreased.

Renewable Energy Facility means a facility that generates electricity by non

- nuclear and

non

- fossil technologies that re sults in low or no air emissions. The term includes electricity generated by wind energy technologies; solar photovoltaic and solar thermal technologies; geothermal technologies; technologies based on landfill gas and biomass sources, and new low

- impact hy dropower that meets the Low

- Impact Hydropower

Institute criteria. Biomass includes agricultural, food and wood wastes. For the purposes of this Plan, a renewable energy facility does not include pumped storage or biomass from municipal solid waste, black liquor, or treated wood.

Retired source means a WEB source that has received a retired source exemption as provided in R307-250-4(5).

Special Reserve Compliance Account means an account established in the allowance tracking system under R307-250-8(1) for the purpose of recording allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance limitation for emission units that are monitored for sulfur dioxide in accordance with 250-9(1)(b).Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 8 Stationary source means any building, structure, facility or installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Ton means 2000 pounds and, for any control period, any fraction of a ton equaling 1000 pounds or more shall be treated as one ton and any fraction of a ton equaling less than 1000 pounds shall be treated as zero tons.

Tracking System Administrator means the person designated by the executive secretary as the administrator of the WEB Allowance Tracking System and the emission tracking

database.

Tribal Set-Aside means an 8 2 ,500-ton SO 2 WEB allowance allocated to tribes on an

annual basis. The tribes will decide how to distribute the allowances in the set-aside among tribes in the region. The set-side is intended to ensure equitable treatment for tribal economies and to prevent barriers to economic development.

Trigger refers to the activation of the WEB Trading Program for SO 2 in accordance with section XX.E.1 of this plan.

WEB source means a stationary source that meets the applicability requirements of

R307-250-4

WEB Trading Program refers to the Western Backstop (WEB) Trading Program Rule, R307-250, that shall be triggered as a backstop in accordance the provisions in section XX.E.1 of this plan to ensure that regional SO 2 emissions are reduced.

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) means the collaborative effort of tribal governments, state governments, and federal agencies to promote and monitor implementation of recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission authorized under Section 169B(f) of the Clean Air Act, and to address other common Western regional air quality issues.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 9 

## B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS

Protocol WEB-1 : SO 2 Monitoring of Fuel Gas Combustion Devices

1. Applicability

(a) The provisions of this protocol are applicable to fuel gas combustion devices at petroleum refineries.

(b) Fuel gas combustion devices include boilers, process heaters, and flares used to burn fuel gas generated at a petroleum refinery.

(c) Fuel gas means any gas which is generated and combusted at a petroleum refinery. Fuel gas does not include(1) natural gas, unless combined with other gases generated at a petroleum refinery, (2) gases generated by a catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator, (3) gases generated by fluid coking burners, (4) gases combusted to produce sulfur or sulfuric acid, or (5) process upset gases generated due to startup, shutdown, or

malfunctions.

2. Monitoring Requirements

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section 2, fuel gas combustion devices shall use a continuous fuel gas monitoring system (CFGMS) to determine the total sulfur content (reported as H 2 S) of the fuel gas mixture prior to combustion, and continuous fuel flow meters to determine the amount of fuel gas burned.

(1) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored for sulfur content at one location, if monitoring at that location is representative of the sulfur content of the fuel gas being burned in any fuel gas combustion device.

(2) The CFGMS shall meet the performance requirements in Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60, and the following:

(i) Continuously monitor and record the concentration by volume of total sulfur compounds in the gaseous fuel reported as ppmv H 2 S.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 10 (ii) Have the span value set so that the majority of readings fall between 10 and 95% of the range.

(iii) Record negative values of zero drift.

(iv) Calibration drift shall be  5.0% of the span, for initial certification and daily calibration error tests.

(v) Methods 15A, 16, or approved alternatives for total sulfur, are the reference methods for the relative accuracy test. The relative accuracy test shall include a bias test in accordance with paragraph 4.(c) of this section.

(3) All continuous fuel flow meters shall comply with the provisions of section 2.1.5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

(4) The hourly mass SO 2 emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated using the following equation:

E t = ( C S )( Q t )( K )

where: E t = Total SO 2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable fuel gas combustion devices

C

S = Sulfur content of the fuel gas as H 2 S(ppmv) Q t = Fuel gas flow rate to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices (scf/hr)

K

= 1.660 x 10 -7 (lb/scf)/ppmv

(b) In place of a CFGMS in paragraph (a) of this Section 2, fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored

with an SO 2 CEMS, a flow CEMS, and (if necessary) a moisture monitoring system at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is representative of the SO 2 emission rate (lb SO 2 /scf fuel gas burned) of all applicable fuel gas combustion devices. Continuous fuel flow meters shall be used in accordance with paragraph (a), and the fuel gas combustion device monitored by a CEMS shall have separate fuel metering.

(1) Each CEMS for SO 2 , flow, and (if applicable) moisture, shall comply with the operating requirements, performance specifications, and quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part

75.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 11 (2) All continuous fuel flow meters shall comply with the provisions of section 2.1.5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

(3) The SO 2 hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be determined by the ratio of the amount of fuel gas burned by the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device to the total fuel gas burned by all applicable fuel gas combustion devices using the following equation:

E t

= (E

m ) ( Q t )/( Q

m )

where: E t = Total SO 2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable fuel gas combustion devices

E

m = SO 2 emissions in lb/hr from the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device, calculated using Equation F-1 or (if applicable) F-2 in Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 75 Q t = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices Q

m = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device

(c) In place of a CFGMS in paragraph (a) of this section, fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored with an SO 2 - diluent CEMS at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is representative of the SO 2 emission rate (lb SO 2 /mmBtu) of all applicable fuel gas combustion devices. If this option is selected, the owner or operator shall conduct fuel gas sampling and analysis for gross calorific value (GCV), and shall use continuous fuel flow metering in accordance with paragraph (a) of this Section 2, with separate fuel metering for the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device.

(1) Each SO 2 -diluent CEMS shall comply with the applicable provisions for SO 2 monitors and diluent monitors in 40 CFR Part 75, and shall use the procedures in section 3 of Appendix F to Part 75 for determining SO 2 emission rate (lb/mmBtu) by substituting

the term SO 2 for NO

x in that section, and using a K factor of

1.660 x 10 -7 (lb/scf)/ppmv instead of the NO

x K factor. (2) All continuous fuel flow meters and fuel gas sampling and analysis for GCV to determine the heat input rate from the fuel gas shall comply with the applicable provisions in sections 2.1.5 and 2.3.4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

(3) The SO 2 hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated by using the following equation:Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 12 E t

= (E

m ) ( Q t ) (GCV) /10 6

where:

E t

= Total hourly SO 2 mass emissions in lb/hr from the applicable fuel gas combustion devices

E

m = SO 2 emission rate in lb/mmBtu from the CEMS - monitored fuel gas combustion device Q t = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices

GCV = Fuel Gross Calorific Value (Btu/scf)

10 6 = Conversion from Btu to

million Btu

(d) Calculate total SO 2 mass emissions for each calendar quarter and each calendar year based on the emissions in lb/hr and Equations F-3 and F-4 in Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix F.

3. Certification/Recertification Requirements

All monitoring systems are subject to initial certification and recertification testing as follows:

(a) The owner or operator shall comply with the initial testing and calibration requirements in Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 and paragraph 2 (a)(2) of this section for each CFGMS.

(b) Each CEMS for SO 2 and flow or each SO 2 -diluent CEMS shall comply with the testing and calibration requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 75, section 75.20 and Appendices A and B, except that each SO 2 -diluent CEMS shall meet the relative accuracy requirements for a NO

x -diluent CEMS (lb/mmBtu).

(c) A continuous fuel flow meter shall comply with the certification and quality-assurance requirements in sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 to Appendix D

to 40 CFR Part 75. 4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Requirements

(a) A quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan shall be developed and implemented for each CEMS for SO 2 and flow or the SO 2 -diluent CEMS in compliance with sections 1, 1.1, and 1.2 of Appendix B to Part 75.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 13 (b) A QA/QC plan shall be developed and implemented for each continuous fuel flow meter and fuel sampling and analysis in compliance with sections 1, 1.1, and 1.3 of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75.

(c) A QA/QC plan shall be developed and implemented for each CFGMS in compliance with sections 1 and 1.1 of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75, and the following:

(i) Perform a daily calibration error test of each CFGMS at two gas concentrations, one low level and one high level. Calculate the calibration error as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the error is greater than 5.0% of the span value.

(ii) In addition to the daily calibration error test, an additional calibration error test shall be performed whenever a daily calibration error test is failed, whenever a monitoring system is returned to service following repairs or corrective actions that may affect the monitor measurements, or after making manual calibration adjustments.

(iii) Perform a linearity test once every operating quarter. Calculate the linearity as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the linearity error is greater than 5.0 percent of a reference value, and the absolute value of the difference between average monitor response values and a reference value is greater than 5.0 ppm.

(iv) Perform a relative accuracy test audit once every four operating quarters. Calculate the relative accuracy as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the relative accuracy is greater than 20.0% of the mean value of the

reference method measurements.

(v) Using the results of the relative accuracy test audit, conduct a bias test in accordance with Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, and calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor if required.

5. Missing Data Procedures

(a) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an SO 2 CEMS or flow CEMS specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the requirements in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 14 (b) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an SO 2 - diluent CEMS specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data on a rate basis (lb/mmBtu) in accordance with the requirements for SO 2 monitors in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.

(c) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by a continuous fuel flow meter or for fuel gas GCV sampling and analysis specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with missing data requirements in Appendix D to 40 CFR Part

75.

(d) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by the CFGMS specified in this section, hourly missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the missing data requirements for units performing hourly gaseous fuel sulfur sampling in section 2.4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

6. Monitoring Plan and Reporting Requirements

In addition to the general monitoring plan and reporting requirements of Section I of this Rule, the owner or operator shall meet the following additional requirements:

(a) The monitoring plan shall identify each group of units that are monitored by a single monitoring system under this Protocol WEB-1, and the plan shall designate an identifier for the group of units for emissions reporting purposes. For purpose of submitting emissions reports, no apportionment of emissions to the individual units within the group is required.

(b) If the provisions of paragraphs 2.(b) or (c) are used, provide documentation and an explanation to demonstrate that the SO 2 emissionrate from the monitored unit is representative of the rate from nonmonitored units.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 15 

### Protocol WEB-2 : Predictive Flow Monitoring Systems for Kilns with Positive

Pressure Fabric Filter

1. Applicability

The provisions of this protocol are applicable to cement kilns or lime kilns that (1) are controlled by a positive pressure fabric filter, (2) combust only a single fuel, no fuel blends, and (3) have operating conditions upstream of the fabric filter that the WEB source documents would reasonably prevent reliable flow monitor measurements. This protocol does not modify the SO 2 monitoring requirements in

section I of this Rule.

2. Monitoring Requirements

(a) A cement or lime kiln with a positive pressure fabric filter shall use a predictive flow monitoring system (PFMS) to determine the hourly kiln exhaust gas flow.

(b) A PFMS is the total equipment necessary for the determination of exhaust gas flow using process or control device operating parameter measurements and a conversion equation, a graph, or computer program to produce results in cubic feet per hour.

(c) The PFMS shall meet the following performance specifications:

(1) Sensors readings and conversion of sensor data to flow in cubic feet per hour must be automated.

(2) The PFMS must allow for the automatic or manual determination of failed monitors. At a minimum a daily determination must be performed.

(3) The PFMS shall have provisions to check the calibration error of each parameter that is individually measured. The owner or operator shall propose appropriate performance specifications in the initial monitoring plan for all parameters used in the PFMS comparable to the degree of accuracy required for other monitoring systems used to comply with this Rule. The parameters shall be tested at two levels, low: 0 to 20% of full scale, and high: 50 to 100% of full scale. The reference value need not be

certified.

(4) The relative accuracy of the PFMS must be < 10.0% of the reference method average value, and include a bias test in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of this section.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 16 3. Certification Requirements

The PFMS is subject to initial certification testing as follows:

(a) Demonstrate the ability of the PFMS to identify automatically or manually a

failed monitor.

(b) Provide evidence of calibration testing of all monitoring equipment. Any tests conducted within the previous 12 months of operation that are consistent with the QA/QC plan for the PFMS are acceptable for initial certification

purposes.

(c) Perform an initial relative accuracy test over the normal range of operating conditions of the kiln. Using the results of the relative accuracy test audit, conduct a bias test in accordance with Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, and calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor if required.

4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Requirements

A QA/QC plan shall be developed and implemented for each PFMS in compliance with sections 1 and 1.1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 75, and the following:

(a) Perform a daily monitor failure check.

(b) Perform calibration tests of all monitors for each parameter included in the PFMS. At a minimum, calibrations shall be conducted prior to each relative accuracy test audit.

(c) Perform a relative accuracy test audit and accompanying bias test once every four operating quarters. Calculate the relative accuracy (and bias adjustment factor) as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the flow relative accuracy is greater than 10.0% of the mean

value of the reference method.

5. Missing Data

For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by the PFMS specified in this section, hourly missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the flow monitor missing data requirements for non-load based units in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.

6. Monitoring Plan Requirements

In addition to the general monitoring plan requirements of Section I of this Rule, the owner or operator shall meet the following additional requirements:Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 17 (a) The monitoring plan shall document the reasons why stack flow measurements upstream of the fabric filter are unlikely to provide reliable flow

measurements over time.

(b) The initial monitoring plan shall explain the relationship of the proposed parameters and stack flow, and discuss other parameters considered and the reasons for not using those parameters in the PFMS. The [state or tribe] may require that the subsequent monitoring plan include additional explanation and documentation for the reasonableness of the proposed PFMS.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 18 

## C. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT

A. Modeling Scenarios

Improvement in visibility for the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas was modeled for two scenarios, the results of which are shown in Tables 22 and 23 in Part K of this

SIP.

Control Strategies

The WRAP modeled two control scenarios for 2018, with and without optimal smoke management. The results are found in the WRAP TSD. Scenario 1 is designed to assess the effect of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recommended control strategies, comparing the 1996 modeled base case to the visibility improvement resulting from the implementation of the following GCVTC strategies: the sulfur dioxide Annex Milestones, the regional pollution prevention program, maintenance of existing base smoke management programs, and accounting for the 2018 base case emissions (known and adopted federal, tribal, state, and local control programs in the contiguous WRAP region). Visibility changes resulting from regional implementation of state pollution prevention programs were modeled by the Regional Modeling Center, as part of the other Section 309 control strategies. Visibility changes resulting from implementation of pollution pr evention programs by individual states or tribes were not modeled. Emissions changes from state or tribal pollution prevention programs, and the resulting visibility changes are small, based on the regional pollution prevention emissions analysis, but are accounted for in the regional modeling.

Scenario 2 is designed to assess the effect of the implementation of enhanced smoke management programs, as reflected in the WRAP Fire Emissions Joint Forum’s 2018 optimal smoke management inventory. Enhanced smoke management programs were recommended by GCVTC and are required in Section 309(d)(6) of the Regional Haze Rule. This scenario uses the emissions inventories from Scenario 1, except the optimal smoke management inventory was substituted for fire emissions. Thus, the results for Scenario 2 are a comparison of visibility changes resulting from emission reductions between the 2018 baseline smoke management and 2018 optimal smoke management fire

inventories.

Modeling results projecting visibility improvement in 2018

Visibility at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau was estimated for the 2018 Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 control strategies. Tables 22 and 23 display the improvements in visibility from the 2018 base case (i.e., without the strategies included in this Plan) to the 2018 controlled case with all the strategies included in this Plan. In all cases, visibility is expected to be better with this Plan than without it.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 19 Visibility estimates for Scenarios 1 and 2 are found in the WRAP Technical Support Document, Chapter 2. A comparison of the visibility estimates for 2018 Scenarios 1 and 2 at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau for the worst 20% and best 20% days reveals that 2018 Scenario 2 always estimated improved visibility as compared to 2018 Scenario 1. That is, the optimal smoke management programs produces visibility improvements over the base smoke management programs across all 16 Class I areas for both the worst 20% and best 20% days.



### Visibility Measurements over the Years

The National Park Service conducted visibility monitoring at Utah's parks for many years, but the data is not comparable because improvements in equipment have been made. The only modern data available for a lengthy period is from Bryce and Canyonlands since 1988. IMROVE monitors were installed at Zion and Capitol Reef in 2001, though the Zion monitor was moved to a more appropriate site in the spring of 2003. There is too little data available from those monitors to draw any conclusions about trends in visibility or the sources of visibility impairment.

Displayed below are charts summarizing more than a decade of data from IMPROVE monitors at Bryce and Canyonlands National Parks. Projections of visibility for 2018

have been added.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 20 Figure1 Appendix. Contributions to Li ght Extinction at Bryce Canyon

Contributions to Calculated Annual Aerosol Light Extinction Bryce Canyon

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
YearAerosol Light Extinction (1/Mm)

Sulfate Nitrate Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Crustal Material

Sources: 1988-2001 data from IMPROVE Web site.

The only trend apparent in this chart is the small decline in sulfates over the period. Larger amounts of organic and elemental carbon in 1996 and 2001 are probably

attributable to fires.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 21 Figure 2 Appendix. Contributions to Light Extinction at Canyonlands

Contributions to Calculated Annual Aerosol Light Extinction Canyonlands

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

YearAerosol Light Extinction (1/Mm)

Sulfate Nitrate Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Crustal Material

Sources: 1988-2001 data from IMPROVE Web site.

Again, the chart shows a decline in sulfates over the period and a possible small increase

in nitrates.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 22 

## D. WRAP INTERSTATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING

ACTIVITIES

A. Overview of Western Regional Air Partnership

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is the regional planning organization for the development of regional haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in the west. The following overview was drawn from a fact sheet prepared by the WRAP and can be found at www.wrapair.org.



### What is the Western Regional Air Partnership--the WRAP?

The WRAP is a voluntary organization of wester n states, tribes and federal agencies. It was formed in 1997 as the successor to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, which made over 70 recommendations in June 1996 for improving visibility in 16 national parks and wilderness areas on the Colorado Plateau. The Partnership promotes, supports and monitors the implementation of those recommendations throughout the West. The WRAP is also implementing regional planning processes to improve visibility in all Western Class I areas by providing the technical and policy tools needed by states and tribes to implement the federal regional haze rule. The WRAP is administered jointly by the Western Governors' Association (WGA) and the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). The WRAP recognizes that residents have the most to gain from improved visibility and that many solutions are best implemented at the local, state, tribal or regional level with public participation.



### Who belongs to the WRAP?

The WRAP is made up of western states, tribes and federal agencies. The states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Ida ho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal board members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. Representatives of other tribes participate on WRAP forums and committees. Participation is encouraged throughout the Western states and tribes. Federal participants are the Department of the Interior (National Park Service and Fish & Wildlife Service,) the Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency.



### How does the WRAP make decisions?

The WRAP’s committees and forums seek consensus among the governmental partners and stakeholders including large and small businesses, academia, environmental groups and other public interest representatives. Scientific findings and policy options are presented to policy makers and the public for appropriate discussion and response. TheSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 23 WRAP is committed to bringing together all those who may contribute to or be affected by poor air quality. Findings and policy options go before the WRAP Board.



### How is the WRAP funded and Who does the work?

The Western Governors’ Association in Denver and the National Tribal Environmental Council in Albuquerque receive funding from the U.S. EPA to administer and support the WRAP and its committees and forums. The majority of the work is done by individuals serving on the WRAP committees and forums, with assistance from staff and outside contractors. Work plans are prepared by the WRAP forums and work products are reviewed by the forums and the co-directors. The WRAP recognizes the great contribution from organizations and indivi duals who contribute often un-reimbursed time

and effort to committee and forum work.



### How can individuals and organizations be involved in the WRAP’s

work and decisions?

The WRAP’s success depends on the participation of concerned and informed participants who devote time and energy to this endeavor. Committees and forums are continuously accepting applications for a number of appointments. See our Web site, www.wrapair.org if you are interested in getting involved.



### B. WRAP Committees and Forums

The following overview of the current WRAP committees and forums was drawn from a fact sheets prepared by the WRAP and can be found at www.wrapair.org

.



### Initiatives Oversight Committee

The Initiatives Oversight Committee is responsible for establishing and overseeing the work of forums that develop policies and programs to improve and protect our air quality.

IOC forums are:

The Air Pollution Prevention Forum (AP2) The Air Pollution Prevention Forum is tasked with developing energy conservation initiatives and programs to expand the use of renewable energy sources. They are working to find, and encourage use of, energy sources that minimize air pollution.

The Economic Analysis Forum (EAF) This Forum assists with studies to evaluate the economic effects of air quality programs being developed by the WRAP to diminish haze throughout the West.

Sources In and Near Class 1 Areas Forum (Class 1) This Forum is looking at pollution sources in and near federally mandated Class 1Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 24 areas to determine their impact on visibility in those areas. The group also will address mitigation and outreach options.

The Mobile Sources Forum (MSF) This Forum addresses the impact of motor vehicles and other mobile sources of pollution. For example, the Forum developed a plan presented to the WRAP, suggesting a revision of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules regarding the production of low-sulfur fuel by small refineries. The Forum also

recommended reforms for off-road emissions and diesel fuel.



### Technical Oversight Committee (TOC)

The Technical Oversight Committee’s tasks are to identify and manage technical issues and to establish and oversee the work of forums and work groups that are developing and analyzing, scientific information related to air quality planning in the West. TOC forums and work groups include:

The Air Quality Modeling Forum (AQMF) This Forum identifies, evaluates the performance of, and applies mathematical air quality models, which can be used to quantify the benefits of various air quality programs for reducing haze in the western United States.

The Ambient Monitoring and Reporting Forum (AMRF) This Forum oversees the collection, use, and reporting of ambient air quality and meteorological monitoring data as needed to further the WRAP’s overall goals.

The Emissions Forum (EF) This Forum is developing the first comprehensive inventory of haze-causing air emissions in the West, including a comprehensive emissions tracking and forecasting system. The forum also monitors trends in actual emissions and forecasts emissions reductions anticipated from current regulations and alternative control strategies.

Attribution of Haze Work Group (AoH) This Work Group is preparing guidance for states and tribes regarding both the types of pollution emitters and the regions in which pollutants contribute to visibility impairment in national parks and other Class 1 wilderness areas. Three state and three tribal representatives form the work group along with all members of the Technical Oversight Committee and one representative each from the Initiatives Oversight Committee, the technical and joint forums and the Tribal Data Development Work Group.

The Tribal Data Development Work Group (TDDWG) This Work Group is identifying gaps in air quality data for tribal lands and working with tribes to collect that data. While some tribes have adequate staff andSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 25 equipment for such an undertaking, many lack the manpower and technical resources to accomplish the work on their own. This Work Group is providing help by both enhancing the tribes’ ability to collect the necessary data and establishing an organized way to standardize and catalogue the information for subsequent analysis.



### Joint Technical and Policy Forums

Joint Forums address both technical issues and policy. Both the TOC and the IOC have oversight.

The Dust Emissions Joint Forum (DEJF) This Forum is seeking first to improve the methods for estimating dust emissions and their inputs in air quality models. The Forum also is examining the extent of dust impacts and strategies to reduce dust emissions.

The Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) The Grand Canyon Commission confirmed that forest fires contribute significantly to visibility problems and that the use of prescribed fire is expected to increase as a forest management tool. The Fire Emissions Joint Forum is developing measures to reduce the effects of prescribed fires and is examining emissions from all kinds of fire, whether ignited naturally or by humans. The Forum is considering public health and nuisance effects as well as visibility impacts. It will develop a tracking system for fire emissions and management techniques to minimize emissions. This Forum is working to coordinate with and gain the full cooperation of federal, tribal, state, and local agencies as well as private landowners, forest managers, and the agriculture community.

The Stationary Sources Joint Forum (SSJF) The Stationary Sources Joint Forum, formerly the Market Trading Forum

, developed the details of an emissions trading program to achieve cost-effective

reductions from industrial sources of sulfur dioxide. The Forum first set emission milestones for sulfur dioxide between now and 2018 and then designed a trading program to be triggered if these emission targets are exceeded. The Forum is now examining other industrial source emissions, such as oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, and is assisting WRAP members in compliance with the stationary source provisions of the regional haze rule.



### Other Committees/Forums

Air Managers’ Committee (AMC) This Committee provides a venue for tribal and state air managers to deal with regulatory issues they face related to the WRAP process. The group, joined by air managers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and federal landSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 26 management agencies, also aids communication linkages between the air managers and the other technical and policy forums.

Communications Committee The Communications Committee facilitates the exchange of information among the WRAP Committees and Forums. The Committee also is charged with developing materials to help the general public understand the WRAP process and participate in its decision-making. A primary means of communication is through

this Web site.

Planning Group This group helps to provide coordination among the IOC, TOC, Air Managers Committee, and Communications Committee, whose co-chairs sit on the group. Among its duties are: administrative oversight and budget coordination as well as coordination to prevent duplication among forums.

*All of the above groups are formally recognized by the WRAP. Additional ad-hoc, taskspecific work groups may be formed within a forum or a committee to work on shorterterm assignments.



### C. Utah’s Participation in the Regional Process

Utah has been an active participant in interstate coordination and planning initiatives to address visibility impairment and regional haze. The following is a brief summary of the committees and forums where Utah was an active member, and in many cases was co-chair of the committee or forum. Further information regarding the hundreds of meetings and conference calls that have occurred over the last 10 years can be found on the WRAP webpage at www.wrapair.org.

1991 – 1996 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

1997 – 2003 Western Regional Air Partnership, Annex and 2003 SIP Development

1. WRAP Co-Chair 2. Initiatives Oversight Committee Co-Chair 3. Market Trading Forum Co-Chair

4. Pollution Prevention Forum Co-Chair 5. Air Managers Committee member

6. Communications Committee member

7. Dust Emissions Joint Forum member

8. Emissions Forum member

9. Fire Emissions Joint Forum member 10. Air Monitoring and Reporting Forum member 11. Air Quality Modeling Forum memberSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 27 12. Utah provided data and reviewed materials prepared by the remaining WRAP forums and workgroups where Utah did not have direct representation and

used those materials in Utah’s 2003 SIP.

2004 – 2008 Western Regional Air Partnership, 2008 SIP Development

1. 309 Coordinating Committee member

2. Air Managers Committee member

3. Implementation Work Group member

4. Stationary Sources Joint Forum member

5. Technical Analysis Forum member

6. Attribution of Haze Work Group member

7. Utah provided data and reviewed materials prepared by the remaining WRAP forums and workgroups where Utah did not have direct representation, and provided significant technical expertise during the development of the Technical Support System and regional modeling.

The State of Utah was a team member in the development of or has used the following WRAP work products in the 2008 update to Utah’s implementation plan:

1. Western Backstop SO 2 trading Program Model Rule 2. Technical Support System Website 3. Regional Modeling Center

4. VIEWS Website

5. Causes of Haze Website 6. IWG work products

7. GIS Landuse Database 8. Ao Phase II Project 9. Enhanced Smoke Management Programs 10. Fire Tracking Systems

11. Oil/Gas Area Source Emissions/Controls

12. EGU NOx Controls 13. Stationary/Area Source Data Pivot Tables 14. Stationary/Area Source Emission Projections

15. General BART Information 16. Identifying BART-Eligible Sources

The extensive collaboration and consultation that has occurred through the WRAP provided a regional view of a regional problem that could not have been addressed by one state independently.

# Hearing195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 Telephone (801) 536-4000 • Fax (801) 536-4099 • T.D.D. (801) 536-4414

www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper 

### State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT

Governor

GREG BELL

Lieutenant Governor 

### Department of Environmental Quality

Amanda Smith

Executive Director

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY Rusty Ruby Acting Director

DAQ-015-11

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Air Quality Board

THROUGH: Rusty Ruby, Acting Executive Secretary

FROM: Colleen Delaney, Environmental Scientist

DATE: March 23, 2011

SUBJECT: FINAL ADOPTION: Amend Utah State Im plementation Plan, Section XX. Regional Haze; Amend R307-110-28. Regional Haze.

______________________________________________________________________________________

On January 5, 2011, the Air Quality Board proposed for public comment amendmen ts to Utah’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate changes to the regional SO 2 milestones and Backstop Trading Program. A public hearing was held on Fe bruary 24, 2011, and there were no public comments made at that hearing.

Several written comments were received. These comments are summarized below with a response prepared by Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) staff.

Response to Comments

Comment: For Class I areas not on the Colorado Plateau, Section 51.308(d)(1) through (4) are applicable and require demonstration of emission reductions n eeded to meet the reasonable progress goals for these Class I areas. Utah’s long-term strategy needs to address whether additional emission controls for stationary sources beyond those considered for best achievable control technology (BART) are appropriate to provide for reasonable progress at Class I areas out side the Colorado Plateau. Consideration of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) four-fact or analysis for reasonable progress would provide general control alternatives for these sources. (National Park Service)

Response: Utah’s SIP was developed under Section 309 of the regional haze rule that covers the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, including al l Class I areas in Utah. Utah’s SIP analyzed

the emission reductions within Utah to ensure that Class I areas outside of the state were benefiting from Utah’s regional haze SIP. Section XX. K.1 of the SIP outlines the significant overall

emission reductions in SO 2 , NO

x , and PM in Utah and the region. NO

x emissions decline 36%DAQ-015-11 Page 2

between 1996 and 2018, PM 2.5 emissions decline 38%, and SO2 emissions decline 33% during this same time period. Coarse matter emissions are projected to increase, although there is much greater uncertainty in the emission inventories for windblown dust. Taken as a whole, Utah’s SIP shows the necessary long-term strategies for Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, as well as all other Class I areas that are affected by emissions from sources in Utah.

Utah has participated in the technical and polic y forums of the WRAP as described in Section XX.M of the plan, and further detailed in Appendix D of the plan. Through that process Utah has

shared emissions data and other technical information with other states that have Class I areas that might be impacted by emissions from Utah. The regional haze rule in 40 CFR 51.308(d)((1)(iv) establishes a process for states to consult with upwind states that contribute to visibility impairment in their Class I areas, and includes a pr ocess for those states to address impacts from an upwind state that are not adequately addressed by the upwind state’s plan. Neighboring states have not identified problems with Utah’s SIP through this process.

As described above, Section XX.K.1 of the SIP outlines the overall significant emission reductions in Utah, and these reductions will benefit all Class I areas that might be impacted by emissions

from Utah. Utah’s emissions reductions are incl uded in the overall WRAP modeling analysis and will therefore be reflected in the reasonable progress demonstrations that are prepared by neighboring states.

Comment: It would be helpful to add an emissions table before the WRAP source apportionment modeling results in Figures 17-19 to illustrate the emission assumptions used in the WRAP source apportionment modeling. Adding the emissions tabl e would explain why mobile source emissions are shown to decrease while point source emissions are shown to increase because the inventory does not

include the emission reductions due to BART controls. (National Park Service)

Response: Table 23 has been added prior to Figure 17 to compare the inventory used in the source apportionment modeling (shown in Figures 17-19) to the Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP) 18a inventory that includes the emission reductions due to the SO 2 milestones and BART.

Comment: In Table 21, the labels for VOC and CM are missing. (National Park Service)

Response: Labels for VOC and CM have been added to Table 21.

Comment: On pages 108 and 117, we recommend that you delete the commitment to the final WRAP 2018 inventory and modeling as there is no funding to meet this expectation. (National Park Service)

Response: References to the final WRAP 2018 i nventory have been deleted.

Comment: In many places, the SIP references work that the WRAP will provide to implement the SIP. We request to be consulted at the time when Ut ah assumes any responsibilities assigned to the WRAP in the SIP. (National Park Service)

Response: The SIP outlines Utah’s commitment to opera te the backstop trading program if the WRAP is not able to perform the functions that were assumed in the SIP. UDAQ anticipates that these responsibilities will be met cooperatively with the other Section 309 states. The Section 309

States will work with all stakeholders if futu re changes are needed to the program.

Comment: The SIP fails to demonstrate that it will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART for

SO 2 . Utah’s SIP contains no BART analysis for SO 2 and no explicit determination that the SIP’s emissionDAQ-015-11 Page 3

milestones and backstop trading program are better than BART for reducing SO 2 emissions. Utah

established a BART benchmark based on the claim that the alternative program was designed to meet requirements other than BART. The benchmark was based on EPA’s presumptive SO 2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/mmbtu. This is not an appropriate benchmark because other western coal fired plants have achieved a more stringent emission rate. Huntington Unit 2 in Utah has an emission rate of 0.12 lb/mmbtu. (Western Resource Advocates, National Parks Conser vation Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment)(WildEarth Guardians in comments submitted to WRAP on the proposed changes to the milestones in October 2010)

Response: As described in the Better than BART demonstration, the milestones were established to meet the broader reasonable progress goals established by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Because the milestones we re developed primarily to meet the broader goal, the regional haze rule in Section 308(e)(2)(c) provides that “the State may determine the best system of continuous emission control technolog y and associated emission reductions from similar types of sources within a source category b ased on both source-specific and category-wide information, as appropriate.” Presumptive BART was used as the category-wide estimate of the emission reductions achievable due to BART, alt hough in some cases more stringent estimates were used for sources that had already been pe rmitted for other reasons. These estimates were used to establish a benchmark to compare with th e alternative program. The milestones meet the benchmark. However, as explained in the documen t, the milestones provide much greater benefits than would be achieved by BART. The program includes all sources with emissions greater than 100 tons/year of SO
2 , and most of those sources would not be affected by BART. The program
ensures that new source growth will not underm ine the progress that is achieved by emission reductions from existing sources. The program also encourages early reductions.

Comment: The Better than BART demonstration claims that the milestones were designed to meet a requirement other than BART. This claim seems a bit absurd. While the 309 Program has not been designed solely to meet BART, the program seems overly implicit, if not explicit, that its requirements are meant to satisfy BART, which is a key statutory component of the Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze program. (WildEarth Guardians in comments submit ted to WRAP on the proposed changes to the milestones in October 2010)

Response: The concept of SO 2 milestones with a backstop trading program was developed the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission in their 1996 Recommendations. The milestones were part of the overall strategy to address the multiple pollutants and sources that contributed to

haze on the Colorado Plateau. The WRAP Market Trading Forum began discussions in 1997 to provide further details for this program. The sta tionary source strategy was well developed before the BART requirements in the regional haze rule were adopted in 1999. The demonstration that the milestones provided greater reasonable progress th an BART was included in the Annex to meet the requirements of the regional haze rule, but BART was a secondary consideration that was added to the underlying stationary source strate gy. The overall approach was designed to address the impact from all stationary source SO 2 emissions rather than the subset of sources that were subject to BART.

Comment: WRAP fails to support its contention that emission reductions will happen sooner under the alternative program. BART results in emission reducti ons no later than 5 years after SIP approval. The regulatory requirement to achieve greater reasonable progress under an alternative program requires greater reductions of visibility impairing pollutants by 2 018, not simply earlier reductions. (Western Resource Advocates, National Parks Conservation Association, S outhern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment)DAQ-015-11 Page 4

Response: The SO 2 milestones were adopted in 2003. Sources in the region began making longterm plans to meet the milestones, and many of the reductions have alr eady occurred. Pollution control equipment was upgraded at Huntington Unit 2 in 2006, and more recently at Huntington Unit 1 and Hunter Unit 2. These upgrades were the direct result of Utah’s 2003 Regional Haze

SIP that established the milestones while allowi ng companies to manage the specific emission reductions across many units in the most cost-effective manner.

There is more to the milestone than the number that is used to define the emission cap. The Greater Reasonable Progress than BART demonstration describes the other elements of the program that work with the emission cap to pr ovide greater reasonable progress than BART in 2018. The milestone applies to all SO 2 sources, including older plants that are not subject to BART. There are currently 63 sources included in the program that are not subject to BART. There are only 10 sources that are subject to BA RT. Emissions from these 10 sources account for

62% of SO 2 emissions in 2006 and 31% of SO 2 emissions in 2018. The milestone is a mass-based cap that is based on projected actual emissions rath er than a permitted emission rate. In addition,

the SO 2 milestone caps new source growth, a signifi cant control strategy for energy-producing

states.

Comment: The better than BART demonstration expresses SO 2 milestones in tons/year. Using average

annual emission rates as a milestone is insufficiently protective and fails to show better than BART. Sources frequently emit SO 2 pollution at emission rates higher than the average annual rate at the same time. (Western Resource Advocates, National Parks C onservation Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment)

Response: The visibility goal is different from the national ambient air quality standards. The goal is expressed in terms of progress rather than meeting a specific ambient concentration. EPA

established a metric of the 20% best and 20% wors t days to measure progress. Baseline conditions were averaged over 5 years to better represent cu rrent conditions. The use of an annual emission rate is consistent with the acid rain pr ogram and EPA’s proposed Transport Rule.

Comment: The 309 Program is not enforceable. The progr am must contain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting sufficient to ensure compliance, includi ng through enforcement by citizens, States, and EPA, and must be stated with reasonable specificity so as to ensure consistent compliance by all affected parties. Without such enforcement, the 309 states cannot show th at their alternative program is better than BART. We are particularly concerned that it is unclear who, exactly, is responsible for ensuring compliance with the milestones and backstop trading program. Specific sources are not required to achieve emission reductions. There appears to be no specific explanati on as to how the milestones will be assured over time. (Western Resource Advocates, National Parks Conser vation Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment) (WildEarth Guardians in comments submitted to WRAP on the proposed changes to the milestones in October 2010)

Response: The tracking system and backstop trading program that were put into place to ensure that the milestones are met have not been changed since the 2003 SIP and will apply to the revised milestones. During the pre-trigger phase, sources report emissions under R307-150-4. The requirements of this rule are enforceable, and ha ve been included in the Title V permits for the applicable sources since the adoption of the SIP in 2003. The Section 309 States have prepared milestone reports annually since 2003 to compare actual emissions to the milestones. These milestone reports are made available for public comment each year prior to being finalized. If the milestones are exceeded, a backstop trading program w ill be triggered. The details of this program are specified in R307-250 that was submitted as part of the 2003 SIP. This rule is enforceable andDAQ-015-11 Page 5

specifies the monitoring, recordkeeping and reportin g requirements for the trading program. The rule was based on the federal acid rain program re gulations. The program is currently enforceable at the state level, and will be enforceable by EPA and citizens when the program is approved into the federal SIPs for each of the participating states.

Comment: If the backstop trading program is implemented, questions remain as to the party responsible for its operation and the party that would be held accountable in the event that such a program is not implemented effectively. (Western Resource Advocates, National Parks Conservation Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment)

Response: The SIP specifies that the State of Utah is responsible for implementing the trading program in Utah. The Section 309 States will determine a program administrator if the program is triggered, but the ultimate authority and responsib ility for enforcing the program is maintained by the individual states. Each state is responsib le to implement the program within its own jurisdiction. When EPA approves the SIPs , the federally-approved SIP will provide the enforceable mechanism for the regional program.

The trading program is designed as a backstop. Th e SIP describes the infrastructure that would be needed to run the program and includes all of th e enforceable regulations, but implementation will not occur unless the program is triggered. If th e program is triggered, then elements of the infrastructure, such as the Emission and Allowance Tracking System will be created using technology that is current at the time. The SI P provides adequate time after the program is triggered to put in place the contracts and database systems that would be needed to run a trading

program.

Comment: DAQ has not provided evidence of complian ce with 309(g). Utah must demonstrate reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas outside of the Colorado Plateau. (Western Resource Advocates, National Parks Conservation Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment)

Response: All of Utah’s Class I areas are incl uded in the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. 40 CFR 51.309(g) establishes the requirements for states to demonstrate reasonable progress for Class I areas within their state that are not part of the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. Utah is not subject to Section 309(g).

Utah’s SIP analyzed the emission reductions within Utah to ensure that Class I areas outside of the state were benefiting from Utah’s regional haze SIP. Section XX.K.1 of the SIP outlines the significant overall emission reductions in SO 2 , NO

x , and PM in Utah and the region. NO

x emissions decline 36% between 1996 and 2018, PM 2.5 emissions decline 38%, and SO2 emissions decline 33% during this same time period. Co arse matter emissions are projected to increase, although there is much greater uncertainty in th e emission inventories for windblown dust. Taken as a whole, Utah’s SIP shows the necessary lo ng-term strategies for Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, as well as all other Class I areas that are affected by emissions from Utah sources.

Utah has participated in the technical and polic y forums of the WRAP as described in Section XX.M of the plan, and further detailed in Appendix D of the plan. Through that process, Utah has

shared emissions data and other technical information with other states that have Class I areas that might be impacted by emissions from Utah. Th e regional haze rule in 40 CFR 51.308(d)((1)(iv) establishes a process for states to consult with upwind states that contribute to visibility impairment in their Class I areas, and includes a pr ocess for those states to address impacts from anDAQ-015-11 Page 6

upwind state that are not adequately addressed by the upwind state’s plan. Neighboring states have not identified problems with Utah’s SIP through this process.

As described above, Section XX.K.1 of the SIP outlines the significant emission reductions in Utah, and these reductions will benefit all Class I ar eas that might be impacted by emissions from

Utah. Utah’s emissions reductions are included in the WRAP modeling analysis and are therefore reflected in the reasonable progress demonstrations that were prepared by neighboring states.

Comment: The SIP improperly defers emissions reductions from oil and gas development. Section K of the SIP states that approximately 90% of current em issions from oil and gas development in Uintah and Duchesne Counties in Eastern Utah occur on land that is under the jurisdiction of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Ouray Reservation and is therefore not covere d by Utah’s SIP. The SIP further states that the State of Utah expects that this impact will be addressed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that is deve loped for the Ute Tribe. The Phase III oil and gas inventory shows that 15% of total NO

x emissions and 17% of total VOC emissions in Uintah and Duchesne Counties are from sources under Utah’s jurisdiction. DAQ may not simply dismiss the impacts of oil and gas development on visibility at Colorado Class I Areas. (Western Resource Advocates, National Parks Conservation Association, Southern Utah Wilder ness Alliance, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment)

Response: Section K of the SIP establishes the projecti on of visibility improvement anticipated from the long-term strategy. This section of the SIP was developed and submitted in 2008 based on the information that was available at that poi nt in time. The 2011 SIP proposal adds WRAP PSAT modeling results that were completed in 2006 to more clearly show the impact of Utah sources on neighboring states, but the underlying analysis has not been updated in this SIP revision. The Phase III emission inventory was completed at the end of 2009 and has not been incorporated into any of the WRAP’s modeling analyses.

However, the regional haze SIP is designed to adapt to new information. The SIP includes progress reports every 5 years (the first progress report will occur in 2013) to assess whether there have been any significant changes in anthropogenic em issions within or outside of the state, and to assess whether the strategies in the SIP are suffici ent. A new regional haze SIP is required every 10 years (the next SIP is due in 2018) to ensure continuing progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. There is significant work underway at both the federal and state level to better understand the impact of oil and gas development in the Uintah Basin. High ozone levels have been monitored in the Basin during the wint er, and UDAQ anticipates that significant emission

reductions will occur in the Basin between now and 2018 to reduce ozone levels. This will need to occur in partnership with the Ute Tribe, the E nvironmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, the State of Colorado, and local govern ments due to the multiple jurisdictions in the

area.

The emission reduction strategies currently in the regional haze SIP apply to all sources in Utah, including those in the Uintah Basin that are unde r UDAQ’s jurisdiction. All major point sources are subject to the SO 2 milestones and backstop trading program. Vehicle emissions (both on-road and non-road) are decreasing due to new federal regulations. The smoke management strategies also apply in the area.

Comment: Utah’s unavoidable breakdown rule undermines the haze SIP. For example, to establish that the 309 program is better than BART WRAP assumes th at all sources in Utah will operate within permit

terms and conditions. There is no incentive for a fac ility subject to BART to operate according to itsDAQ-015-11 Page 7

permits. Rather, sources are free to attribute any excess emissions to an unavoidable event and indeed, are free to prolong this event indefinitely and are free from recourse.

Response: Questions regarding Utah’s unavoidable breakdown rule are currently being addressed through EPA’s SIP call process. This rule does not undermine the Regional Haze SIP. Utah enforces applicable permits and rules, and applies significant penalties when violations occur.

One of the benefits of the SO 2 milestones is that all emissions, including emissions during

unavoidable breakdowns or excess emissions when a source is in violation of its permit, are included in the emission inventory that is compar ed to the milestone. There is no distinction

between unavoidable emissions and excess emissi ons in this process. These provisions are

outlined in R307-150-4.

Comment: There were a number of detailed comments received on the BART determination for NO

x and PM that was completed in 2008 and is described in Section D.6 of the SIP. These comments are outside the scope of the January proposal and apply to work that was completed as part of the 2008 SIP.

Response: UDAQ staff recommends that the Board reserve the detailed comments that have been received on the BART analysis for BART and PM for consideration at a later date, after EPA completes action on the Regional Haze SIP. The ra tionale for this recommendation is described in

more detail in Attachment 1.

Staff Recommendation: UDAQ staff recommends that the Board adopt the Regional Haze SIP, with the changes made in response to comment s. Staff also recommends that th e Board adopt the changes to R307- 110-28 as proposed.DAQ-015-11 Page 8



### Attachment 1. Comments Received on BART Analysis in Part D of the Regional Haze SIP

On January 5, 2011, the Air Quality Board proposed for public comment amendmen ts to Utah’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate changes to the regional SO 2 milestones and Backstop Trading Program. A number of written comments were received on the BART analysis in Part D of the SIP that was adopted by the Board in 2008.

January 2011 Proposed Changes to the Regional Haze SIP

As explained in the proposal to the Board in Ja nuary, Utah’s Regional Haze SIP has undergone a number of revisions over the years, and the various portions of the SIP reflect the information that was available at the time when the individual section was completed.

2003 SIP Long-Term Strategy for the Clean Air Corridor, Mobile Sources, and Fire Programs;

Assessment of Emissions from Paved and U npaved Road Dust; Pollution Prevention and Renewable Energy Programs; Periodic Im plementation Plan Revisions; and State Planning/Interstate Coordination and Tribal Implementation (Parts A, B, C, F, G, H, I, J, L, M)

2008 SIP Long-Term Strategy for Stationary Sources, including BART for NOx and PM; Projection of Visibility Improvement Anticipated from Long-Term Strategy (Parts D, K)

2011 SIP (proposed) Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Trading Program (Part E)

The January proposal primarily addressed changes to Part E of the SIP, but also contained some corrections and clarifications in other parts of the SIP. As explained in the proposal, the following changes were made

to Part D of the SIP.

1. In Section D.6.c, Table 4 “Subject to BART Modeling” has been updated to reflect the final modeling that was completed in April 2007. The 2008 SIP included modeling results from the January 2007 version of the modeling. The minor changes made do not affect the determination of sources that are subject to BART.

2. In section D.6.d of the SIP, an error was di scovered in the post-control BART modeling that is

summarized in Table 7. This table was include d for information purposes only, and was not relied upon for the SIP analysis. The table has been removed from the SIP.

3. The estimated in-service date of the Hunter and Huntington upgrades were updated to reflect

the current construction schedule.

4. Other minor wording changes were made to section D.6 for consistency and to correct minor

errors.

Supplementary Submittal to the TSD for the 2008 SIP

Concurrent with the proposed changes to the Re gional Haze SIP to adopt changes to the regional SO 2 milestones, UDAQ has been workin g with EPA to address questions about the BART analysis for NO

x and PM in Part D of the SIP that had been submitted in 2008. EPA had been primarily focused on the regionalDAQ-015-11 Page 9

milestones since the SIP was submitted in 2008, and only recently began to look in detail at the other parts

of Utah’s 2008 SIP.

UDAQ’s usual process after a SIP has been submitted to EPA is to work with EPA to answer any questions, and if necessary provide additional information to support the SI P. EPA commented that Utah’s SIP did not appear to contain a 5-factor BART analysis or enforceable BART emission limitations. To address these comments, UDAQ staff prepared a supplem ent to the technical support document (TSD) for the 2008 plan to better explain to EPA the analysis that had been completed in the earlier SIP. For example, the SIP referenced work that had been completed by EPA to support the presumptive BART limits in Appendix Y. The Supplementary Submittal s howed in greater detail how that information was used for a compressed BA RT analysis. This Supplementary Submittal did not contain a new BART analysis. It was intended to support the work that was done in 2008.

UDAQ did not include this information in the propos al to the Board because discussions with EPA were still in a preliminary stage and it was not clear whether the more detailed explanation would be sufficient to address EPA’s questions. In the meantime, it was impor tant to move forward with the changes to the SO 2 milestones and backstop trading program because that portion of the SIP needed to be addressed in conjunction with the SIPs for Wyomi ng, New Mexico, and Albuquerque.

Comments Received on the 2011 SIP Proposal

There were a number of comments received that were related to the underlying BART analysis for NO

x and PM rather than the clean-up changes that had b een proposed in January. These comments are to some degree focused on the Supplement to the 2008 TSD. Detailed comments on the BART analysis were received from EPA, National Park Service, and jo int comments from the National Parks Conservation Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, We stern Resource Advocates and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. The major points made by the commentors are summarized below.

1. The SIP does not contain a 5-factor BART analysis as required by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. It is not sufficient to rely on EPA’s presu mptive BART levels that were based on industry

averages.

2. The BART emission limits are not enforceable.

3. Other states have completed BART analy ses that required more stringent controls on NO

x than

have been installed at the Hunter and Huntin gton plants. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) should be required to control NOx instead of low-NOx burners. Detailed information regarding

other BART determinations was included with the comments.

Resource Issues

Utah’s regional haze SIP was originally submitted in 2003 (as required by the regional haze rule). The BART analysis in the Regional Haze SIP was largel y completed in 2006 and 2007 and was based on the

information that was available at that time. It woul d not be a trivial matter to redo the BART analysis at this point in time because so much has changed in th e intervening years. The visibility modeling that was originally used to determine the sources that are s ubject to BART in Utah was based on a model and a modeling protocol that are now outda ted and would need to be revised . In addition, EPA has published additional guidance, and BART determ inations by other states have been completed. Changes to the SO 2 and NO 2 NAAQS as well as expected changes to the oz one NAAQS later this year could potentially complicate the issue. It would require substantia l time and resources to start over again on BART.DAQ-015-11 Page 10

UDAQ is currently focusing resources on other priorities, primarily PM2.5 and ozone. In addition the agency must adapt to on-going budget cuts due to the recession.

Recommendation to Reserve Comments on 2008 BART Analysis

UDAQ does not recommend reopening the BART analysis for NOx and PM in Section D.6 of the SIP at this time. We anticipate that EPA will addre ss the SIP’s provisions relating to BART for NO

x and PM during the approval process for Utah’s Regi onal Haze SIP. We recommend that the Board

reserve the detailed comments that have been re ceived on the BART analysis for BART and PM for consideration at a later date, after EPA co mpletes action on the Regional Haze SIP.R307-110-28 March 23, 2011 Page 1 of 1

R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality. 1 R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan. 2 R307-110-28. Regional Haze. 3 The Utah State Implementation Plan, Section XX, Regional 4 Haze, as most recently amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on 5 April 6, 2011, pursuant to Section 19-2-104, is hereby 6 incorporated by reference and made a part of these rules. 7

8 KEY: air pollution, PM10, PM2.5, ozone 9 Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: April 6, 2011 10 Notice of Continuation: March 15, 2007 11 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-104(3)(e) 12

## Utah State Implementation Plan

Section XX

Regional Haze

Addressing Regional Haze Visibility Protection for the Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309

Adopted by the Air Quality Board April 6, 2011Section XX - Regional Haze. Page ii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 1

B. BACKGROUND ON THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE.................................... 3

1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 3

2. Definitions ........................................................................................................ 3

3. 1977 Clean Air Act ........................................................................................... 3 4. Reasonably Attributable Vi sibility Impairment SIP......................................... 4

5. 1990 Clean Air Act ......................................................................................... 5 4 6. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission ............................................. 5 7. Western Regional Air Partnership .................................................................. 7 6 8. Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in 2003 SIP................................ 7

C. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR TH E CLEAN-AIR CORRIDOR............. 10

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 10 2. Identification of the Clean-Air Corridor; Other Clean-Air Corridors ............ 11 3. Strategy for Clean Air Corridors .................................................................... 13

a. Comprehensive emissions tracking program. ........................................................ 13

b. Patterns of growth within the clean-air corridor.................................................... 13

c. Patterns of growth outside the clean-air corridor................................................... 13

d. Actions if impairment inside or outsi de the clean-air corridor occurs................... 14

D. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FO R STATIONARY SOURCES...................... 15

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 15

2. Achievement of a 13% or Greater Re duction of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by

2000................................................................................................................. 16 3. Strategy for Stationary Sources of Sulfur Dioxide ......................................... 16

a. 2018 Milestone 17

b. Interim Milestones ............................................................................................. 17 18

c. Triggering the Trading Program........................................................................ 18 18

d. Certainty that 2018 Milestone Will Be Me t on Time ............................................ 18

e. Trading Program Features ..................................................................................... 18

f. Allocations 18

g. State and Tribal Opt-In or Opt-Out........................................................................ 18 4. Geographic Enhancement Program ............................................................ 18 19

a. Procedure for addressing Reasonably Attri butable Visibility Impairment under the Regional Haze Rule................................................................... 19 5. Report on Assessment of NO

x /PM Strategies................................................. 19

a. Assessment of Need for NO

x and PM milestones.................................................. 19 6. Best Available Control Technology (BART) Assessment for NO

x and PM.. 20

a. Regional Haze Rule BA RT Requirements............................................................. 20

b. BART-Eligible Sources. .................................................................................... 21 21

c. Sources Subject to BART...................................................................................... 21

d. BART Determination............................................................................................. 24

E. SULFUR DIOXIDE MILESTONES AND BACKSTOP TRADING

PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 27 28Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iii 1. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger.................................... 27 28

a. Regional Sulfur Di oxide Milestones.................................................................. 27 28

b. Regional Program Administration ..................................................................... 28 30

c. Determination of Program Trigger .................................................................... 29 31

d. Year 2013 Assessment....................................................................................... 33 36

e. Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone ........................................... 34 37 2. Pre-Trigger Emissions Tracking Requirements.......................................... 35 38

a. SO 2 Emission Inventory..................................................................................... 35 38

b. Development of Emi ssion Tracking System...................................................... 36 39

c. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigge r Emission Tracking Database ............................. 36 39 3. WEB Trading Program Requirements ........................................................ 37 40

a. Initial Allocation of SO 2 Allowances ................................................................ 37 40

b. Distribution of Allowances for Future Control Periods..................................... 45 49

c. Distribution of the Ne w Source Allocation ....................................................... 45 49

d. Regional Tribal Set-aside................................................................................... 46 51

e. Opt-in Sources 47 51

f. WEB Emissions and Allowance Tr acking System (WEB EATS)..................... 47 51

g. Allowance Transfers.......................................................................................... 49 53

h. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year.......................................................... 50 54

i. Monitoring/Recordkeeping................................................................................ 52 56 j. Compliance, Excess Emi ssions, and Penalties................................................... 54 58

k. Periodic Evaluation of the Trading Program ..................................................... 54 58

l. Retired Source Exemption ................................................................................. 56 61

m. Integration into Permits ..................................................................................... 57 61 4. 2013 SIP Revision; Backstop for Be ginning of Second Planning Period .. 57 62

F. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR MOBILE SOURCES............................ 59 63

1. Regulatory History and Requirements........................................................ 59 63 2. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile Sources ........ 60 64

a. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile Sources. .............. 60 64

b. Program to assure continuous dec line in mobile source emissions. .................. 61 65

c. Backstop provision to address potential incr ease in non-road emissions in the event

Federal standards ar e not finalized........................................ 61 65 3. Other GCVTC Strategies for Mobile Sources ............................................ 61 65

G. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR FIRE PROGRAMS .............................. 62 66

1. Regulatory History and Requirements........................................................ 62 66 2. Prescribed Fire Program Evaluation ........................................................... 62 66

a. Wildlands Fire 63 67

b. Agricultural Fire 64 68 3. Emission Inventory and Tracking System .................................................. 65 69

a. Wildlands Inventory .......................................................................................... 65 69

b. Agricultural Lands Inventory............................................................................. 66 70
4. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers ............................. 66 70 5. Enhanced Smoke Management Program.................................................... 66 70Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iv a. Actions to Minimi ze Fire Emissions.................................................................. 66 70

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion ....................................................................... 67 7 1

c. Alternatives to Fire ............................................................................................ 67 71

d. Public Notification of Burning .......................................................................... 67 71

e. Air Quality Monitoring...................................................................................... 67 71

f. Surveillance and Enforcement ........................................................................... 67 71

g. Program Evaluation ........................................................................................... 68 72

h. Burn Authorization ............................................................................................ 68 72

i. Regional Coordination....................................................................................... 68 72 j. ESMP for Agricultural Burning......................................................................... 68 72
6. Annual Emission Goals............................................................................... 68 72

H. ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS FROM PAVED AND UNPAVED ROAD

DUST................................................................................................................ 69 73

1. Regulatory History and Requirements........................................................ 69 73 2. State of Utah Long-term Strategy for Road Dust Sources.......................... 69 73

a. Assessment of Paved and Unpaved Road Dust Emissions. ............................... 69 73

b. Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding.................................................. 70 74

I. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

........................................................................................................................... 71 75

1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs in Utah................ 74 78 2. Inventory of Renewable Energy Gene ration Capacity and Production in 2002

..................................................................................................................... 74 78 3. Inventory of Total Utah Capacity and Production in 2002......................... 77 81 4. Percent of Total Energy Generation Capacity and Production Derived from Renewable Energy ...................................................................................... 78 82 5. Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

..................................................................................................................... 79 83

a. States' Contributions to the Regional Renewable Energy Generation Goal ...... 79 83

b. Utah's Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy

Goals ..................................................................................... 80 84 6. State of Utah Programs to Encourage Early Compliance........................... 81 85

a. Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program Early Reduction Credits. .................. 81 85

b. Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program Renewable Energy Credits............... 81 85 7. Summary of Utah Programs to Expand Energy Conservation ................... 82 86 8. Areas Where Power Is Lacking and Renewable Sources Can Supply It.... 82 86 9. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention and EERE Measures.. 84 88

a. Regional Approach to Analyses ........................................................................ 84 88

b. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention and EERE

Measures ............................................................................... 85 89 10. Utah Programs to Meet the Regional Renewable Energy Goals ................ 91 95

a. Summary of Utah Programs............................................................................... 91 95

b. Potential for Renewabl e Energy Resources....................................................... 92 96

J. OTHER GCVTC RECOMMENDATIONS............................................. 101 105

1. Regulatory History and Requirements.................................................... 101 105 2. Other State of Utah Long-term Strategy Components............................ 101 105Section XX - Regional Haze. Page v a. Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

Recommendations. ............................................................ 101 105

b. Implementation of Add itional Recommendations. ........................................ 101 105

K. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT ANTICIPATED FROM

LONG-TERM STRATEGY ...................................................................... 102 106

1. Effect on Emissions of Long-term Strategy Components ...................... 102 106

a. Inventory Methodology and Scope................................................................ 102 106

b. Projected Changes in Emissions for Utah and the GCVTC Region .............. 104 108 2. Projected Changes in Visual Air Quality................................................ 114 117

a. Applicable Cl ass I Areas................................................................................ 114 117

b. Projected Visibility Improvement.................................................................. 114 117

L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS......................... 117 120

1. Periodic Progress Reports for Demonstrating Reasonable Progress. ..... 117 120 2. Actions To Be Taken Concurrent with Periodic Progress Reports. ....... 117 120

M. STATE PLANNING/INTERSTATE COORDINATION AND TRIBAL

IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................ 119 122

1. Participation in Regional Planning and Coordination ............................ 119 122 2. Applicability to Tribal Lands.................................................................. 119 122

3. Interstate Coordination ........................................................................... 119 122Section XX - Regional Haze. Page vi 

## LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Executive Summary of Long-Term Strategies ............................................... 1 Table 2. State-by-State Comparison of 1990 and 2000 Stationary Source Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the 9 GCVTC Transp ort Region States (tons per year) . 16 Table 3. BART-Eligible Sources in Utah. .................................................................... 21 Table 4. Subject to BART Modeling ............................................................................ 23 Table 5. Emissions Rates (lb/MMBtu) for the Retrofitted Hunter and Huntington

Units ......................................................................................................................... 25 Table 6. Change in Emissions (tons/yr) for Retrofitted BART Units ....................... 25

Table 7. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Milestones ............................................................ 27 Table 8. Utility/Non-utility Split................................................................................... 41 Table 9. Mobile Source Inventory for 2003 and 2018 ................................................ 61 Table 10. Agricultural Burning Emissions Comparison............................................ 64 Table 11. Summary of Information Requirement for Pollution Prevention............ 72 Table 12. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Capacity (Megawatts)............ 76 Table 13. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Generation (Megawatt-hours)

............................................................................................................................... .... 77 Table 14. Utah Capacity by Source (Electric Power Annual). (Megawatts) ............ 78 Table 15. Utah Net Generation by Source, 1999-2002 (Thousand Megawatt-hours)

............................................................................................................................... .... 78 Table 16. Utah Consumption of Renewa ble Power; 2000-2002 (Gigawatt-hours) .. 79 Table 17. Programs to Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts ........... 82 Table 18. Annual Average (2005-2020) Changes for Key Economic Indicators...... 90 Table 19. Utah Renewable Energy Program Descriptions......................................... 92

Table 20. Utah Land-fill Gas Resources ...................................................................... 99 Table 21. Summary of the Change in Emissions from 1996-2018 for Utah Sources

............................................................................................................................... .. 105 Table 22. Changes in Emissions from 1996 - 2018 for 9 GCVTC States ................ 105 Table 23. Comparison of WRAP Inventories for Utah. ........................................... 107 Table 24. Projected Visibility Improvement ............................................................. 116Section XX - Regional Haze. Page vii 

## LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 16 GCVTC Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309.............................. 8 Figure 2. Utah Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309......................................... 9 Figure 3. Map of the Clean Air Corridor in the Transport Region.......................... 12 Figure 4. Relationship between Utah potential BART-eligible sources and Class I areas. Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 modeled separately

at maximum 300 km. .............................................................................................. 23 Figure 5. Utah's Transmission and Distribution Network..................................... 83 87 Figure 6. Forecast Renewable Energy Capa city Additions to Meet 10/20 Goals. 86 90 Figure 7. Generation Mix in 2018: Bu siness-As-Usual and Meeting 10/20 Goals.

............................................................................................................................... 86 90 Figure 8. Potential NO

x Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations. ..................................... 87 91 Figure 9. Potential CO 2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE.

............................................................................................................................... 88 92 Figure 10. Annual Levelized Production Costs for Business-As-Usual and Efficiency. ............................................................................................................ 89 93 Figure 11. Annual Levelized Production Costs for BAU and Meeting the 10/20

Goal. ..................................................................................................................... 90 94 Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah. ............................................................. 94 98 Figure 13. Geothermal Energy Potential in Utah. .................................................. 95 99 Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah. ........................................................... 97 101 Figure 15. Biomass Energy Potential in Utah. ...................................................... 98 102 Figure 16. Class I Areas in the WRAP Region.................................................... 106 110 Figure 17. Class I Areas with Contributions from Northern Utah ................... 109 112 Figure 18. Class I Areas with Impacts from Central Utah. ............................... 112 115 Figure 19. Class I Areas with Impacts from Eastern Utah, including the Ute Indian Reservation that is not covered by Utah’s Regional Haze SIP. .................. 114 117Section XX - Regional Haze. Page viii 

## APPENDICES TO THE SIP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A Definitions

Appendix B WEB Trading Program Monitoring Protocols

Appendix C Projection of Visibility Improvement

Appendix D WRAP Interstate and Regional Planning ActivitiesSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 1 

## A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document comprises the State of Utah's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Regional Haze Rule in Section 309 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (40 CFR 51.309). Part B includes introductory and background information. The remaining parts identify the SIP requirements under Section 309 and detail how Utah is addressing those requirements, and appendices include more detail about certain parts. Table 1 is a brief summary of each of the 309 SIP requirements along with Utah's approach in addressing those requirements.

Table 1. Executive Summary of Long-Term Strategies

Clean Air Corridors 309(d)(3) Part C documents that emission growth inside and outside of the Clean Air Corridor is not shown to be contributing currently to impairment within the Clean Air Corridor. Stationary Sources 309(d)(4) Part D includes proof of a 13% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2000, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for NO

x and PM , geographic enhancement provisions, and other stationary source

materials.

Sulfur Dioxide

Milestones and Backstop Trading Program 309(d)(4) Part E includes milestones for sulfur dioxide emissions along with a backstop market cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide emissions from specific sources.

Mobile Sources 309(d)(5) Part F demonstrates that federal programs (such as low sulfur diesel, vehicle emission standards, etc.) lead to decreasing mobile source emissions throughout the planning period. Programs Related to

Fire 309(d)(6) Part G demonstrates that Utah has developed a smoke management regulation (R307-204) that implements the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility Policy

. Paved and Unpaved

Road Dust 309(d)(7) Part H discusses the WRAP finding that dust emissions are not now a significant regional contributor to visibility impairment within the Colorado Plateau 16 Class I areas.

Pollution Prevention 309(d)(8) Part I describes programs and policies within Utah related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Utah's anticipated contribution to the pollution prevention goals is outlined.

Additional

Recommendations 309(d)(9) Part J summarizes that Utah has not identified any other recommendations in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report to implement in Utah at this time. A report on each recommendation is included in the Utah Technical Support Document Supplement.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 2 Projection of Visibility Improvement 309(d)(2) Part K projects visibility improvement for the 20% best and worst days for each of the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau (Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Zion

National Parks in Utah and the other 11 Class I areas in adjacent states that were addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission)

Periodic Revisions 309(d)(10) Part L commits the State of Utah to submit periodic revisions to this SIP every five years. State Planning and

Interstate Coordination 309(d)(11) Part M describes Utah's participation in the Western Regional Air Partnership.

Reasonable Progress for

Additional Class I Areas 309(g) Utah has no additional Class I areas.

Technical Support Documents

Accompanying this implementation plan and associated appendices are two other documents. The first is a Technical Support Document (TSD) developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) that contains the results of numerous collaborative studies by the WRAP members on which the State of Utah relied in the development of the 2003 SIP. In the implementation plan, this is referred to as the “WRAP TSD.” The WRAP TSD also includes appendices. In addition, there are other supplemental materials that are state-specific technical support information. In the implementation plan, these are referred to as the “Utah TSD Supplement.”

In 2008, the Regional Haze SIP was updated to address changes in the regional haze rule and EPA’s BART Guidelines. The WRAP developed a new TSD, a Technical Support System (TSS) that contains the results of updated modeling, and an Emission Data Management System (EDMS). In the implementation plan these combined materials are referred to as the 2008 WRAP TSD and updated state-specific materials are referred to as the 2008 Utah TSD supplement.

In 2011 the SO 2 milestones in Part E of the SIP were revised to address a reduced number of states participating in the regional backstop trading program, and changes in growth projections for electric utilities in the west.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 3 

## B. BACKGROUND ON THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE

1. Introduction

Good visibility is important to fully enjoy the experience of visiting our national parks and wilderness areas. Visibility is impaired by light scattering and absorption caused byparticulate matter and gases in the atmosphere that occur from both natural and humancaused activities. Visibility can be impaired by natural sources such as rain, wildland fires, volcanic activity, sea mists, and wind blown dust from undisturbed desert areas. Visibility also can be impaired by human-caused sources of air pollution such as industrial processes, (utilities, smelters, refineries, etc.), mobile sources (cars, trucks, trains, etc.) and area sources (residential wood burning, prescribed burning on wild and agricultural lands, wind blown dust from disturbed soils, etc.) These sources emit pollutants that, in higher concentrations, also can affect public health.

The State of Utah has implemented this section of the State Implementation Plan to address visibility protection in the mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas) required under 40 CFR 51.309. It contains all measures necessary to address regional haze visibility impairment to ensure the State of Utah makes reasonable progress toward the national goal contained in 42 U.S.C. 7491.



### 2. Definitions

This Plan contains terms and phrases that have formal definitions under 40 CFR 51.301, 40 CFR 51.309(b), and other terms specific to the programs set forth in this Plan. These definitions are contained in Appendix A of this section and shall prevail over other interpretations as to the meaning and intent of this Plan.



### 3. 1977 Clean Air Act

In the 1977 Clean Air Act, Congress established requirements for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in areas within the United States and for the review of pollution controls on new sources. 1 Coupled with this, Congress established a visibility protection program for those larger national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas). 2 This program established a national goal of "...the prevention of any future, and remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Federal class I areas, which impairment results from man-made air pollution" and requires states to develop long-term strategies to

1 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 , United States Congress. 42 U.S.C. 7470-7479. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. August 7, 1977.

2 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Section 169A , United States Congress. 42 U.S.C. 7491. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. August 7, 1977.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 4 assure reasonable progress toward this national goal. The program also requires states to address any visibility impairment caused by emissions of air pollutants from certain large industrial sources if the source was less than 15 years old as of August 1977, through the establishment of emission limits based on best available retrofit technology (BART). Congress also established mandatory criteria for states to use when establishing BART emission limits and developing long-term strategies for reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.



### 4. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment SIP

In 1980, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued final regulations to address the requirements of the 1977 Clean Air Act, requiring states with Class I areas to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions with new source review plans, monitoring plans, BART implementation plans, and long-term strategies to address reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. 3 Utah's SIP for visibility protection was submitted to EPA on April 26, 1985, and approved on May 30, 1986.

In the mid-1980s, Governor Bangerter appointed a Task Force on Visibility Protection to determine the appropriate level of protection for Utah's Class I areas, and to determine the sources of impairment of visibility in those areas. The Task Force included representatives of industry, environmental groups, local governments, and citizens at large. The Task Force visited many sites within Utah's five Class I areas and heard presentations from technical experts in the science of visibility. After more than a year of investigation, the Task Force recommended that all Utah Class I areas need protection, and that the biggest cause of visibility impair ment is not individual industrial sources, but rather the regional haze from a multitude of sources that is transported over long

distances.

In 1985, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program was established to coordinate the monitoring of air quality in national parks and wilderness areas and to ensure sound and consistent scientific methods were being used. 4
The IMPROVE Steering Committee established monitoring protocols for visibility measurement, particulate matter measurement, and scientific photography of the Class I areas. IMPROVE monitoring is designed to establish reference information on visibility conditions and trends to aid in the development of visibility protection programs. Monitoring from the IMPROVE network demonstrated that visibility in all the Class I areas is impaired to some degree by regional haze.

3 40 CFR Part 51 - Protection of Visibility, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 45 FR 80089. Government Printing Office: Wash ington, D.C. December 2, 1980.

4 IMPROVE Home Page. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve (accessed April 2003).Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 5 

### 5. 1990 Clean Air Act

Although the 1980 regulations addressed reasonably attributable visibility impairment from specific sources, also known as plume bli ght, it did not adequately address visibility impairment from large collections of sources whose emissions are mixed and transported over long distances, creating a uniform haze (regional haze). In the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress established the requirements to address regional haze visibility impairment, giving the EPA authority to establish visibility transport commissions and promulgate regulations to address regional haze, and requiring the establishment of a visibility transport commission to investigate and report on regional haze visibility impairment in the Grand Canyon National Park located in northern

Arizona. 5



### 6. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) was established by EPA in November of 1991, consisting of seven western governors (or their designees), and five ex-officio members representing federal land management agencies and EPA. When establishing the GCVTC, EPA designated a transport region including seven western states: California, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. Although part of the Transport Region, the State of Idaho declined the invitation to participate in the GCVTC. Utah's governor was vice-chair of the GCVTC. Although Congress required a commission to be established for the Grand Canyon National Park, the member states agreed to expand the scope of the GCVTC to address all 16 of the

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC elected to use a stakeholder-driven process to accomplish its objectives. Ultimately, the organization included 200+ political, policy and technical stakeholders who staffed a variety of committees and subcommittees to perform policy analysis and technical studies, and to participate in the public debate. The GCVTC was funded by EPA grants and contributions from stakeholders, including substantial in-kind labor. During its four-and-one-half year development, the GCVTC was expanded to include the State of Wyoming and tribal leaders as members. The GCVTC appointed a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) representing broad stakeholder interests to pr ovide input and feedback to the GCVTC. Many Utahns were members of the PAC, with two serving on the PAC Steering Committee, and one serving on the Executive Committee as Vice-Chair of the PAC. The 80+ member Public Advisory Committee developed a consensus report of recommendations for the GCVTC that was ultimately adopted by the GCVTC and

submitted to EPA in June 1996. 6

5 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Section 169B , United States Congress. 42 U.S.C. 7492. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. November 15, 1990.

6 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas

. Western Governors' Association: Denver, CO, June 10, 1996.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 6 Recommendations of the GCVTC include the following:

• Policies based on energy conservation, increased energy efficiency and promotion of the use of renewable resources for energy production;

• Careful tracking of emissions growth that may affect air quality in clean air corridors;

• Regional targets for sulfur dioxide emissions with a backstop program, probably including a regional cap and possibly a market-based trading program;

• Cooperatively developed strategies, expanded data collection and improved modeling for reducing or preventing visibility impairment in areas within and adjacent to Class I areas, pending further studies of sources adjacent to Class I

areas;

• Emissions cap for mobile sources at the lowest level (expected to occur in 2005) and establishment of a regional emissions budget, as well as implementation of national strategies aimed at reducing tailpipe emissions;

• Further study to resolve issues regarding the modeled contribution to visibility impairment of dust from paved and unpaved roads;

• Continued bi-national cooperation to resolve data gaps and jurisdictional issues around emissions from Mexico;

• Programs to minimize emissions and visibility impacts and to educate the public about impacts from prescribed fire and wildfire, because emissions are projected to increase significantly through 2040; and

• Creation of an entity like the GCVTC to promote, support and oversee the implementation of many of the recommendations in this report.

EPA initially proposed regional haze regulations in 1997. 7 The proposed regulations described a generic program to apply nationally and did not include provisions to address the recommendations of the GCVTC. The Western Governors' Association (WGA) engaged key stakeholders to develop a recommendation on how to transform the GCVTC recommendations into a Regional Haze Rule. WGA approved their recommendation and

transmitted it to EPA in June 1998. 8 Based on this and other public input, EPA issued the final Regional Haze Rule in July 1999 with a national program (§ 308) that could apply to any state or tribe and an optional program (§ 309) relying on the work of the GCVTC that is available to the states and tribes in the nine-state GCVTC transport region. 9

7 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Regulations; Proposed Rule - 62 FR 41138 . United States Environmental Protection Agency, Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. July 31, 1997.

8 Leavitt, M. O., Governor of Utah, Letter to EPA Administrator Browner on behalf of the Western Governors' Association, June 29, 1998.

9 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Rule; Final Rule, 64 FR 35714 . United States Environmental Protection Agency, Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. July 1, 1999.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 7 

### 7. Western Regional Air Partnership

The GCVTC recognized the need for a long-term organization to address the policy and technical studies needed to address regional haze. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) was formed in September 1997. The WRAP's charter allows it to address any air quality issue of interest to WRAP members, though most current work is focused on developing the policy and technical work products needed by states and tribes in writing their regional haze state implementation plans (SIPs) and tribal implementation plans (TIPs). The WRAP has been co-chaired by the governor of Utah and the governor of the Acoma Pueblo. The WRAP Board is currently composed of representatives from 13 states, 13 tribes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The WRAP operates on a consensus basis and receives financial support from EPA. The WRAP established stakeholder-based technical and policy oversight committees to assist in managing the development process of regional haze work products. Stakeholder-based working groups and forums were established to focus attention on the policy and technical work products the states and tribes need to develop their implementation plans.

The WRAP developed and submitted an Annex to the GCVTC recommendations to define a voluntary program of sulfur dioxide emission reduction milestones coupled with a backstop market-trading program to assure emission reductions. EPA proposed changes to the Regional Haze Rule to incorporate the GCVTC Annex, and the final rule was published on June 5, 2003. 10 The WRAP is completing a suite of work products to support states and tribes developing GCVTC-based regional haze implementation plans.

Additional information about the WRAP can be found on the WRAP web site at http://www.wrapair.org

.



### 8. Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in 2003 SIP

The Regional Haze Rule under 40 CFR 51.309 requires states to address visibility protection for regional haze in the 16 Class I areas studied by the GCVTC in the initial regional haze SIP submitted by December 31, 2003. Other Class I areas are to be

addressed after interstate consultation. These will be addressed in future SIP revisions as

necessary.

Five of the 16 GCVTC Class I areas are in Ut ah, and Utah has no other Class I areas not covered under this initial SIP for regional haze. The Class I areas addressed are shown in Figure 1. The areas within the state of Utah are shown in Figure 2.

10 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule, 68 FR 33764, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. June 5, 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 8 Figure 1. 16 GCVTC Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 9 Figure 2. Utah Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 10 

## C. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR THE CLEAN-AIR

CORRIDOR

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

One of the required tasks of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission was to

review whether clean-air corridors exist for the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. A clean-air corridor is a geographic region that contributes clean air to the Class I areas on the days with best visibility. If clean-air corridors were found to exist, the GCVTC was required to recommend whether additional control strategies were needed to manage emissions growth to protect visibility on the least impaired days in the Class I areas. For the purpose of assessment, the GCVTC considered the average of the days representing the 20% best visibility conditions to be the least impaired days. EPA also used this definition in defining the term in the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309).

In 1995 the GCVTC Meteorology Subcommittee completed an analysis of the geographical source areas contributing to least impaired days in the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. The analysis, in a report entitled, Clean-Air Corridors: A Framework for Identifying Regions that Influence Clean Air on the Colorado Plateau

, 11 showed that the area north and west of the Grand Canyon National Park does provide clean air to the Grand Canyon area primarily due to a combination of favorable meteorological conditions (rain washout and higher ventilating winds) and low emissions of pollutants from the sparsely populated area. The GCVTC Public Advisory Committee (PAC) reviewed the clean-air corridor analysis and emission projections and determined that, for the period through 2040, emissions growth is projected to be less than the amount that would degrade visibility on the least impaired days in the 16 Class I areas. Based on this finding, the PAC recommended emissions growth be monitored in the future but that no additional control strategies were needed in the clean-air corridor at that time. The GCVTC adopted this recommendation and included it in its final report to EPA, which was integrated into the Regional Haze Rule. 12

The projections of visibility conducted by the WRAP and documented in Appendix C also indicate that visibility on the 20% best and worst days will improve through 2018.

The Regional Haze Rule requires states submitting implementation plans under 40 CFR

51.309 to determine if there are additional areas to be considered as clean-air corridors for emission tracking purposes in the GCVTC areas. The successor to the GCVTC, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), completed a technical analysis to validate the emissions growth projections in the clean air corridors. This analysis was included as

11 Meteorology Subcommittee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Clean Air Corridors: Framework for Identifying Regions t hat Influence Clean Air on the Colorado Plateau. Western Governors' Association: Denver, CO, July 1995.

12 64 FR 35751, July 1, 1999.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 11 part of the WRAP consensus policy. 13 A copy of this policy is contained in the Utah TSD Supplement. The WRAP policy defined a clean air corridor previously identified by the GCVTC Meteorology Subcommittee, and modified to recognize county level emission inventory practices and an emissions tracking requirement in the clean air corridor. The technical studies and findings supporting the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy are located in Chapter 3 of the WRAP Technical Support Document.



### 2. Identification of the Clean-Air Corridor; Other Clean-Air

Corridors

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State of Utah concurs with the identification of an existing clean-air corridor as defined in the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy. The boundary of the clean-air corridor is indicated on the map in Figure 3 provided below. This clean-air corridor was identified using studies conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC, and updated in the WRAP technical and policy analysis of the area described in the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy. A large portion of Utah

resides in the identified clean-air corridor.

13 WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors, adopted by Western Regional Air Partnership, November 13, 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 12 Figure 3. Map of the Clean Air Corridor in the Transport Region.

Source: Figure 1 from the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors.

The State of Utah, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), has determined, based on the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy and technical analysis, that no other clean-air corridors are identified at this time. The State of Utah commits to participating in a regional effort to review this determination as part of periodic plan revisions required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 13 

### 3. Strategy for Clean Air Corridors

a. Comprehensive emissions tracking program.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), the State of Utah commits to monitoring changes in emissions inside and outside the clean-air corridor with an emissions tracking program developed by the WRAP to ensure that visibility does not degrade on the least impaired days in any of the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. The State of Utah commits to providing statewide annual emission inventory data for use in the WRAP emissions tracking program. The state of Utah is working with the WRAP to develop a comprehensive emissions tracking system. 14 Utah, working with the WRAP, will summarize emission trends in order to identify any significant emissions growth that could lead to visibility degradation in the 16 Class I areas. Included in this summary will be an assessment of whether any significant emissions growth has occurred within or outside the clean-air corridor, in accordance with paragraphs C.3.b and c below. The State of Utah will work cooperatively with states not submitting a plan under 40 CFR 51.309 that have emissions within or outside the clean-air corridor that could affect air quality in the clean-air corridor, to ensure the emissions are incorporated into the tracking program through

inter-state consultation.



### b. Patterns of growth within the clean-air corridor.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii), the State of Utah has determined, based on the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy and WRAP tec hnical analysis, that current projections of emissions changes inside the identified clean-air corridor will not contribute to degradation of visibility on the least impaired days in the 16 Class I areas during the planning period through 2018. Future emissions growth will be tracked in accordance with the comprehensive emissions tracking system noted in paragraph C.3.a above. The

WRAP will summarize annual emission trends within the clean-air corridor and assess whether any significant emission growth has occurred within the corridor as an analysis

tool for states.



### c. Patterns of growth outside the clean-air corridor.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 309(d)(3)(iii), the State of Utah has determined, based on the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy and technical analys is, that current projections of emission changes in areas outside the identified clean-air corridor will not contribute to degradation of visibility on the least impaired days in the 16 Class I areas during the planning period through 2018. The State of Utah will ensure that WRAP will track emissions in areas outside the clean-air corridor and report to the State of Utah on any significant changes in emission projections that may require a reassessment of this determination in future SIP revisions, as required in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

14 EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc, for the WRAP Emissions Forum. Emissions Forum Data Reporting, Management, and Tracking System: Draft Final Report: Needs Assessment for Evaluation and Design of an Emissions Data Reporting, Management, and Tracking System. July, 2003. From the WRAP Web site on August 20, 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 14 

### d. Actions if impairment inside or outside the clean-air

corridor occurs.

The State of Utah, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will review the WRAP's annual summary of emission trends inside and outside the clean-air corridor and determine if significant emissions growth as identified within the corridor in accordance with paragraph C.3.b above, or was identified outside the corridor, in accordance with paragraph C.3.c above. If si gnificant emissions growth is identified, the State of Utah, in coordination with other tr ansport region states and tribes, will conduct, or seek WRAP assistance in conducting, an analysis of the emissions growth on visual air quality impacts on the least impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that this growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the State of Utah, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will evaluate the need for additional emission reduction measures and identify an implementation schedule for such measures, if needed. The implementation of any additional emission measures shall be coordinated with all appropriate transport region state and tribes, on a mutually agreed upon timetable, and reported to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). If the WRAP regional planning process is unable to perform such an analysis for the Class I areas in Utah, or come to a consensus on the interpretation of such an analysis, the State of Utah will perform such studies and engage in independent interstate consultation provided for under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11).Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 15 

## D. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR STATIONARY

SOURCES

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) studied the long-term projected changes of emissions from stationa ry sources. It was found that emissions of sulfur dioxide from stationary sources would decline by at least 13% between 1990 and 2000. Also, emissions of sulfur dioxide would continue to decline through 2040 when only 30% to 50% of the 1990 emission levels would remain. This decline was due to the normal turnover of source technology as older sources retire and are replaced by newer and cleaner technologies.

The GCVTC decided that the most appropriate way to address emissions of sulfur dioxide from stationary sources was to establish regional emission milestones and allow voluntary measures to achieve the emission reductions. If the emission milestones are not achieved, then a backstop market trading program would be implemented to guarantee the emission reductions are achieved. The GCVTC did not have sufficient time to develop the details of the emission milestones or backstop program, but committed to develop it and submit it to EPA.

In the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, EPA required the states to complete the development of the stationary source program for sulfur dioxide and to submit it as an Annex to the GCVTC recommendations. The WRAP submitted the Annex in September, 2000. 15 On June 5, 2003, EPA issued the final rules related to the sulfur dioxide program for stationary sources. 16 These rules incorporated the materials in the Annex.

EPA’s approval of the Annex was challenged, and on February 18, 2005 the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s 2003 rules. 17 The Court determined that EPA had required a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) demonstration in the Annex that was based on a methodology that had been vacated by the Court in 2002. 18 On October

15 Western Regional Air Partnership. Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and a Backstop Market Trading Program, An Annex to the Report of the Grand Cany on Visibility Transport Commission. Denver, CO. September 29,

2000.

16 68 FR 33764.

17 Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) vs. Environmental Protection Agency, February 18, 2005.

18 American Corn Growers Association vs. Environmental Protection Agency, May 24, 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 16 13, 2006 EPA revised the regional haze rule to establish the methodology for states to develop an alternative to BART that was consistent with the Court’s decision. 19



### 2. Achievement of a 13% or Greater Reduction of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by 2000

The GCVTC projected a 13% or great er reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions between the years of 1990 and 2000. As shown in Table 2, regional SO 2 emission totals show that there was a 25% reduction in these emissions from 1990 to

2000. 20 There was a 33% decrease in SO 2 emissions during this time period from the three states that developed SIPs under 40 CFR 51.309 (New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, excluding emissions from sources in those states that are under tribal jurisdiction).

Table 2. State-by-State Comparison of 1990 and 2000 Stationary Source Sulfur

Dioxide Emissions in the 9 GCVTC Tran sport Region States (tons per year)

States 1990 2000
Arizona 185,398 99,133
California 52,832 38,501
Colorado 95,534 99,161
Idaho 24,652 27,763
Nevada 52,775 53,943
New Mexico 177,994 117,344 Oregon 17,705 23,362
Utah 85,567 38,521 Wyoming 136,318 124,110
Totals 828,775 621,838



### 3. Strategy for Stationary Sources of Sulfur Dioxide

The long-term strategy for stationary sources implements the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recommendation to develop regional sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) milestones and a backstop trading program to ensure that the milestone goals are

achieved. The GCVTC recommendations were further refined in an Annex to the Commission report that was submitted to EPA in September 2000.

The long-term strategy for stationary sources is implemented through the following

documents:

19 71 FR 60612

20 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. fo r the Western Governors’ Association. Year 2000 Point Source SO 2 Emissions Analysis - 9 State Western Region Report. Denver, CO, May 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 17 • Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Trading Program, Part E of this plan, describes the overall program and contains Utah’s commitment to implement all parts of the program as outlined in the plan. The plan establishes the regional SO 2 milestones, emissions tracking requirements, and, if the Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program (WEB Trading Program) is triggered, the plan also describes how Utah will determine allocations and manage the allowance tracking system that is needed to implement the program.

• R307-250, Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxi de Trading Program, contains the requirements that will apply to major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide as a backstop regulatory program if the SO 2 milestones are exceeded. The rule may never be implemented if the goal to meet the regional SO 2 milestones through voluntary means is achieved. If the rule is implemented, it establishes the procedures and compliance requirements for sources in the trading program.

• R307-150 requires major industrial sources of SO 2 to submit an annual emissions inventory in the pre-trigger phase of the program to measure compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones. If the backstop program is triggered, then these requirements will eventually be replaced by more rigorous monitoring requirements in R307-250.



### a. 2018 Milestone

The 2018 milestone of 141,849 tons represents an emission reduction of approximately 216,515 tons of SO 2 from the 1990 baseline emissions of 358,364 tons for the three participating states, and is well on the way to the GCVTC’s goal of a 50-70% reduction by 2040. The 2018 regional sulfur dioxide m ilestone provides for greater reasonable

progress 21 than would be achieved by application of best available retrofit technology (BART) for SO 2 , as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) for both the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau and other Class I Areas that are affected by sources in the 3-state region that are subject to BART. The participating states estimated that BART reductions would total approximately 48,737 tons of SO 2 by 2018. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(g)(ii), no further demonstration will be needed prior to 2018 for Utah's stationary sources identified in the Annex, in terms of satisfying BART for SO2 under 40 CFR 51.308(e).



### b. Interim Milestones

Interim milestones were set based on expected emission reductions that were already planned between 2003 and 2018. These milestones show steady and continuing emission reductions, with most of the emission reductions occurring by 2013.

21 October 6, 2010 Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than

BARTSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 18 

### c. Triggering the Trading Program

States and tribes will collect an annual SO 2 inventory. Compliance with the milestones is determined by an annual comparison of the rolling 3-year average of total regional emissions with the rolling 3-year average of the milestones. For 2018, total emissions will be compared with the 2018 milestone. If a milestone is exceeded, the trading program is activated and emission allocations are made one year later with sources having five years from the year of exceedance to comply with their allocation. Sources may comply by retrofitting to bring emissions below their allocation, by buying credits to emit from other sources, by retiring the source, or by other means.



### d. Certainty that 2018 Milestone Will Be Met on Time

Part E of this Plan includes a mechanism for the states and tribes to activate the trading program in 2013 if available evidence indicates the 2018 milestone will not be reached. In order to be in compliance with the 2018 milestone, the 2018 emissions must be less

than the 2018 milestone. Sources that have not controlled their emissions in accordance with their allocations will be subject to financial penalties.



### e. Trading Program Features

Details of the backstop trading program such as applicability, monitoring and reporting, trading procedures, compliance requirements and penalties, are defined in R307-250.

Sources that reduce their emissions below their allocation will be able to sell excess allowances to other sources, within certain programmatic restrictions.



### f. Allocations

If the program is triggered, 2,500 tons of SO 2 allocations will be set aside for tribal interests, acknowledging that tribal lands are largely undeveloped and that tribes would not benefit from a plan based only on past emissions. There will be a new source set-aside to accommodate growth within the region. Existing sources will receive a

"floor" allocation based on a "clean unit" emission rate. The remainder of the allowances, which will decline over the years, will be allocated to existing sources. If the program is triggered, sources may buy and sell allowances to come into compliance.



### g. State and Tribal Opt-In or Opt-Out

In the event that any other states or tribes choose to participate in the regional trading program in the future the milestones will be adjusted through a SIP revision to reflect the changes.



### 4. Geographic Enhancement Program

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) allows states to submit a SIP, or tribes a TIP, which adopts an alternative measure to regional haze BART. Geographic enhancement is a voluntary approach provided in Section 308(e)(2)(v) that can be included in the plan for addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) for stationary sources, under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.302(c). RAVI is di fferent from regional haze in that itSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 19 addresses “hot spots” or situations where visibility impairment in a Class I area is reasonably attributable to a single source or small group of sources in relatively close proximity to the Class I area. In December 2004, the State of Utah signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Federal Land Managers to provide sources greater certainty regarding their potential risk of being certified as a RAVI source by a Federal Land Manager. Sources can incorporate this information into their business planning process, and use the efficiencies and reduced costs of the market to address potential RAVI issues.



### a. Procedure for addressing Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment under the Regional Haze Rule.

If the National Park Service certifies impairment, the State of Utah will fulfill its obligations to determine attribution and if necessary determine BART for the applicable source or group of sources in accordance with Utah's SIP for visibility protection submitted to EPA on April 26, 1985, and approved on May 30, 1986. Additional information regarding possible technical approaches for determining attribution is contained in the WESTAR report, Recommendations for Making Attribution Determinations in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART

.



### 5. Report on Assessment of NO

x 

### /PM Strategies

a. Assessment of Need for NO

x 

### and PM milestones.

The State of Utah has evaluated the need for NO

x and PM emission control strategies, the degree of visibility improvement expected, and whether such milestones are needed to avoid any net increase in these pollutants. This evaluation was based on an assessment of

NO

x and PM stationary source emissions made by the WRAP Market Trading Forum for all WRAP states, including the transport region states. 22

Several conclusions were reached based on the analyses.

• For the vast majority of Class I areas throughout the WRAP region, stationary

source NO

x and PM emissions are not a major contributor to visibility impairment on the average 20% best and 20% worst days. However, on some of the worst days nitrates and PM are the main components of visibility impairment.

• Stationary source NO

x emissions are projected to increase by 4% between 1996 and 2018. Stationary source NO

x emissions probably cause 2% - 5% of the visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau.

• Stationary source PM emissions are projected to increase by 29% between 1996 and 2018. Stationary source PM emissions probably cause less than 2% of the regional visibility impairment.

22 WRAP. Stationary Source NOx and PM Emissions in th e WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts. Denver, CO. Presented to the WRAP Board October 15, 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 20 • The current regional modeling does a poor job of predicting nitrate concentrations

in the winter when NO

x has the greatest impact on visibility impairment. The modeling also does a poor job of predicting the impact of localized fugitive dust impact. The WRAP is currently making significant improvements to the model

and to the emission inventories to address these issues.

• There is a wide range of emission reduction techniques available to control NO

x and PM emissions, and many of the technologies are cost-effective. The current emission inventory does not contain enough information to determine what technologies are currently in place in the West and the cost of additional controls.

• RAVI remedies are available in cases where particular stationary sources may impact particular Class I areas.

The complete report is provided in the 2003 Utah TSD Supplement.



### 6. Best Available Control Technology (BART) Assessment for

NO

x 

### and PM.

a. Regional Haze Rule BART Requirements

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), certain major stationary sources are required to evaluate, install, operate and maintain BART technology or an approved BART

alternative for NO

x and PM emissions. BART requirements can be addressed through a case-by-case review under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or through an alternative program under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The State of Utah has chosen to evaluate BART for NO

x and PM under the case-by-case provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). BART for SO 2 is addressed through an alternative program under 40 CFR 51.309 that is described in Part E of this plan.

EPA issued guidelines for BART determinations on July 6, 2005 that are codified in Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51. These guidelines establish a three step process.

• States identify sources which meet the definition of BART eligible

• States determine which BART eligible sources are “subject to BART”

• For each source subject to BART States identify the appropriate control technology.

The determination of NO

x limits for fossil-fuel fired power plants having a total generating capacity greater than 750 megawatts must be made pursuant to the guidelines in 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, Section E.5. 23

23 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Guidelines for BART De terminations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 FR 39158)Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 21 

### b. BART-Eligible Sources.

BART-eligible sources are those sources that fall within one of 26 specific source categories, were built during the 15-year window of time from 1962 to 1977, and have potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year of any visibility impairing air pollutant (40 CFR 51.301). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308 (e)(1)(i) a State is required to list all BART-eligible sources within the State.

Four BART-eligible electric generating units ha ve been identified in the State of Utah: PacifiCorp’s Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. The units are located at fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million Btu per hour heat input, one of the 26 specific BART source categories. The units have potential emissions greater than 250 tons per year of a visibility impairing pollutant. The units had commenced construction within the BART time frame of August 7, 1962 to August 7,

1977.

Table 3. BART-Eligible Sources in Utah.

SOURCE UNI

T ID SERVICE

DATE NET

DEPENDABLE

CAPACITY (MWn) BART
CATEGORY COAL TYPE BOILER

TYPE

Hunter 1 1978 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential

Hunter 2 1980 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential

Huntington 1 1977 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential

Huntington 2 1974 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential
Note: Hunter Unit 3 commenced construction after 1977 and is therefore not BARTeligible.



### c. Sources Subject to BART

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) the State is required to determine which BARTeligible sources are also “subject to BART.” BART-eligible sources are subject to BART if they emit any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area.

PacifiCorp’s Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 were determined by the State to be subject to BART. The State utilized the technical modeling services of the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC). Modeling was performed according to the RMC modeling protocols 24 . For the WRAP BART exemption screening modeling, the RMC followed the EPA BART Guidelines in 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y and the applicable CALMET/CALPUFF modeling guidance (e.g., IWAQM, 1998; FLAG, 2000; EPA,

24 CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the

Western United StatesSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 22 2003c) including EPA’s March 16, 2006 memorandum: “Dispersion Coefficients for Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF”. 25

The basic assumptions of the WRAP BA RT CALMET/CALPUFF modeling protocols

are as follows:

• Three years of modeling (2001, 2002 and 2003) were used.

• Visibility impacts due to emissions of SO 2 , NO

x and primary PM emissions were

calculated

• Visibility was calculated using the Original IMPROVE equation and Annual Average Natural Conditions.

• The effective range of CALPUFF modeling was set at 300km from the sources

• For pre-control modeling, maximum 24-hour average actual emissions from the

Acid Rain database were used in CALPUFF model.

• For post-control modeling, expected New Source Review (NSR) permitted limits

were used in the CALPUFF model.

According to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, a BART-eligible source is considered to “contribute” to visibility impairment in a Class I area if the modeled 98th percentile change in deciviews is equal to or greater than the “contribution threshold.” The State of Utah evaluated BART exemption screening modeling results at the EPA-suggested

contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews with in a 300 Km radius of the BART-eligible

sources. 26 BART-eligible sources Hunter Unit 1, Hunter Unit 2, Huntington Unit 1, and Huntington Unit 2 had a modeled impact greater than the threshold level of 0.5 change in

deciviews in at least one of the seven Class I areas within a 300 km radius of the sources.

25 Atkinson and Fox, 2006

26 WRAP RMC BART Modeling for Utah Draft #6 April 21, 2007Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 23 Figure 4. Relationship between Utah potential BART-eligible sources and Class I areas. Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 modeled separately at

maximum 300 km.

Table 4. Subject to BART Modeling

Subject to BART Modeling - 98th Percentile 3 year average Delta Deciview

Capitol

Reef Canyonland

s Arches Bryce Canyo

n Zion Grand Canyo

n Black Canyon
Gunnison Mesa
Verde

Hunter 1 2.13 1.87 1.53 0.55 0.46 0.59 0.60 0.53

Hunter 2 1.89 1.62 1.36 0.47 0.41 0.52 0.53 0.47 Huntington 1 1.92 1.64 1. 39 0.48 0.43 0.55 0.56 0.48 Huntington 2 2.43 2.26 1. 89 .091 .078 .099 1.14 0.91Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 24 

### d. BART Determination

As required under 51.308 (e)(1)(A) the determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available. In the analysis the State must take in to account five factors:

• Available technology

• Costs of compliance

• Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts

• Existing control equipment and the remaining useful life of the facility

• The degree of improvement in visibility reasonably anticipated to result from the use of such technology

PacifiCorp has installed or has received permits to install the following retrofit control equipment at the Hunter Unit 1, Hunter Unit 2, Huntington Unit 1, and Huntington Unit 2 fossil fuel fired electric generating units (EGU):

Hunter Units 1 and 2:

• Conversion of existing electrostatic precipitators to pulse jet fabric filter baghouses

• The replacement of existing, first generation low-NO

x burners with Alstom TSF

2000TM low-NO

x firing system and installation of two elevations of separated

overfire air.

• Upgrade of existing flue gas desulfurization system to > 90% sulfur dioxide

removal.

Huntington Units 1 and 2:

• Conversion of existing electrostatic precipitators to pulse jet fabric filter baghouses

• The replacement of existing, first generation low-NO

x burners with Alstom TSF

2000TM low-NO

x firing system and installation of two elevations of separated

overfire air.

• Installation of a new wet-lime, flue gas de-sulfurization system at Unit 2 (FGD).

• Upgrade of existing flue gas desulfurization system to > 90% sulfur dioxide

removal at Unit 1.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 25 Table 5. Emissions Rates (lb/MMBtu) for the Retrofitted Hunter and Huntington

Units

Table 6. Change in Emissions (tons/yr) for Retrofitted BART Units

Unit PreControl

SO 2 PreControl

NOx PreControl

PM 10 PostControl

SO 2 PostControl

NO

x PostControl

PM 10 Delta

SO 2 Delta

NO

x Delta

PM 10

Hunter 1 2741 6833 533 2239 4851 280 -502 -1981 -253

Hunter 2 2425 5922 533 2185 4734 273 -240 -1187 -260
Huntington 1 2538 5676 444 2052 4445 256 -486 -1231 -188
Huntington 2 13703 5582 443 1743 3776 218 -11960 -1806 -225

TOTALS 21,407 24,013 1,953 8,219 17,807 1,027 -13,189 -6,206 -926

Pursuant to 51.308(e)(1)(C)(iv) each source subject to BART is required to install and operate BART no later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan. The PacifiCorp schedule for the four EGUs at Hun tington and Hunter sources is as follows.

Source Notice of Intent

Submitted Permit Issued Estimated In

Service Date

Hunter 1 June 2006 March 2008 Spring 2014

Hunter 2 June 2006 March 2008 Spring 2011 Huntington 1 April 2008 August 2009 Fall 2010 Huntington 2 October 2004 April 2005 Dec 2006

EPA under the BART Rule requires coal-fired electric generating plants of greater than 750 MW to meet BART presumptive limits. While EPA considers presumptive limits to be appropriate for all coal-fired power plants greater than 750 MW, the State may establish different requirements if the State can demonstrate that an alternative is justified

based on a consideration of the five BART factors.

27 Utah Division of Air Quality Approval Orders: Huntington Unit 2 - AN0238012-05, Huntington Unit 1 - DAQE-AN0102380019-09 (note – on January 19, 2010 an administrative amendment was made to the 2009 AO) , Hunter Units I and 2 - DAQE-AN0102370012-08

28 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 Federal Register 39135) Units Utah Permitted Rates 27 Presumptive BART Limits 28

Rate: lb/MMBtu SO2 NOx PM SO2 NOx

Hunter 1 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28

Hunter 2 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28 Huntington 1 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28 Huntington 2 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 26 “States, as a general matter, must require owners and operators of greater than 750 MW power plants to meet these BART emission limits... a State may establish different requirements if the State can demonstrate that an alternative determination is justified based on a consideration of the five statutory factors.” 29

“For Coal-fired EGU’s greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power plants and operating without post-combustion controls (i.e. SCR or SNCR), we have provided presumptive NOx limits, differentiated by boiler design and type of coal burned. You may determine that an alternative control level is appropriate based on careful consideration of the statutory factors.” (Appendix Y Part 51 – IV (E)(5). 30

EPA determined presumptive limits for SO 2 and NO

x for EGUs based on a methodology equivalent to that required in 50 CFR 51 Appendix Y for BART Rule. The EPA determination of presumptive limits included:

• Identification of all potential BART-eligible EGUs (all BART-eligible EGU’s were assumed to be Subject to BART)

• Technical analyses and industry research to determine applicable and appropriate SO 2 and NO

x control options,

• Economic analysis to determine cost effectiveness for each potentially BART-eligible EGU

• Evaluation of historical emissions and forecast emission reductions for each potentially BART-eligible EGU 31

.

• NOx and SO 2 CALPUFF modeling of emission impacts at model Class I

area.

The analysis included 491 potential BART EGUs including Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. The technical analysis conducted by EPA to determine presumptive BART limits for SO 2 and NO

x is in effect a BART determination analysis for 419 EGUs including Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. 32

Section IV (E) (5) of Appendix Y Part 51 clearly requires the implementation of presumptive NOx limits for coal-fired EGU’s greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power plants. Under Appendix Y, states are given the discretion to

29 Ibid. (70 Federal Register 39131).

30 70 Federal Register 39171

31 Ibid. (70 Federal Register 39134)

32 “Methodology for Developing BART NOx Presumptive Limits” EPA Clean Air Market Division June 15, 2005 HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0445 and “Technical Support Document for BART NOx Limits for Electric Generating Units Excel Spreadsheet, Memorandum April 15, 2005 HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0369Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 27 challenge presumptive limits through a five factor analysis, but presumptive limits were developed by EPA as a reasonable, equivalent and mandated substitution for a five factor analysis

. 33

Utah’s long-standing Prevention of Signifi cant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program (SIP Section VII and R307-405), New Source Review permitting program (SIP Section II and R307-401) and Visibility program (SIP section XVII and R307-406) will continue to protect Class I area visibility by requiring best available control technology for new sources, and assuring that there is not a significant degradation in visibility at Class I areas due to new or modified major sources.



## E. SULFUR DIOXIDE MILESTONES AND BACKSTOP

TRADING PROGRAM

1. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger

a. Regional Sulfur Dioxide Milestones

(1) Milestone Values. The regional sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) milestones for the years 2008 through 2018 are provided in Table 7. The milestones will be adjusted annually as described in paragraph E.1.a(2) of this plan.

Table 7. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Milestones

For the year the regional sulfur

dioxide milestone is and the annual SO 2 emissions for these years will determine whether emissions are greater

than or less than the milestone

2008 34 269,083 tons SO 2 Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008
2009 234,903 tons SO 2 Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009
2010 200,722 tons SO 2 Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010
2011 200,722 tons SO 2 Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011
2012 200,722 tons SO 2 Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012
2013 185,795 tons SO 2 Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013
2014 170,868 tons SO 2 Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014
2015 155,940 tons SO 2 Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015
2016 155,940 tons SO 2 Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016

33 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 Federal Register 39171)

34 The 2006 and 2007 annual milestones that are used to calculate the 2008 3-year average milestone in Table 8 have been adjusted to incl ude only the three states that are pa rt of the regional backstop trading program using the adjustment met hodology in the 2003 Regional Haze SIPSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 28 For the year the regional sulfur

dioxide milestone is and the annual SO 2 emissions for these years will determine whether emissions are greater

than or less than the milestone
2017 155,940 tons SO 2 Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017
2018 141,849 tons SO 2 Year 2018 only
2019 forward, until replaced by an approved SIP 141,849 tons SO 2 Annual; no multiyear averaging

(2) Milestone Adjustments.

(a) All milestone adjustments will require a SIP revision. Paragraph E.1.c(3) of this plan outlines adjustments to be made to the emissions inventory to ensure a consistent comparison to the milestones. These adjustments will be incorporated into the milestones every five years as part of the periodic implementation plan revisions required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). Adjustments to the milestones will be tracked in the annual emissions report described in paragraph E.1.c(4) of this

Plan.

(b) Within ninety days of adoption by the Utah Air Quality Board of the periodic Implementation Plan revision incorporating adjustments based on paragraph E.1.c(3) or (4) of this Plan, the State of Utah will provide notice to sources whose records were used to calculate the adjustments, including the date of the SIP adoption and a statement that the source needs to retain the applicable records for at least five years from the date that the SIP was adopted, or ten years from the date of establishing the record, whichever is longer.

(c) Opt-in Provisions for States and Tribes. The regional milestones in Table 7 were developed for a 3-state region: New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Other western states and tribes may choose to join this backstop trading program in the future. The addition of a state or tribe to the program will require a SIP/TIP revision of all participating states and tribes to adjust the regional milestones, and will not occur automatically. Any state or tribe that wishes to opt in to the program will propose milestone adjustments to the participating states and tribes using the same methodology that was used to develop the milestones in Table 7. A new participant must agree to develop a SIP and backstop trading rule that is consistent with those adopted by the other participating states and tribes.



### b. Regional Program Administration

(1) Pre-trigger tracking of regional SO 2 emissions. The executive secretary will work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are participating in the SO 2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program to ensure that an emission tracking system for the regional SO 2 inventory is developed and maintained.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 29 The executive secretary is responsible for all regional program administration functions as described in this plan. The executive secretary will perform these functions using the WRAP as the executive secretary’s agent. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) compiled the SO 2 emission inventories that were used during the development of the Annex and subsequent SIP revisions , and the WRAP continues to refine andimprove the overall tracking system for regional haze. The WRAP will maintain the pretrigger emissions tracking functions described in this plan for the foreseeable future. If the WRAP is no longer able to fulfill this function, then the executive secretary will ensure that other arrangements are made, either through a different regional organization or through a contractor, to maintain the SO 2 tracking system that is described in this plan. The WRAP has no authority to make regulatory determinations. The WRAP has limited authority under this plan to perform tracking and accounting functions, prepare reports, and perform other administrative functions as directed by the executive secretary. The executive secretary will work expeditiously to correct any problems if the WRAP fails to perform any of the functions described in this plan in a timely manner.

(2) Designation of the Tracking System Administrator. If the backstop trading program is triggered due to an exceedance of the SO 2 milestones as outlined in Part E.1.c of this plan, the executive secretary will work cooperatively with the other participating states and tribes to designate one Tracking System Administrator (TSA). The TSA will be designated as expeditiously as possible, but no later than six months after the program trigger date. In addition, before the TSA is designated, the executive secretary will enter into a binding c ontract with the TSA that will require the TSA to perform all TSA functions described in this plan. The State of Utah has sufficient authority under State contract law to ensure that the functions in this plan are carried out by the TSA.

(3) Information Provided by other States and Tribes. The executive secretary will accept the emission inventory and permitting information provided by the other participating states and tribes in order to determine the milestone value and program trigger if such other states and tribes have provided proper documentation and followed the public notification process in their federally approved implementation plans.



### c. Determination of Program Trigger

(1) The executive secretary will submit an annual emissions report to the WRAP and all participating states and tribes by September 30 of each year. The report will document actual sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous calendar year for all sources subject to the Sulfur Dioxide Milestone Inventory requirements of R307-150. The first report for calendar year 2003 was submitted in 2004. If the WEB Trading Program is triggered as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(10) of this plan, annual reports will be prepared during the interim period for informational purposes until the trading program is fully implemented. The executive secretary will prepare the supporting documentation that is included with the annual emissions report as noted in (2) and (3)

below.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 30 (2) The annual emissions report for Utah will include a source emissions change report that contains the following information:

(a) identification of any new sources that were not contained in the previous calendar year’s emissions report, and an explanation of why the source is now included in the program;

(b) identification of any sources that were included in the previous year’s report and are no longer included in the program, and an explanation of why this change has occurred; and

(c) an explanation for increases or decreases of emissions at any applicable source of more than twenty percent from the previous year.

(3) The annual emissions report for Utah will include the proposed emissions adjustment to ensure a consistent comparison to the milestones. Actual emission inventories for sources that change the method of monitoring or calculating their emissions will be adjusted to be comparable to the emission monitoring or calculation method that was used in the 2006 base year inventory.

(4) The annual sulfur dioxide milestone and emissions report for Utah will document any adjustments that should be made to the milestone for the previous year as

follows.

(a) Changes due to enforcement actions.

(i) Adjustments due to settlements arising from enforcement actions. Adjustments to the milestones will be made, as specified in subsection (iii) below, if:

(A) an agreement to settle an action, arising from allegations of a failure of an owner or operator of an emissions unit at a source in the program to comply with applicable regulations which were in effect during the base year, is reached between the parties to the action;

(B) the alleged failure to comply with applicable regulations affects the assumptions that were used in calculating the source’s base year and forecasted sulfur dioxide emissions; and

(C) the settlement includes or recommends an adjustment to the

milestones.

(ii) Adjustments due to administrative or judicial orders. Adjustments to the milestones will be made as directed by any final administrative orSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 31 judicial order, as specified in (iii) below. Where the final administrative or judicial order does not include a reforecast of the source's baseline, the executive secretary will evaluate whether a reforecast of the source's baseline emissions is appropriate.

(iii) Adjustments method and effective dates. The milestone will be decreased by an appropriate amount based on a reforecast of the source’s decreased sulfur dioxide emissions. The adjustments will not be made to

the milestone until after the source has reduced its sulfur dioxide emissions as required in the settlement agreement, or administrative or judicial order.

(iv) Documentation of adjustments for enforcement actions. The report will include the following documentation of any adjustment due to an enforcement action or a settlement agreement:

(A) identification of each source in Utah that has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions pursuant to a settlement agreement or an administrative or judicial order;

(B) for each source identified, a statement indicating whether the milestones were adjusted in response to the enforcement action;

(C) discussion of the rationale for the executive secretary's decision to adjust or not to adjust the milestones; and

(D) if SO 2 emissions reductions over and above those reductions needed for compliance with the applicable regulations were part of an agreement to settle an action, a statement indicating whether such reductions resulted in any adjustment to the milestones or allowance allocations, and a discussion of the rationale for the executive secretary's decision on any such adjustment.

(v) The State of Utah will include all accumulated milestone adjustments due to enforcement actions or settlement agreements in the periodic SIP revisions required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

(5) Compilation of Reports.

(a) The WRAP will compile the annual emissions reports submitted by all participating states and tribes into a draft regional emission report for sulfur dioxide. The WRAP will follow additional quality assurance procedures developed by member states and tribes to identify possible errors in the emissions data, including screening for missing or added sources, name changes, and significant changes in reported emissions. Any questions or anomalies regardingSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 32 Utah’s report will be resolved by the executive secretary prior to the submission of the draft regional emission report.

(b) By December 31 of each year, the WRAP will submit the draft regional emission and milestone report to the executive secretary and all participating states and tribes and will post the report on the WRAP’s web page. The report will include the following information:

(i) actual regional sulfur dioxide emissions in tons per year;

(ii) adjustments to account for changes in emission monitoring or calculation methods;

(iii) average adjusted emissions for the last three years for comparison to the regional milestone, if adjustments were made; and

(iv) regional milestone adjustments due to enforcement actions or settlement agreements.

(6) The executive secretary will evaluate the draft regional emissions report and will propose a draft determination that the sulfur dioxide milestone has either been met in the region, or has been exceeded. In the event that the WRAP has not submitted a draft regional emissions and milestone report to the executive secretary by the December 31 deadline for any year, the executive secretary will prepare the report for that year based upon the annual emissions reports submitted by all participating states and tribes to the WRAP for that year. The executive secretary will modify the data in these annual emissions reports, or use data where such report(s) have not been submitted, based upon direction received from the Environmental Protection Agency.

(7) The executive secretary will advertise availability of the draft regional emissions report and will notify the public of the draft determination by publishing a notice in newspapers of general circula tion throughout Utah. A 30-day public comment period will be established, and a public hearing will be held during the public comment period. The executive secretary will also submit the draft determination to EPA for review and comment concurrently.

(8) The executive secretary will consider any comments received during the comment period, and will submit a copy of all comments to the WRAP and to all participating states and tribes along with a response that addresses the comments.

(9) The WRAP will compile the comments and responses from all participating states and tribes and prepare a draft final regional emissions report. The report will be submitted to the states and tribes that are participating in the program and, if necessary, the report will propose a common program trigger date.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 33 (10) The executive secretary will review and approve the final regional emissions report. The executive secretary will then submit this report to the Environmental Protection Agency along with a final determination that the milestone either has been met in the region, or that the milestone has been exceeded and the WEB Trading Program has been triggered in Utah. This determination will be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency by the end of March, fifteen months following the milestone year. The first determination was submitted in 2005, for the 2003 milestone. If the milestone has been exceeded, the common trigger date proposed in the regional report will become the program trigger date for purposes of implementing the WEB Trading Program. In the event that the program trigger date must be established by the executive secretary in the absence of a regional emissions and milestone report prepared by the WRAP, the program trigger date will be March 31 of the applicable year.

(11) The executive secretary will publish a notice of the final determination in newspapers of general circulation throughout the state of Utah. This notice will include the milestone and the final annual regional SO 2 emissions for that year. If the milestone has been exceeded, the notice will specify the program trigger date and the first year that WEB sources must be in compliance with the WEB Trading Program provisions as

outlined in R307-250-12.



### d. Year 2013 Assessment

(1) Initial Assessment in 2013 Periodic SIP Review.

(a) The executive secretary will work cooperatively through the WRAP with other participating states and tribes to develop a projected emission inventory for

SO 2 through the year 2018, using the 2010 regional inventory as a baseline. This projected inventory will be included in the 2010 annual emission and milestone report that will be completed in March 2012 as outlined in paragraph E.1.c of this plan.

(b) The executive secretary will evaluate the projected inventory, and based upon this information will make an assessment of the likelihood of meeting the regional milestone for the year 2018. The executive secretary will include this assessment as part of Utah’s progress report that must be submitted by December 31, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

(2) Regional Emissions Report for 2012.

(a) The executive secretary will prepare an SO 2 emission report for the year 2012 by September 30, 2013, as described in paragraph E.1.c(1) of this plan. The executive secretary will include a list of all known or anticipated sources in Utah that are anticipated to affect total SO 2 emissions in 2018. This may include permitted sources, projects that are still in the planning stage, or projections from the affected sources of anticipated emissions in 2018. The status of these projectsSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 34 will be described to provide a better understanding of the degree of certainty that individual projects will be completed by 2018.

(b) The WRAP will compile the information from all participating states and tribes, prepare draft SO 2 inventory projections for the year 2018, and estimate the

effect of known future sources on SO 2 emissions. Projected 2018 emissions will be compared to the 2018 milestone. This information will be included in the draft regional emissions report for 2012 that will be submitted to the executive secretary by December 31, 2013, as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(5) of this Plan. The draft report will be published on the WRAP web site for a period of public review and comment for not less than 30 days.

(3) Consensus Decision. The executive secretary commits to meet with the participating states and tribes in March 2014 to discuss any comments received on the 2018 emission projections in the draft report. The participating states and tribes will decide, through a consensus process, whether it is necessary to trigger the WEB trading program early in order to meet the SO 2 emission reduction goals in 2018.

(4) Early Trigger: Timing. If the participating states and tribes unanimously decide in the March 2014 meeting that an early trigger of the backstop trading program is necessary, the executive secretary will trigger the WEB Trading Program and the timing of the program elements will be adjusted as follows to ensure that the WEB Trading Program is in place in 2018.

(a) The date of the consensus decision by the participating states and tribes to voluntarily trigger the WEB trading program will become the program trigger

date.

(b) Allowances for 2018 will be distributed to WEB sources by January 1, 2015.

(c) The first control period will be the year 2018. WEB sources will need to demonstrate at the end of the first control period that they have enough

allowances to cover their 2018 SO 2 emissions.

(5) Public Notification. The executive secretary will publish notice of the decision in newspapers of general circulation in Utah. If applicable, the notice will include a statement that the WEB Trading Program is in effect and will specify the program trigger date.



### e. Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone

If the WEB Trading Program is triggered as outlined in paragraph E.1.c of this Plan, and the first control period will not occur until after the year 2018, a special penalty will be

assessed if the 2018 milestone is exceeded.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 35 Details of the penalty provisions for violation of the 2018 milestone can be found in R307-250-13. In general, the penalty involves an assessment of the minimum $5,000 per

ton of SO 2 emissions in excess of the WEB source’s allowance limitation. The source can resolve its excess emissions violation by agreeing to the streamlined settlement approach outlined in R307-250-13.

The amount of the minimum monetary penalty in R307-250-13 will be evaluated at each five-year SIP review, and adjusted if needed, to ensure that the penalty per ton substantially exceeds the expected cost of allowances to ensure that this remains a stringent penalty.

The 2018 special penalty provision will continue to be applied each year after 2018 until

the 2018 milestone has been achieved.



### 2. Pre-Trigger Emissions Tracking Requirements

a. SO 2 

### Emission Inventory

40 CFR 51.309 sets forth emissions inventory requirements for tracking compliance with

the SO 2 milestones. R307-150 has been revised to supplement Utah’s inventory requirements to satisfy the needs of this program.

(1) Applicability. The sulfur dioxide milestone inventory requirements of R307- 150 require all stationary sources with actual emissions of 100 tons per year or more of

SO 2 in the year 2000, or in any subsequent year, to submit an annual inventory of SO 2 emissions, beginning with the 2003 emission inve ntory. A source that meets these criteria and then emits less than 100 tons per year in a later year must continue to submit an SO 2 inventory for tracking compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones until 2018 or until the WEB Trading Program has been fully implemented and emission tracking is occurring under R307-250-9, whichever is earlier.

(2) R307-150 contains enforceable requirements for WEB sources.

(a) Each source will submit an annual inventory of SO 2 emissions.

(b) Each source will use appropriate emission factors and estimating techniques and document the emissions monitoring or estimation methodology used.

(c) Each source will include emissions from start up, shut down, and upset conditions in the annual total inventory.

(d) Each source subject to the federal acid rain program will use methods from 40 CFR Part 75 to report emissions from all sources.

(e) Each source will include the rate and period of emissions, the specific installation that is the source of the air pollution, composition of air contaminant,Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 36 type and efficiency of the air pollution control equipment and other information necessary to quantify operation and emissions, and to evaluate pollution control.

(f) Each source will retain records for a minimum of 10 years from the date of their creation, or if the record was the basis for an adjustment to a milestone, 5 years from the date of an implementation plan revision, whichever is longer.

(3) The executive secretary will quality-assure the submitted inventory data as outlined in the Inventory Preparation Plan. The executive secretary will screen the inventories to identify changes in emission measurement techniques that would require an inventory and milestone adjustment as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(3) of this Plan.

(4) The executive secretary will retain historical emission inventory records for non-utilities from 2006 that may affect milestone calculations under paragraph E.1.c(3) and allocation decisions under paragraph E.3.a of this plan until the year 2018 to ensure that changes in emissions monitoring techniques can be tracked.



### b. Development of Emission Tracking System

The executive secretary will work cooperatively with the WRAP to ensure that an emission tracking system for the regional SO 2 inventory is developed and maintained.



### c. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking

Database

(1) During the pre-trigger phase when the executive secretary is tracking compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones, the executive secretary will work cooperatively with the participating states and tribes to ensure that an independent audit of the tracking database is conducted to make sure that the WRAP is accurately compiling the regional emissions report.

(a) The first audit will occur during the year 2006 and will review data collected during the first two years of the program.

(b) Subsequent audits will occur in 2011, which will cover emissions years 2005- 2009, and 2016, which will cover emissions years 2010-2014.

(2) The primary focus of the audit will be the process that is used to compile the regional inventory from the data provided by each state and tribe, and the tracking of accumulated changes during the period between SIP revisions. The audit will also review the accuracy and integrity of the regional reports that are used to determine compliance with the milestones. The audit will not be a full review of Utah’s process for compiling and reporting SO 2 emissions, but will include a broad review of Utah’s inventory management and quality assurance systems, including the presence and exercise of systems to assure data quality and integrity.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 37 (3) The audit will discuss the uncertainty of emissions calculations, and whether this uncertainty is likely to affect the annual determination of whether the milestone is exceeded. It will identify any recommended changes to emissions monitoring or calculation methods or data quality assurance systems. It will also review and recommend any changes to improve the administrative process of collecting the annual emissions data at the state and tribal level, compiling a regional emission inventory, and making the annual determination of whether the WEB Trading Program has been triggered.

(4) Changes to the SO 2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program, including any changes to the milestones due to the results of these periodic audits, will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision as part of the five-year SIP review required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

(5) The executive secretary will advertise the availability of the draft audit report by publishing a notice in newspapers of general circulation in Utah. A 30-day public comment period will be established, and a hearing will be held during the public comment period. The executive secretary will respond to comments and provide notice of the availability of the final audit report. The executive secretary will submit the final audit report to the EPA regional office.



### 3. WEB Trading Program Requirements

a. Initial Allocation of SO 2 

### Allowances

(1) Draft Allocation Report.

Within six months of the program trigger date, as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(11) of this plan, the executive secretary will submit a draft allocation report to all participating states and tribes and to the TSA. This report will contain the following information:

(a) A list of all WEB sources in Utah as defined in R307-250-2 that groups the sources into two categories:

(i) Category 1: WEB sources that commenced operation prior to January 1, 2008. These sources will receive a floor allocation and will be eligible for the reducible portion of the allocation.

(ii) Category 2: WEB sources that commenced operation on January 1, 2008 or a later date. These sources will receive a floor allocation, but will not be eligible for the reducible allocation. The floor allocation for Category 2 sources will be deducted from the new source set-aside.

WEB sources that have received a retired source exemption under R307-250-4(4) will be included in the allocation process in the same manner as WEB sources that are currently operating. However, sources that were permanently shut downSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 38 prior to the program trigger date are not considered WEB sources under R307- 250-4(1) and would therefore not be included in the allocation process.

(b) The floor allocation for all WEB sources in Utah.

(i) For non-utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor allocation will be asestablished in the E.H. Pechan Report, “Market Trading Forum NonUtility Sector Allocation Final Report from the Allocations Working Group” (November 2002). If any additional category 1 sources are identified, the executive secretary will calculate a floor allocation using the methodology outlined in the E.H. Pechan Report.

(ii) For utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor will be calculated by first assigning a “clean unit” emission rate to each unit. The clean unit emission rate will then be multiplied by an annual heat input (MMBtu) that represents a realistic upper bound for the unit.

(Note: The floor level approach described above is designed to address equity issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The State of Utah is participating in ongoing discussions with the other participating states, tribes and regional stakeholders to ensure that all equity issues have been addressed. The State of Utah will work with the other participating

states and tribes to ensure that the floor allocation is calculated in a consistent manner for all participants. As outlined further in this allocation methodology, the floor for both utilities and non-utilities is limited by the utility/non-utility split in Table 10. The floor allocation methodology will ensure that credits are available for early reduction allocations. In addition, the regional number of allowances allocated for each year cannot exceed the milestone for that year under any circumstances.)

Principles

• Each unit will have enough allowances to operate as a clean source and at an operating rate (capacity factor) that is a realistic upper bound for the

unit.

• There will not be significant winners and losers in this process.

• The focus is on a fair approach that is applied equally to all sources rather than on state and tribal budgets.

• The allocation process will use data that reflect current conditions, including current monitoring methodologies.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 39 Equity Issues

• Sources that are currently burning very low sulfur coal may see changes in their supply in the future. Historic actual emissions may not reflect future operations.

• Sources that are currently operating at a low utilization may not reach full capacity in the future. Assumptions about growth that are realistic on the regional level may provide a windfall to some sources, and not provide adequate allowances for other sources.

• There are some utility units in the region that are not BART-eligible and are operating at a low level of control for SO 2 . The relative responsibility of BART-eligible vs. non-BART-eligible is a consideration in the process.

• Sources that are operating at a high level of control are already bearing the cost of control and this affects their ability to compete in the market.

• Sources that have no SO 2 controls are facing a large expense that could affect their ability to continue to operate.

• Emission rate disparities exist throughout the region.

(iii) For Category 2 WEB sources the floor allocation will be the lower of the permitted SO 2 annual emissions for the WEB source, or SO 2 annual emissions calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100% utilization of the WEB source.

(c) A list of certified early reductions, expressed as tons of SO 2 . Early reductions

will be calculated and certified as follows:

(i) Any WEB source that installs control technology and accepts new permit emissions limits that are, for a non-utility source, below its floor as established in this section, or, for a utility source, below BACT, may apply for an early reduction bonus allocation as outlined in R307-250- 7(5). The bonus allocation will be available for reductions that occur between 2008 and the program trigger year. The application must show

that the floor was calculated in a manner that is consistent with the monitoring requirements of R307-250-9(1)(a) and the new permit must contain monitoring requirements that are consistent with R307-250- 9(1)(a). Emission units that are monitored using the less stringent monitoring requirements of R307-250-9(1)(b) are not eligible for early

reduction bonus allocations. The bonus allocations accumulate from the time the new controls come on line until the program trigger date and will be allocated to the WEB source over a 10 year period. The use of early reduction bonus allocations in any control period is limited to no moreSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 40 than five percent, systemwide, of the existing available allowances, as provided in paragraph E.3.a(2)(e) of this plan.

(ii) The executive secretary will review the application and will certify early reductions for each full year between 2008 and the program trigger year that meet the requirements of R307-250-7(5) and this plan.

(iii) A source’s certified early reductions for all years will be added together to obtain the total certified early reductions for that source.

(d) Historical SO 2 emissions data for all Category 1 sources for the purposes of calculating the reducible allocation.

(i) For utilities, annual SO 2 emissions for the year 2006. Another time period may be used for individual emission units, if needed, to be representative of normal operating conditions.

(ii) For non-utilities, the annual SO 2 emissions for the year 2006.

(e) Changes due to settlements arising from enforcement actions or due to administrative or judicial orders. The adjustment will be determined in accordance with paragraph E.1.c.(4)(b)(3)(c) of this Implementation Plan. The difference between the WEB source’s allocations prior to enforcement and after the enforcement action will be removed from the allocation pool.

(2) Compiled Allocation Report.

The TSA will compile the information provided by all participating states and tribes into a draft regional allocation report, and will submit this draft regional report to the executive secretary and all participating states and tribes for review and comment thirty days after receiving the preliminary allocation reports. The draft regional allocation report will include a proposed budget for each state and tribe and the proposed allocation

for each WEB source in Utah.

The State of Utah will work closely with the other participating states and tribes to ensure that the regional allocation is distributed consistently and fairly and to address any change in status that may affect this process.

The following methodology distributes the allowances available under the milestone in the following order: tribal set-aside, new source set-aside, floor, renewable energy credit, reducible allocation. The allocation process is limited by the number of allowances available under the milestone. It is not possible under this methodology to distribute more allowances that are available under the milestone. The State of Utah expects that there will be allowances available for all of the categories listed above. However, if at any time in the process there are not enough allowances available to fully cover a particular category, then the sources eligible for that category will receive a pro-ratedSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 41 allowance, and the process will stop. For example, if the renewable energy allocation is greater than the remaining available allowances under the milestone, then each of the renewable energy sources would receive a reduced renewable energy allocation, and

there would be no reducible allocation.

(a) Table 8 shows the major categories that will be used to allocate allowances under the milestone. The methodology to calculate the available allocation for existing sources is described below. The milestone for the 4-state region is the starting point.

Table 8. Utility/Non-utility Split

Milestone

from Table 7 Tribal SetAside New Source

Set-aside Remaining

Allocation Utility

Portion Non-utility portion
2008 269,083 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 260,444 tons 210,480 tons 76,635 tons
2009 234,903 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 226,260 tons 176,299 tons 76,635 tons
2010 200,722 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 192,079 tons 142,119 tons 76,635 tons
2011 200,722 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 192,079 tons 142,119 tons 76,635 tons
2012 200,722 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 192,079 tons 142,119 tons 76,635 tons
2013 185,795 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 171,009 tons 121,048 tons 76,635 tons
2014 170,868 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 156,082 tons 106,121 tons 76,635 tons
2015 155,940 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 141,154 tons 91,194 tons 76,635 tons
2016 155,940 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 141,154 tons 91,194 tons 76,635 tons
2017 155,940 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 141,154 tons 91,194 tons 76,635 tons
2018 141,849 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 127,063 tons 80,402 tons 75,935 tons

(b) Subtract the floor allocation for all WEB sources in the region that were identified as Category 2 from the new source set-aside to determine the available allocation for new sources that begin operation after the program trigger date.

This allocation methodology treats all Category 2 sources as existing sources because these sources will be operating on the program trigger date. However, the allowances for all Category 2 sources are actually drawn from the new source set-aside. If new source growth exceeds the projections used to develop this plan, it is possible that the above calculation will result in a negative number. Therefore, to address this problem, Category 2 sources will be ranked based on the date the permit is issued for each source. Sources will then be removed from the list of Category 2 sources, starting with the most recent permit, until the new source set-aside is no longer depleted. The last source on the list will receive a partial allocation. The sources that were removed from the list will be considered new sources as described in Part E.3.c of this plan. These sources will need to purchase allowances to cover their emissions because the new source set-aside for sources that begin operation after the program trigger date would be calculated as zero until it is replenished in the next 5-year period. The allocation process for these new sources is described in Part E.3.c of this plan.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 42 Example calculation of the new source set-aside. The example uses the following assumptions:

• Emissions exceed the milestones based on an average of the years 2004-2006.

• The program trigger date is March 31, 2008.

• The first 5 years of the program are 2012-2016.

• New sources that commenced operation between January 1, 2008 and the program trigger date have a total floor allocation of 600 tons

.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Maximum Possible

Set-Aside 6,143 12,286 12,286 12,286 12,286

Floor for Category 2

Sources -600 -600 -600 -600 -600

Remaining New Source

Set-aside 5,543 11,686 11,686 11,686 11,686

(c) The remaining allocation shown in Table 8 is available for distribution to category 1 sources. The final two columns in Table 8 split this remaining allocation into a utility allocation and a non-utility allocation.

(d) Subtract the floor allocations for all category 1 utility and non-utility sources in the region from the utility allocation or the non-utility allocation.

In the unlikely event that the total floor allocation for either utility or non-utility sources submitted by the participating states and tribes exceeds the total allocation available for that category, the TSA will notify the participating states and tribes of the discrepancy. The State of Utah commits to work with the participating states and tribes through a consensus process to ensure that the floor allocation has been calculated in a consistent manner for all participants and to

ensure that the floor allocation does not exceed the total allocation available for that category. The total number of allowances distributed can not exceed the milestone for any given year.

(e) Calculate the early reduction bonus allocation.

(i) Divide the number of certified early reductions for all WEB sources in the region by ten.

(ii) Add the utility allocation for 2018 to the non-utility allocation for 2018 and then multiply this total by 0.05.

(iii) If the product of paragraph (i) is no more than the product of paragraph (ii), the product of paragraph (i) is the early reduction bonusSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 43 allocation, and each source is allocated ten percent of its early reduction

bonus allocation.

(iv) If the product of paragraph (i) is more than the product of paragraph (ii), the early reduction bonus allocation for the region is the product of paragraph (ii). To determine a source’s allocation, divide the product of paragraph (ii) by 0.10 times the total number of early reduction bonus allocations and apply that ratio to the certified early reductions for the

source.

(v) Split the regional early reduction bonus allocation based on the ratio of utility to non-utility allocations in 2018 and subtract the early reduction bonus allocation from the utility and non-utility allocation totals.

(vi) The early reduction bonus allocation will be calculated in a similar manner for the second five-year allocation period under this program, and will then be discontinued for any future allocation periods.

(f) Any remaining allowances in the utility allocation or the non-utility allocation after subtraction of the early reduction allocation is considered the reducible allocation and will be assigned to Category 1 sources.

(i) For non-utility sources, add together the historic SO 2 emissions inaccordance with paragraph E.3.a(1)(d) of this plan for all Category 1 nonutility sources in the region to determine an historic emission total. Determine a percent contribution of SO 2 emissions for each WEB source to the historic emission total. Multiply the non-utility reducible allocation by the percent contribution for each WEB source to determine a reducible

allocation for each WEB source.

(ii) For utility sources, the reducible allocation will be distributed to sources that emitted above their floor in the baseline period (2006) based on their percentage of total floor emissions for sources emitting above the

floor times the number of reducible allowances available for the first five years of the WEB Trading Program. The number of allowances for any source receiving a reducible allocation will not exceed a recent historic emission rate times a heat input that represents a realistic upper bound for

the unit.

[Note: The approach for distributing the reducible utility allocation described above is designed to address equity issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The State of Utah is participating in ongoing discussions with the other participating states, tribes and regional stakeholders to ensure that all equity issues have been addressed. The principles and equity issues that are under discussion are listed in paragraph E.3.a.(1)(b)(ii) of this plan.]Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 44 (g) Add together the floor allocation, early reduction allocation, and reducible allocation for each WEB source to determine the proposed allocations for the first five years of the WEB Trading Program.

(h) Add together the proposed allocations for all of the WEB sources in the jurisdiction of each participating state and tribe to determine a draft SO2 allowance budget for each state and tribe.

(3) Public Comment Period. The executive secretary will publish notice of av ailability of the draft regional allocation report in newspapers of general circulation throughout Utah. A 30-day public comment period will be established, and a hearing will be held during the comment period. The executive secretary will consider the comments, and will revise the draft report as needed if the recommended changes are consistent with the allocation process outlined in this plan. The executive secretary will prepare a written response that explains why each comment has either been accepted or has been determined to be inconsistent with the allocation process outlined in this plan.

(4) Proposed Changes Submitted to Tracking System Administrator. The executive secretary will submit a copy of all comments received, the response to those comments, and any proposed changes to the budget and source allocations to the TSA within sixty days of receipt of the draft regional allocation report.

(5) Compilation of Changes. The TSA will compile the comments, responses, and proposed changes to the report and will submit a final draft regional allocation report that is consistent with the allocation methodology outlined in this plan to the executive secretary within 90 days of the receipt of the draft regional allocation report. Final Regional Allocation Report. The executive secretary will review the final regional allocation report and will determine the budget for Utah and allocations for WEB sources within Utah in accordance with the allocation methodology outlined in this plan within thirty days of receipt of the final draft allocation report. The executive secretary will submit the budget and allocations for all WEB sources in Utah to EPA, and will notify the TSA that the WEB source allocations should be recorded in the allowance tracking system.

(6) Notification. The executive secretary will notify all WEB sources within Utah of the number of allowances that have been recorded in their compliance account. The notice will include a warning to the WEB sources that reported annual sulfur dioxide emissions may change due to the implementation of new monitoring methods as required by R307-250-9. Allocations for the first five years of the program will not be adjusted to account forchanges due to the new monitoring method. However, allocations during the next fiveyear distribution will be adjusted as needed to account for paper changes in emissions due to changes in monitoring methodology.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 45 

### b. Distribution of Allowances for Future Control Periods

By December 1 of the year five years after the initial allocation, the executive secretary will follow the process outlined in paragraph E.3.a of this plan to distribute allowances for the next five-year period. This process will continue every five years until allowances have been allocated through the year 2018.



### c. Distribution of the New Source Allocation

(1) The new source set-aside will be available for two categories of sources.

(a) A new WEB source is eligible to receive an annual floor allocation equal to the lower of the annual sulfur dioxide limit in the source’s approval order, or sulfur dioxide annual emissions calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100% utilization of the WEB source, beginning with the first full calendar year of operation and in accordance with the provisions of R307-250-7(6).

(b) An existing WEB source that has increased production capacity after obtaining a new approval order issued under R307-401 is eligible to receive an allocation from the new source set-aside equal to:

(i) the permitted annual sulfur dioxide emission limit for a new unit; or

(ii) the permitted annual SO 2 emission increase for the WEB source due to the replacement of an existing unit with a new unit or the modification of an existing unit that increased the production capacity of the WEB source.

Permitted emission increases due to fuel switching or other process changes that are not directly related to increased production capacity are not eligible for

allocations from the new source set-aside. The allocation from the new source set-aside in the first year of operation will be adjusted to account for the number of days that the source is operating in that first year.

EXAMPLE. A new unit with a nameplate capacity of 400 MW is constructed at a power plant with two existing units with nameplate capacities of 400 MW and 300 MW. The two existing units install SO 2 controls and reduce emissions to meet PSD requirements for the construction of the new unit. In this example, the source would continue to receive a floor and a reducible allocation for each of the existing units, and would also be eligible to receive an allocation from the new source set-aside for the new unit. Even though total SO 2 emissions will decrease at this plant due to the construction of the new unit, the allowances allocated to the source will increase to reflect the increase in production capacity of 400 MW of electricity. If the new unit comes on line on July 1 the allocation for the first year will be reduced by 50 percent because the unit was operational for half of the year.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 46 (2) Allocations from the new source set-aside will remain constant for the applicable WEB source and will be made on an annual basis by March 31 of each year for the current control period. When the next five-year allocation block is distributed as outlined in paragraph E.3.b of this plan, all sources with an allocation under the new source set-aside will receive a five-year allocation block from the new source set-aside, and will continue to receive this allocation in future five-year allocation blocks.

(3) Owners or operators of new WEB sources or modified WEB sources that meetthe eligibility requirements of (1) may apply for an allocation from the new source setaside by submitting a written request to the executive secretary as outlined in Subsection R307-250-7(6).

(4) The executive secretary will review the application for an allocation for accuracy and completeness, and will notify the source of intent to distribute allocations from the regional new source set-aside pending verification that allowances are available in the new source set-aside account. The executive secretary will then forward the request

to the TSA.

(5) The TSA will document the date that the request is received by the TSA. Requests for allocation of allowances from the new source set-aside will be processed in the order received. The TSA will deduct the number of allowances requested from the regional new source set-aside that was established by the participating states and tribes, and will then record an equal number of allowances in the source’s compliance account for each remaining year of the five-year period. The TSA will then send written notification to the source and to the executive secretary that the allowances have been recorded in the source’s compliance account.

(6) If there are insufficient allowances remaining in the new source set-aside to fulfill the request, the source must purchase the allowances required to demonstrate compliance. Any eligible WEB source that does not receive an allocation from the new source set-aside because the set-aside was depleted will be first in line to receive an allocation when the new source set-aside is increased in the next five-year period as outlined in Table 8 of this plan. If there is more than one such source, their allocation requests will be processed in the order they were received by the TSA.

(7) A source that has received a retired source exemption and continues to receive an allocation as a retired WEB source is not eligible to receive an allocation from the new

source set-aside.



### d. Regional Tribal Set-aside

(1) Each year after the program is triggered for which allowances are allocated, 2,500 allowances will exist as a tribal set-aside.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 47 (2) The tribal caucus of the WRAP has stated its intent to determine the means for distributing the allowances among the tribes within one year after the program trigger date. The executive secretary understands that there will be a process that will meet the tracking and data security requirements of the allowance tracking system by which a tribe will move its set-aside allowances into the trading program for the purposes of trading.

(3) The executive secretary recognizes that the tribal set-aside allowances are bonus allowances for the tribes and, as such, are separate and additional to any allowances included in a tribal budget or the new source set-aside as outlined in the allocation report that is prepared in accordance with paragraph E.3.a(6) of this plan.



### e. Opt-in Sources

The WRAP Market Trading Forum has recommended including provisions in this plan that would allow smaller sources to opt in to the program. Opt-in sources may provide a more cost-effective way to reduce overall regional SO 2 emissions, and therefore may strengthen the market incentives of this program. While the benefits of allowing sources to opt in to the program are important, the program must also provide safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the program is not affected. For example, it would be counterproductive to allow sources that were already planning to shut down to opt in to the program and then sell allowances to an existing source. In this example, regional emissions could slowly creep upward in a manner that is not consistent with the goals of

the SO 2 milestones.

The State of Utah is deferring inclusion of provisions for opt-in sources until a future SIP revision to allow time to thoroughly consider how to provide the flexibility and potential benefits to the market by expanding the program while also ensuring that the SO 2 emission reduction goals are maintained.



### f. WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS)

The participating states and tribes will provide a centralized system for the tracking of allowances and emissions. The centralized system will be referred to as the WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS or EATS). The WEB EATS must provide that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and transactions is publicly available in a secure, centralized database. The EATS must ensure that each allowance is uniquely identified, allow for frequent updates, and include enforceable procedures for recording data.

The executive secretary will work cooperatively with other states and tribes participating in the WEB Trading Program to design this system. The executive secretary will be responsible for ensuring that all the EATS provisions are completed as described in this plan.

The EATS will not exist unless the program is triggered. Prior to the implementation of the WEB Trading Program, a separate emissions tracking database will be employed toSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 48 track the ongoing emissions of sources emitting SO 2 at amounts equal to or greater than 100 tons per year. The emissions tracking database, which was used to track and measure

SO 2 emissions against the milestones, will still exist once the WEB Trading Program is triggered; however, it will become incorporated into the SO 2 Emissions and Allowance Tracking System. Both the emissions tracking database and the EATS will be centralized systems and data will be posted in an electronic, Web-based program and available to all

persons.

The participating states and tribes will contract with a common TSA to service and maintain the WEB EATS. It is envisioned that the EATS will require the use of a contracted consultant or database design engineer to create a secure, efficient and transparent tracking system. Because the EATS will be utilized by all states and tribes participating in the program, the design will require a uniform approach and level ofsecurity that will satisfy regional needs and concerns as well as meet the electronic, Webbased, access needs and security provisions. Due to the dynamic needs of the marketplace, the EATS will require a database that will reflect the current status of allowances and allowance transactions. The EATS will be operational within one year after the program trigger date.

Specifications of the WEB EATS such as emissions tracking, the recording of allowance transactions, account management, system integrity and transparency are outlined in the Utah TSD Supplement. The specifications will be used as a guideline for developing the EATS if the program is triggered. However, the overall design will be greatly affected by computer software and hardware changes that will occur between the adoption of this Plan and the program trigger date. The on-going experience gained from other trading programs also may lead to improvements in the design of the system. The specifications and related sections of R307-250 detail how a WEB source will register for the EATS and how the source will, through an account representative, establish accounts, transfer allowances, and track unused allowances from a previous year.

Neither the executive secretary nor the TSA will adjudicate any dispute between the parties concerning the authorization of any account representative with regard to any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the account representative.

As an example of how the WEB EATS will generally function, once the WEB Trading Program is triggered, a WEB source will have its allowance allocation determined. At the same time, the WEB source’s account representative will register for the EATS under R307-250-6, and a compliance account will be established under R307-250-8. Each allowance will be assigned a serial number. The allowance serial number will be used by the WEB EATS to track allowance allocations, transfers (R307-250-10), and deductions, and to account for any unused allowances from a previous year (R307-250-11). The serial number also will be assigned to each allowance recorded in a general account, which is an account for allowances that are not held to meet program compliance requirements. Furthermore, the EATS will track tribal allowance set-asides and new source allowance set-asides not yet assigned to either a compliance or general account.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 49 It is important to note that while this plan has provided a design for and an operational understanding of the EATS, the components of the EATS will need to be examined and possibly altered upon each required SIP revision.



### g. Allowance Transfers

(1) Allowance transfers are defined as the conveyance from one account to another account (compliance account or general account) of one or more allowances by whatever means, including but not limited to purchase, trade, or gift in accordance with the procedures established in R307-250-10. This includes the transfer of allowances for the purpose of retirement. Once an allowance is retired, it is no longer available for transfer to or from any account. Allowances may be purchased by any person for the purpose of retirement.

(2) The TSA will have specific recording duties involving transfers. These required procedures will be detailed in the service contract and will include the following

activities.

(a) Recording of Allowance Transfers.

(i) Within five business days of receiving an allowance transfer, except when the transfer does not meet the requirements of R307-250-10, the TSA will record an allowance transfer by moving each allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified by the request, provided that the transfer is correctly submitted and that the transferor

account includes each allowance identified in the transfer.

(ii) Any allowance transfer that is submitted for recording following the allowance transfer deadline and that includes any allowances allocated for a control period prior to or the same as the control period to which the allowance transfer deadline applies will not be recorded until after completion of the compliance account reconciliation.

(iii) Where an allowance transfer submitted for allowance transfer recording fails to meet the requirements of R307-250-10, the TSA will not

record the transfer.

(3) Notification of the Recording of Allowance Transfers. The TSA has specific responsibilities involving the notification of the recording of any transferred allowances, including the failure to record any transfer of allowances. Again, these required procedures will be outlined in the service contract, but include the following.

(a) Within five business days of the recording of an allowance transfer, the TSA will notify the transferor’s and transferee’s account representatives of both accounts, and make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 50 (b) Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that fails to meet the requirements of R307-250-10, the TSA will notify the account representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer.



### h. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year

(1) Background. Unused allowances may be kept for use in future years in accordance with R307-250-11

and there are restrictions on the use of the allowances in accordance with R307-250-11. R307-250-11 prohibits the use after the year 2017 of allowances allocated for the years 2003 – 2017. This provision ensures that actual emissions will be less than the 2018 milestone because only allowances allocated for the year 2018 could be used to show compliance in that year. The provision also maintains flexibility by resetting the baseline to the year 2018 and then allowing sources to once again use extra allowances to show compliance in any future year. This flexibility is important for sources that have variable operations because the source may build up a reserve of unused allowances for use in a high production year.

The Annex explains the benefits of allowing the WEB source to use unused allowances from previous years, including increased flexibility and early reduction stimulus. The risk in allowing the use of allowances carried from a previous year could be an increase in emissions in later years as the unused allowances are withdrawn for compliance.

Because the regional haze SIP is based on reasonable progress requirements related to the remedying or prevention of any future visibility impairment, it is important to assure the use of these allowances will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any reasonable progress goals. The safeguard employed here to mitigate this type of risk is termed, “flow control”, and is described in paragraph (2) below.

(2) Flow Control Provisions.

(a) At the end of each control period, WEB sources may transfer allowances in and out of their compliance account for a period of 60 days to ensure that the account will contain enough allowances to cover sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous year. At the end of the sixty-day transfer period, allowances will be deducted from the compliance account of each WEB sources in an amount equal to the sulfur dioxide emissions of that source during the control period.

(b) After the deductions have been completed, the Tracking System Administrator will perform the following calculations and prepare a report according to paragraph E. 3.k(1)(b) of this Plan.

(i) Determine the total number of allowances remaining in the allowance tracking system that were allocated for the just completed control period and all previous control periods.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 51 (ii) If the number calculated in (i) exceeds 10 percent of the milestone for the next control period, then the flow control procedures in R307-250-11 will be triggered for that next control period. These flow control provisions will discourage the excessive use of allowances that were allocated for an earlier control period without establishing an absolute limit on their use. WEB sources will maintain the option to use allowances allocated for an earlier control period, but will be required to use two

allowances for each ton of SO 2 emissions. Flow Control operates as

follows.

(A) The flow control ratio will be calculated by multiplying 0.1 times the milestone for the next control period, divided by the total number of unused allowances remaining in the system.

(B) To calculate the number of prior-year allowances that can be used without restriction by a source for the next control period, the TSA will multiply the prior-year allowances by the flow controlratio. The resulting number of allowances may be used on a oneto-one ratio to show compliance with the source’s allowance limitation as outlined in paragraph E.3.j of this Plan.

(C) The remaining prior-year allowances may be used on a two-toone ratio to show compliance. Thus, WEB sources will maintain the option to use allowances allocated for an earlier control period, but will be required to use two of those allowances for each ton of

SO 2 emissions.

Example: On March 1, 2010 (the compliance transfer deadline for the 2009 control period) the Tracking System Administrator deducts allowances from the compliance

account for each WEB source to cover 2009 SO 2 emissions from that source. After completing these deductions, the TSA reports the following information:

Total number of allowances still in the system for the years 2003 – 2009 = 30,000 2010 milestone = 200,722

Percent of milestone = 14.94 %

Because the number of allowances not used in previous control periods is greater than 10% of the milestone, flow control procedures are triggered. In the annual report required in paragraph E.3.k of this Plan, the TSA will then calculate the flow control ratio for

2010:

0.1 x 2010 Milestone ÷ prior year allowances = flow control ratio 0.1 x 200,722 ÷ 30,000 = 0.70Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 52 On March 1, 2011 (the compliance transfer deadline for the 2010 control period) the TSA will apply the 2010 flow control ratio before deducting allowances from each WEB source’s compliance account

WEB Source A 2010 Allowances = 1,000 Remaining Prior Year Allowances = 600 2010 Emissions = 1,580

In this example, the TSA would multiply the prior year allowances by 0.70 to determinethe number of prior year allowances that could be used without restriction, at a one-toone ratio. This would equal 420. The remaining prior year allowances would then be used at a 2:1 ratio. 360 allowances would be needed to cover the remaining 180 tons of SO 2 emissions. The TSA would therefore deduct a total of 1,780 allowances (1,000 + 420 +360) to cover 1,580 tons of SO 2 emissions.



### i. Monitoring/Recordkeeping

(1) For WEB sources subject to 40 CFR Part 75, the TSA will use data that has been quality assured and finalized by the EPA. For WEB sources subject to the monitoring protocol in Appendix B of this Plan, the executive secretary will quality assure and finalize the data in accordance with these provisions for submission to the

TSA.

(2) The executive secretary will verify and submit the data to the emissions tracking database as soon as reasonably feasible after annual emissions are reported by the WEB sources. These timelines will be modified, as necessary, according to the monitoring protocols.

(3) Special Reserve Compliance Accounts. The WEB Trading Program requires most WEB sources to install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that meet the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 75. However, there are some emission units that are not physically able to install CEMS and there are also emission units that do not emit enough sulfur dioxide to justify the expense of installing these systems (see R307-250-9(1)(b)). The WEB Trading Program allows these emission units to continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the WEB source to transfer any allowances that were allocated to that unit for use by another WEB source. The restriction on transferring these allowances is needed to ensure that an emission reduction of sulfur dioxide and the corresponding increase in sulfur dioxide are equal. The allowances associated with emission units that continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology are placed in a special reserve compliance account, while allowances for other emission units are placed in a regular compliance account. Allowances may not be traded out of a special reserve compliance account, even for use by emission units with CEMS at the same WEB source. However,Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 53 the WEB source may transfer allowances into the account as needed to demonstrate compliance with the WEB source's allowance limitation.

R307-250-9(b) allows WEB sources with any of the following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve compliance account:

(a) any smelting operation where all of the emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; or

(b) any flare, except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion device at a petroleum refinery; or

(c) any other type of unit without add-on sulfur dioxide control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing.

The emission units described in (a) and (b) cannot physically be monitored using a CEM. The emission units described in (c) do not typically have add-on controls for sulfur dioxide. These units, described in R307-250-9(1)(b), are expected to operate within their floor-level allocation and therefore will not be affected by the market, unless they make a process change and wish to sell allowances on the market. Other sources that are meeting the more rigorous monitoring requirements opf R307-250-9(1)(a) and emit sulfur dioxide above their expected allocation will either need to purchase allowances or install sulfur dioxide controls. Therefore, it is important that all emission units that participate in emission trading have an accurate monitoring methodology that is comparable to other sources in the program to ensure that a ton of reductions is the same regardless of where the reductions originate.

The executive secretary will review the application to monitor under R307-250-9(1)(b).

If the emission units meet the criteria in R307-250-9(1)(b), the executive secretary will determine the portion of the WEB source's allocation that is associated with the emission units that will be monitored under R307-250-9(1)(b) and will require the TSA to record that portion of the WEB source's allocation in the special reserve compliance account. The executive secretary will use the methodology for determining allocations described in paragraph E.3.a of this Plan to determine the portion of the allocation that is associated with the Subsection R307-250-9(1)(b) emission units. The executive secretary will notify the WEB source that the application has either been accepted or rejected, including a notification of the allowances that are to be recorded in the WEB source's regular compliance account and the special reserve compliance account.

If an emission unit that is monitored under R307-250-9(1)(b) is permanently retired, the TSA will transfer the portion of allowances that were associated with that emission unit from the WEB source's special reserve compliance account to the source's compliance account. These allowances will then be available for use or sale by the WEB source. The allowances will be transferred after the compliance deduction has taken place for the last control period that the unit was in operation.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 54 

### j. Compliance, Excess Emissions, and Penalties

When a WEB source exceeds its allowance limitation in R307-250-12, the executive secretary will require the TSA to deduct allowances from the following year’s allocation in an amount equal to three times the WEB source’s emissions of SO 2 in excess of its allowance limitation. This deduction will be made from the WEB source’s compliance account after deductions for compliance are made under R307-250-12. If sufficient allowances do not exist in the compliance account for the next control period to cover this amount, the executive secretary will require the TSA to deduct the required number of allowances, regardless of the control period for which they were allocated, whenever

the allowances are recorded in the account.

Sources may also be liable for each day of vi olation of any other provision of the market trading program.



### k. Periodic Evaluation of the Trading Program

(1) Annual Report.

(a) Beginning one year after compliance with the trading program is required, the executive secretary will obtain from the TSA an annual report that contains the following information:

(i) the level of compliance program-wide;

(ii) a summary of the use and transfer of allowances, both geographically and temporally;

(iii) a source-by-source accounting of allocations compared to emissions;

(iv) a report on the use of unused allowances from a previous year, in

order to determine whether these emissions have or have not contributed to emissions in excess of the cap; and

(v) the total number of WEB sources participating in the trading program and any changes to eligible sources, such as retired sources, or sources

that emit more than 100 tons of SO 2 after the program trigger date.

(b) Within 2 months after the allowance transfer deadline for each control period when compliance with the trading program is required, the TSA will prepare a draft report that lists:

(i) the total number of allowances deducted for the control period,

(ii) the total number of allowances remaining in the Allowance Tracking System allocated for that control period and any earlier control period,Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 55 (iii) a proposed determination that flow control procedures have either been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period, and

(iv) if flow control procedures have been triggered, a draft flow control ratio calculated according to paragraph E.3.h(2) of this Plan.

(c) The executive secretary will evaluate the draft report, and will propose a determination that flow control procedures either have been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period.

(d) The executive secretary will publish a no tice of availability of the draft report in newspapers of general circulation in Utah, and will hold a 30-day public comment period.

(e) After the comment period the executive secretary will make a final determination that the flow control procedures either have been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period. If the flow control procedures have been triggered, the executive secretary will notify all WEB sources in Utah that flow control procedures will be in effect during the next control period.

(2) Five-year Evaluation.

(a) The executive secretary will work cooperatively with other participating states and tribes to conduct an audit of the WEB Trading Program no later than three years following the first full year of the trading program, and at least every five years thereafter. This evaluation does not replace the Plan assessments in 2008, 2013, and 2018. The evaluation will be conducted by an independent third party and include an analysis of:

(i) whether the total actual emissions could exceed the values in Table 7 of this Implementation Plan of the WEB Trading Program even though sources comply with their allowances;

(ii) whether the program achieved the overall emission milestone it was intended to reach;

(iii) the effectiveness of the compliance, enforcement and penalty provisions;

(iv) a discussion of whether states and tribes have enough resources to implement the WEB Trading Program;

(v) whether the trading program resulted in any unexpected beneficial effects, or any unintended detrimental effects;Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 56 (vi) whether the actions taken to reduce sulfur dioxide have led to any unintended increases in other pollutants;

(vii) whether there are any changes needed in emissions monitoring and reporting protocols, or in the administrative procedures for program administration and tracking;

(viii) the effectiveness of the provisions for interstate trading, and whether there are any procedural changes needed to make the interstate nature of the program more effective; and

(ix) the integrity of the emissions and allowance tracking system, including whether the procedures for recording transactions are adequate, whether the procedures are being followed and in a timely manner, whether the information on sources’ emissions are accurately recorded, whether the emissions and allowance tracking system has procedures in place to ensure that the transactions are valid, and whether back-up systems are in place to account for problems with loss of data.

(b) The public will have an opportunity to participate in this trading program

evaluation.

(c) In the event that any audit results in recommendations for program revisions, the State of Utah, in consultation with the WRAP, will make appropriate modifications to this Plan. The State of Utah will revise this Plan if the program is not meeting its emission reduction goals.

(d) The executive secretary will submit a copy of the report to the EPA regional

office.



### l. Retired Source Exemption

R307-250-4(4) outlines the procedure that a WEB source must follow to receive a retired source exemption. The exemption would allow the source to continue to receive an allocation, but would exempt the source from monitoring and recordkeeping requirements that would serve no useful function for a source that has ceased operations. The executive secretary will notify the source of its obligation to apply for a retired source exemption upon the cancellation or relinquishment of a permit.

To receive a retired source exemption, the source must submit a request for the exemption to the executive secretary. The executive secretary will review this request, and within 60 days of receipt of the request will notify the source that the retired source exemption has been granted or has been rejected. If the exemption has been rejected, the notification will contain an explanation of the reasons for rejecting the request.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 57 The TSA will continue to record an allocation to a WEB source that has received a retired source exemption. However, the allowances will be recorded in a general account rather than a compliance account for the source. The TSA will transfer any existing allowances in the retired source's compliance account or special reserve compliance account into the general account for the retired source, and will close the compliance

accounts.

A WEB source that is permanently retired and that does not request a retired source exemption will forfeit all abandoned allowances in that source’s compliance account, as outlined in R307-250-4(4)(e). The forfeited allowances will not be redistributed to other sources, and will be permanently retired from the Allowance Tracking System, as outlined in R307-250-10(3). During the next fi ve-year allowance distribution period the retired source will not receive an allocation, and the allowances that would have been

distributed to that source will be added to the new source set-aside.



### m. Integration into Permits

It is expected that all WEB sources at least initially will be subject to Utah’s Title V permitting requirements. Under R307-415, Utah’s delegated Title V permitting program, the pre- and post-trigger requirements of the market trading program fall under the definition of “applicable requirement,” and will be incorporated into each source’s Title V permit according to the schedules and procedures contained in that rule. R307-250-14 requires that any source that for any reason and at any time is not required to have a permit under R307-415 must obtain a New Source Review permit pursuant to R307-401 et seq. that incorporates the same requirements by submitting a Notice of Intent within 90 days of the program trigger. Both types of permits are enforceable both federally and by citizens pursuant to Utah’s SIP.



### 4. 2013 SIP Revision; Backstop for Beginning of Second Planning

Period

In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), the periodic SIP revision due in 2013 will include the following information:

a. Source specific allocations for all WEB sources in Utah for the year 2018; and

b. Either the provisions of a program designed to achieve reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO 2 beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision containing the provisions of such a program no later than December 31, 2016. The program will ensure that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 are achieved for the first planning period, including requirements that cannot be measured until after 2018, such as the determination of compliance with the 2018

milestone.

This 2013 SIP revision will provide certainty to sources regarding their potential liability under the special penalty provisions for the year 2018 outlined in paragraph E.1e of this Plan. The calculation of these allocations is delayed until 2013 to provide certainty aboutSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 58 the number of sources that will qualify as WEB sources at that time; the allocations needed for new sources in the region, and early reductions that will be included in the allocation process. It is difficult to estimate the impact of these factors in 2003 because circumstances may change during the next 10 years.

If the 2018 milestone is not met, the starting point for the next planning period will be the 2018 milestones, not actual emissions in 2018.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 59 

## F. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR MOBILE SOURCES

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

In its June 1996 Report, the GCVTC recommended EPA move forward on new national

vehicle emission and fuel standards to reduce emissions from mobile sources. The GCVTC also recommended other regional and local strategies be considered to manage mobile source emissions. One of the local strategies was to establish emission budgets for those pollutants in urban areas shown to significantly contribute to visibility impairment in any of the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. The budget caps were to be set at the

2005 emission levels.

When EPA finalized the regional haze rule in July 1999, the rule acknowledged the

GCVTC recommendations related to national ve hicle emission and fuel standards. EPA included a status of planned actions on those recommendations as of July 1999 (Preamble to the regional haze rule, 64 FR 35753). EPA noted these new measures were over and above those included in the regional haze rule for mobile sources that simply required a cap on emissions in significantly contributing urban areas at the 2005 level. EPA also indicated that emission reductions resulting from new standards adopted after the regional haze rule was approved would be creditable toward reasonable progress. EPA also committed to work with the states if new national standards impacted the efficacy of regional or local strategies.

After the regional haze rule was finalized, EPA established new standards for on-road vehicle emission and fuel standards (65 FR 6698) as well as standards for diesel vehicles and diesel fuel (66 FR 5002). As a result, current mobile source emission projections developed by WRAP for the GCVTC Transport Region indicate overall mobile source emissions will decline continuously from 2003 through the end of the SIP planning period in 2018, which is more than the level of emission reductions that EPA approved to meet reasonable progress by holding mobile source emissions constant from their 2005 level. In addition, new standards for off-road vehicles were proposed by EPA on April 15, 2003, and are expected to be finalized, which will further reduce overall mobile

source emissions.

At the April 2003 WRAP Board meeting, the WRAP approved a recommendation for EPA to modify the regional haze rule eliminating the current requirements related to mobile source emission significance determination and budgets for urban areas (40 CFR 309(d)(5)), and replacing those requirements with a new requirement focused on tracking mobile source emission reductions resulting from national standards to assure reasonableprogress. This action was based on the finding that emissions of all pollutants from onroad and off-road mobile sources are expected to decline significantly through 2018 except for sulfur dioxide from non-road sources. If EPA adopts new low-sulfur standards

for off-road mobile sources then off-road mobile source sulfur dioxide emissions will also decline continuously through 2018. The WRAP Board deliberations did not defineSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 60 criteria for mobile source significance, leaving the determination of significance under the current rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii)) to the states and tribes.

On July 3, 2003, EPA proposed a direct final rule (68 FR 39842) to amend the mobile sources provision of the Regional Haze Rule consistent with the recommendations of the WRAP. The rule was promulgated on December 22, 2003 (68 FR 71009). The revisions amended 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i) and eliminated the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii) and (iii) for setting mobile sources emissions budgets using the lowest projected level as a planning objective and performance indicator for each area. Instead, the new Section 51.309(d)(5)(i) requires statewide inventories to demonstrate a continuous decline in emissions of each pollutant of concern over the planning period. Should mobile source emission not decline as expected, the State of Utah will review control options for mobile sources and determine if additional controls are needed, consistent with the criteria for reasonable progress. If the State of Utah determines that additional controls are needed, Utah will prepare a revision to the implementation plan.

In addition to the revisions to Section 51.309(d)(5)(i) and the elimination of Sections 51.309(d)(5)(ii) and (iii), a backstop provision as outlined by the WRAP was added. Thenew Section 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B) requires the State of Utah to assess the need for any longterm strategies to address SO 2 from non-road mobile sources by no later than December 31, 2008. States may determine if a SIP revision is necessary to address SO 2 from mobile sources by considering whether the emission reductions anticipated or achieved by any Federal standards in place addressing fuel sulfur content for non-road engines are sufficient to meet reasonable progress. The direct final rule also renumbered the requirement to review other GCVTC mobile source strategies from (d)(5)(iv) to (d)(5)(ii).



### 2. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile

Sources

a. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from

Mobile Sources.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the State of Utah, in collaboration with the WRAP, assembled a comprehensive statewide inventory of mobile source emissions. This emission inventory showed the year with the lowest level of emissions will be at the end of the SIP planning period in 2018 instead of 2005 as anticipated by the GCVTC. The substantial reduction of projected mobile source emissions from 2003 to 2018 is due to the adoption of new on-road vehicle emission and fuel standards by EPA.

The values shown in Table 9 cannot be used for conformity determinations under 40 CFR 51 and 40 CFR 93, Subpart A. Subsection 40 CFR 93.102 states that conformity applies to nonattainment and maintenance areas. The visibility provisions of 40 CFR 51.301 - 309 are not health-based standards resulting in nonattainment designations.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 61 Table 9. Mobile Source Inventory for 2003 and 2018

Utah Emissions by Source Category Sulfur

Dioxide (SOx) Nitroge

n Oxide (NOx) Organic

Carbon

<2.5

Microns (OC) Elemental

Carbon

<2.5

Microns (EC) Other

Fine Mtrls

<2.5

Microns (Soils etc) (OFM) Course

Material (Soils, dust)

>2.5 & <10

Microns (CM) Volatile Organic

Carbon

Gases (VOC)

1996 1.4 79.6 0.6 0.3 1.4 0.1 63.0

2018 w/309 0.1 22.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 - 19.7 Mobile

SourcesOn-Road % Change -93% -72% -83% -67% -79% - -69%

1996 10.2 52.3 1.2 0.6 2.0 0.2 27.4

2018 w/309 17.1 38.8 1.0 0.6 1.8 0.2 20.0 Mobile

SourcesNon-Road % Change 68% -26% -17% -25% -10% 0% -27%

1996 11.6 131.9 1.8 1.1 3.4 0.3 90.4

2018 w/309 17.2 61.0 1.1 0.7 2.1 0.2 39.7 TOTAL

MOBILE

EMISSIONS

IN UTAH % Change 48% -54% -39% -24% -38% -33% -56%



### b. Program to assure continuous decline in mobile source

emissions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the State of Utah commits to monitoring the

emissions from mobile sources to assure a continuous decline in emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(6). If Utah determines that a continuous decline in emissions is not being achieved, additional control measures will be reviewed to determine if they are needed to make reasonable progress. If Utah determines such measures are needed, Utah will submit an implementation plan revision to address the identified control measures.



### c. Backstop provision to address potential increase in nonroad emissions in the event Federal standards are not

finalized.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the State of Utah commits to provide for a SIP revision no later than December 31, 2008, containing long-term strategies necessary to

reduce emission of SO 2 from non-road mobile sources consistent with the goal of reasonable progress. The need for a SIP revision will be determined by a consideration of the emission reductions achieved or anticipated to be achieved by Federal standards should those standards addressing fuel sulfur content for non-raid engines not be in place.



### 3. Other GCVTC Strategies for Mobile Sources

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), the State of Utah has reviewed the other mobile source recommendations contained in the GCVTC report. The results of that review are included in Part J of this implementation plan that addresses all recommendation of the GCVTC report, including mobile source recommendations.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 62 

## G. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR FIRE PROGRAMS

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

In its 1996 final report, the GCVTC recognized that past land management practices, including decades of fire suppression, have led to an increase of accumulated forest fuels. Thus, wildfires are becoming larger in size, unnaturally destructive, and more dangerous and costly to control. Fire is a component of most natural ecosystems in the West and must be a component of processes to meet land management, human health and visibility objectives. The GCVTC recognized that prescrib ed fire and wildfire levels are projected to increase significantly for decades to come, and that programs to minimize emissions and visibility impacts and educate the public should be implemented.

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)) requires documentation that all federal, state and private prescribed fire programs in the state evaluate and address the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application; that a statewide inventory and emissions tracking system be established for volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, elemental and organic carbon, and fine particle emissions from fire; that any administrative barriers to the use of alternatives to burning be identified and removed where possible; that enhanced smoke management programs considering visibility as well as health and nuisance objectives be included and that they be based on specific criteria; and that annual emission goals for fire be established in cooperation with states, tribes, federal land managers and private entities to minimize emissions increases from

fire to the maximum extent feasible.

The WRAP's effort to document and understand the incidence of fire and its effect on visibility in Class I areas has been extensive and productive. WRAP modeling shows that prescribed fire will continue to affect visibility. See the WRAP TSD Chapter 6 for

details.



### 2. Prescribed Fire Program Evaluation

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the State of Utah has evaluated all federal, state, and private prescribed fire programs in the state, based on the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, and how visibility protection from smoke is addressed in planning and operation. The State of Utah relied upon the WRAP report Assessing Status of Incorporating Smoke Effects into Fire Planning and Operation 35 as a guide for making this evaluation. The State of Utah has also evaluated whether these prescribed fire programs contain the following elements: actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program

35 All WRAP documents cited in Part G are available in the Utah TSD Supplement.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 63 evaluation. A description of the evaluation that was made in accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i) follows.



### a. Wildlands Fire

The Utah Smoke Management Plan (SMP), revised March 23, 2000, provides operating procedures for federal and state agencies that use prescribed fire, wildfire, and wildland fire on federal, state and private wildlands in Utah. The SMP includes the program elements listed in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), with the exception of alternatives to fire. In a letter dated November 8, 1999, the EPA certified the Utah SMP under EPA’s April 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (Policy) . EPA’s Policy also includes the elements that are listed in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i).

In 2001, the Utah SMP requirements were codified through rulemaking and comprise R307-204 of the Utah Administrative Code. R307-204 applies to all persons using prescribed fire or wildland fire on land they own or manage, including federal, state, and private wildlands. The Utah TSD Supplement includes copies of the Utah SMP.

Under R307-204, Land Managers are required to submit pre-burn information including the location of any Class I areas within 15 miles of the burn, a map depicting the potential impact of the smoke from the burn on any Class I areas, a description of fuels and acres to be burned, emission reduction techniques to be applied, and monitoring of smoke effects to be conducted. In addition, Land Managers are required to submit a more detailed burn plan that includes, at a minimum, information on the fire prescription or conditions under which a prescribed fire may be ignited.

Under R307-204, prescribed fires requiring a burn plan cannot be ignited and wildland fire used for resource benefits cannot be managed before the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board (AQB) approves or conditionally approves the burn request. The burn approval requirement provides for the scheduling of burns to reduce impacts on visibility

in Class I areas.

After the burn is completed, the Land Manager is required to submit post-burn information to evaluate the effectiveness of the burn and provide a record of acres treated by the burn. The procedures listed above serve as an evaluation of the degree of visibility impairment from smoke from prescribed fires that are conducted on federal, state, and private wildlands.

Information on the types of management alternatives to fire considered by Land Managers are included in programmatic or long-term management plans. These programmatic plans are developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and are reviewed by the Divisi on of Air Quality (UDAQ) on an individual basis. Typically, the Land Manager does not evaluate alternatives to fire once the decision has been made to use fire and the subsequent burn plan developed.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 64 

### b. Agricultural Fire

The WRAP inventory and a survey 36 conducted by Utah State University (USU) Extension indicate that agricultural burning is a very small portion of total emissions in Utah, and also of agricultural burning in the West. See Table 10 below. The USU survey results are included in the Utah TSD Supplement.

Table 10. Agricultural Burning Emissions Comparison

Agricultural Burning Emissions Comparison

Numbers were obtained from the Emission Inventories Spreadsheets in the

Technical Support Document provided by the WRAP for Section 309 SIPs.

These spreadsheets are available at www.wrapair.org

. (tons per year)

PMC PM 2.5 SO

x NO

x VOC CO

Utah Agricultural Burning 12 212 10 101 216 2,327

Total Ag Burning in WRAP region 1,125 20,901 1,352 10,094 20,310 216,732

*Total Utah emissions from all sources 63,718 85,347 66,796 269,557 172,231 1,685,503

Utah Ag burning as a % of WRAP Ag Total 1.03% 1. 01% 0.77% 1.00% 1.06% 1.07%

Utah Ag burning as a %

of Utah Total Emissions 0.02% 0.25% 0.02% 0.04% 0.13% 0.14%

*Total Utah emissions were obtained from WRAP spreadsheets by summing Utah's county emissions and then adding total emissi ons due to Wild Fire, Ag Burning and Rx

Fire.

Emissions from agricultural burning are less than 0.25% of total Utah emissions and therefore do not result in significant impacts on visibility in the 16 Class I areas or on regional haze in general. Since agricultural burning emissions are minimal and half of them occur far from the Colorado Plateau, agricultural land managers are currently not subject to the Utah Enhanced Smoke Management Plan.

(1) Decline in Agricultural Burning Since 1996. The USU survey makes clear the decline in agricultural burning--a reduction of 48% statewide--between 1996 and 2002, and documents the reasons for the change. Only 31,999 acres were burned in 2002 out of a total of 8.7 million acres harvested. Of the total acres harvested, only about one million acres is cultivated; the majority of land is rangeland. The survey documents three reasons for the decline in agricultural burning: stubble or residue was sold rather than burned, the stubble or residue was mowed or chopped and worked back into the soil, and livestock were used to graze the stubble or residue. One reason for the change in practices is that the drought that began in 1999 has reduced the available forage for

36 Utah State University Extension, in collaboration with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. Agricultural Burning in Utah and the Regional Haze Rule. Logan, Utah. July 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 65 livestock that normally graze native vegetation, thus making straw more valuable as a feed crop. However, the survey concludes that more stubble and residue was being grazed by livestock or tilled into the soil or baled and sold in 2002 than in 1996.

(2) Emission Reduction Techniques. Of Utah's 29 counties, there are seven in which no burning occurred in 1996 or 2002 and two more in which there was no burning in 2002. The USU survey documents count y-by-county the specific Emission Reduction Techniques commonly in use. Emission reduction techniques are common practice in

seventeen of the counties.

(3) Local Government Control Measures. Finally, more than half (16,600) of the acres burned are in Box Elder County in the northwestern corner of Utah, nearly 100 miles from any Class I area. Box Elder County has an ordinance in place to regulate when, where and how much burning can take place. A copy of the ordinance is in the Utah TSD Supplement.

(4) Program Evaluation. The State of Utah has determined that the appropriate local government controls and voluntary em ission reduction techniques are in place and these efforts meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i).



### 3. Emission Inventory and Tracking System

a. Wildlands Inventory

Under R307-204, Land Managers are required to submit an emissions inventory for particulate matter. A tracking system has been established to record the required inventory information. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii) and R307-204, the emissions inventory and tracking system for fire sources has been revised within the State of Utah to include volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, elemental and organic carbon, and fine particulate.

For consistency, the State of Utah will use the emissions tracking system developed by the WRAP as defined by the WRAP Fire Tracking System Policy

. 37 This policy identifies a process for gathering the essential post-burn activity information necessary to consistently calculate emissions for both man-made or anthropogenic and natural sources of fire and uniformly assess fire impact on regional haze. This policy is the basis for creating a fire emissions inventory for visibility purposes within the State of Utah, using an emission calculation mechanism developed by the WRAP. In addition, fire emission inventory updates will be provided in future progress reports as part of the reasonable progress demonstration specified in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). See the Utah SMP in the Utah TSD Supplement for copies of the tracking forms and further information on the emissions inventory and tracking system in the State of Utah.

37 All WRAP documents cited in Part G are available in the Utah TSD Supplement.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 66 

### b. Agricultural Lands Inventory

To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), the State of Utah will work collaboratively with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation and Utah State University Extension to develop and implement an inventory and emissions tracking system for agricultural burning. The survey conducted in 2003 by the Utah State University Extension, in collaboration with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation, will be used as a baseline for future emissions tracking activities. Since agricultural burning has been documented in Subsection 2.b above to be a very small proportion of total emissions in Utah and a very small proportion of agricultural burning in the West, the emission tracking activities will be conducted on a periodic basis to determine if any significant changes have been made since the 2003 survey. Results from the periodic emission tracking activities will be provided in future progress reports to EPA, as part of the reasonable progress demonstration specified in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).



### 4. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers

During the annual meeting for establishing the Annual Emissions Goal, the UDAQ staffand Land Managers for fire will assess whether administrative barriers to the use of nonburning alternatives exist. If a specific administrative barrier is identified during this annual meeting, UDAQ will investigate how this barrier may be removed, if feasible, and will work collaboratively with the Land Managers to remove the barrier as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii).

An evaluation of the administrative barriers to the use of the non-burning alternatives, if any, will be included in the formal progress report to EPA every five years as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii).

In addition, the State of Utah will use two documents prepared by the WRAP for this effort: (1) Nonburning Alternatives for Vegetation and Fuel Management , and (2) Burning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United States

.



### 5. Enhanced Smoke Management Program

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), all smoke management programs that operate

within Utah are consistent with the WRAP Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility Policy . This policy calls for programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impacts. The Enhanced Smoke Management Plan (ESMP) is found in the Utah TSD Supplement.

The following is a list of the elements of the Utah ESMP and the revisions made to the Utah SMP and R307-204 in order to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv).



### a. Actions to Minimize Fire Emissions

Utah’s ESMP focuses on three general approaches that are designed to minimize emissions from prescribed fire and wildland fire use for resource benefits: use ofSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 67 emission reduction techniques, establishing emission goals, and use of existing burn manager qualification programs.



### b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion

Under the Utah ESMP, the Land Managers will focus on improved weather data for more accurate spot weather forecasts, scheduling of prescribed fires by the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board to minimize cumulative effects of smoke from fires on Class I areas, burner qualification and certification programs, use of the latest modeling programs to assist in the evaluation of dispersion conditions, and use of field level data such as maps showing where smoke is likely to settle.



### c. Alternatives to Fire

Under the Utah ESMP, the types of management alternatives used and the acres treated on an annual basis will be tracked using Land Manager databases that are being developed. Land Managers evaluate and will continue to evaluate the use of alternatives to fire in programmatic or long-term management plans, and the ESMP requires Land Managers to provide a summary of the management alternatives that were used in a given

year.



### d. Public Notification of Burning

Under the Utah ESMP, a one-stop information center will be added to the Utah SMP website to provide a list of upcoming projects as a means to notify the public about prescribed fire or wildland fire projects.



### e. Air Quality Monitoring

Under the Utah ESMP, Land Managers will monitor the effects of prescribed fire and wildland fire on visibility in Class I Areas. At a minimum, visual monitoring and documentation of the direction of the smoke plume will be performed. Under R307-204, the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board may direct Land Managers to operate real-time air quality sampling equipment on large fires that are expected to last more than one day, or fires close to Class I areas. Monitoring of smoke impacts on visibility will lead to improved future operations and a better understanding of smoke accumulation problems and solutions. In addition, the Utah ESMP will provide a detailed description of the monitoring equipment that is available and its location within the region.



### f. Surveillance and Enforcement

The Utah ESMP builds upon the relationship that was established between the Land Managers and the UDAQ for the development of the Utah SMP. A good working relationship between the Land Managers and UDAQ can significantly reduce the need for surveillance and enforcement. UDAQ staff conduct site inspections on prescribed fires that are close to Class I areas to verify compliance with the burn plan on an as-needed basis. Reports are generated when site inspections are conducted.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 68 

### g. Program Evaluation

The UDAQ staff and Land Managers will conduct an annual effectiveness review for the Utah ESMP. A formal progress report will be completed every five years as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii).



### h. Burn Authorization

Under R307-204, since March 2000, Land Managers have been required to submit preburn information including the location of any Class I areas within 15 miles of the burn, a burn plan if requested, a map depicting the potential impact of the smoke from the burn on any Class I areas, and a description of fuels and acres to be burned. Prescribed fire requiring a burn plan cannot be ignited before the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board approves or conditionally approves the burn request. See the Utah SMP in the Utah TSD Supplement for more details on the burn authorization requirements.



### i. Regional Coordination

Coordination of fire projects is imperative to avoid cumulative smoke impacts in Class I areas. The Utah ESMP is designed to provide for information sharing among the Land Managers, UDAQ, and the public within Utah, as well as in neighboring states.



### j. ESMP for Agricultural Burning

The State of Utah has determined that appropriate emission reduction techniques and control measures for agricultural burning are in place in the agricultural community and at the local government level. This satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv).



### 6. Annual Emission Goals

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), efforts will be made within the State of Utah to minimize emission increases in fire, excluding wildfire, to the maximum extent feasible, through the use of annual emission goals, in accordance with the WRAP Annual Emission Goals for Fire Policy . The State of Utah intends to use this policy to quantifythe emission reduction techniques that are being used within the state on a projectspecific basis to reduce the total amount of emissions increases being generated from areas where prescribed fire is being used. The Utah TSD Supplement describes this process in more detail.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 69 

## H. ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS FROM PAVED AND

UNPAVED ROAD DUST

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, in its 1996 report to EPA, 38
believed that dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads are generally near-field transport issues rather than long-range transport issues, especially with respect to larger coarse materials that settle out of the atmosphere before being transported long distances. However, the GCVTC also recommended additional studies would be necessary to verify this assumption since the state of the science the GCVTC relied upon for characterizing the emissions and transport of dusts from roads was limited, and the projected growth of on-road emissions could contribute to regional haze, based on the projected growth of population and vehicle-miles-traveled.

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(7)) requires states to assess the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads on regional haze in the 16 Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau in the first implementation plans due December 2003. The Western Regional Air Partnership analyzed this issue, including efforts to improve methods for estimating road dust emission inventories as applied to regional scale modeling and characterization of the transport and deposition processes. Results of WRAP modeling work have demonstrated road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas on the basis of regional transport. Due to this finding, no additional road dust control strategies are needed in the current SIP.



### 2. State of Utah Long-term Strategy for Road Dust Sources

a. Assessment of Paved and Unpaved Road Dust Emissions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), an assessment was made by the WRAP of the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads from transport region states on the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. A complete description of this assessment is provided in Chapter 7 of the WRAP Technical Support Document. The State of Utah, in consultation with the WRAP, will track emissions and perform further assessments of road dust impacts on visibility in the 16 GCVTC Class I areas in the progress updates and status reports, and will submit implementation plan revisions as needed to make reasonable progress in the SIP amendments due in 2008, 2013, and 2018.

38 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page 46.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 70 

### b. Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7) and the results of the assessment of the impact of road dust emissions described above, the State of Utah, in collaboration with other states through the WRAP, determined that road dust emissions are not a significant contributor to regional haze visibility impairment within the Colorado Plateau 16 Class I areas. Based on these findings, no emission management strategies have been identified at this time. The technical and policy foundation for this determination can be found in Chapter

7 of the WRAP TSD.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 71 

## I. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RENEWABLE

ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Public Advisory Committee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recognized the importance of pollution prevention as a way to minimize per capita emissions that contribute to visibility impairment from regional haze. Thus, in 1996, the GCVTC recommended that one of the goals of states in the transport region "should be to achieve annual additions in order that renewable energy will comprise 10% of regional power needs by 2005 and 20% by 2015. Progress towards this goal should be evaluated every five years, in conjunction w ith regular reviews of emissions reductions and progress toward the national visibility goal." 39

Section 51.309 of the Regional Haze Rule outlines the information that must be included in each state’s first Regional Haze Implementation Plan to address visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas covered by the Commission’s Report. By meeting these requirements, Utah can address visibility in all of its Class I areas. Section 51.309(d)(8) of the Regional Haze Rule specifies the air pollution prevention requirements eligible States must meet and outlines the information each State must include in its Regional Haze Implementation Plan to address the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures to reduce the emissions causing regional haze. Table 11 summarizes the information requirements contained in Section 51.309(d)(8).

39 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page 30.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 72 Table 11. Summary of Information Requirement for Pollution Prevention

Citation Information Item Item 1. An initial summary of all air pollution prevention programs currently in place. Item 2. An inventory of all renewable energy capacity and productionin use or planned as of 2002 (expressed in megawatts and megawatthours). Item 3. Total energy generation capacity and production for the state. Item 4. Percent of total energy generation capacity and production that is derived from renewable energy. 309(d)(8)(i)

Item 5. The state’s anticipated contribution toward the 10/20 goals (based on the programs and policies each state relies on to achieve its renewable goals). 309(d)(8)(ii) Item 6. Programs providing incentives to reward efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early compliance with air pollution related requirements. 309(d)(8)(iii) Item 7. Programs to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. 309(d)(8)(iv) Item 8. An identification of specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to supply power where it is now lacking and where renewable energy is most cost-effective. 309(d)(8)(v) Item 9. Projections of the short- and long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with the renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and air pollution prevention activities. 309(d)(8)(vi) Item 10. A description of the programs relied on to achieve the state’s contribution toward the 10/20 goals and a demonstration of the progress made toward achievement of the renewable energy goals in the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. This description must include documentation of the potential for renewable energy resources, the percentage of renewable energy associated with new power generation projects implemented or planned and the renewable energy generation capacity and production.

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) was established in 1997 as the successor organization to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The WRAP was created by western states and tribes to coordinate and oversee the implementation of recommendations made by the GCVTC and to “identify regional or common air management issues, develop and implement strategies to address these issues, and formulate and advance western regional policy positions on air quality.” The WRAP develops policies, strategies and technical tools through an inclusive stakeholder-based process that includes state air agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), tribes, federal and state land management agencies, local government, industry, utilities, environmental groups, academia and other interested parties.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 73 The Air Pollution Prevention Forum (the Forum) was created in September, 1998 by the WRAP’s Initiatives Oversight Committee (IOC) and charged to “recommend legislative actions, economic incentives and regulatory policies states can adopt to meet the 10/20 renewable energy goal and increase the use of energy efficiency technologies in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport region.” St akeholders and regulators from the State of Utah were actively involved in the work of the Forum.

The objective of the Forum and its 25 members has been to provide the states and tribes in the WRAP region with the policy and analytical framework needed to respond to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8). To accomplish this purpose the Forum’s work plan called for the Forum to:

• Examine barriers restricting the penetration of renewable energy, energy efficient technologies, and adoption of energy effici ent practices in the Transport Region;

• Identify and evaluate economic incentives, legislative actions, and regulatory policies that will increase investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, including actions currently underway in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region; and

• Recommend market-based incentives and public policies that will support increased investment in renewable energy within the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region and improve the efficiency of the region’s energy production

and end-use sectors.

The Forum developed recommendations over a three-year period through a stakeholderbased consensus process supported, in part, by nationally recognized renewable energy and energy efficiency experts, including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The Forum and workgroups held more than 11 meetings and workshops to examine barriers and identify policies that would lead to increased investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region. The Forum also commissioned ICF Consulting Group to analyze the potential emissions reductions, energy cost savings, and secondary environmental and economic benefits of meeting the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission’s 10/20 goal and implementing a suite of cost-effective energy efficiency programs and policies the Forum identified as “best practices” for the region.

Following the findings of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Air Pollution Prevention Forum, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) found that energy efficiency and renewable energy can be effective tools to reduce regional haze and can reduce emissions, improve visibility, reduce energy costs and provide secondary environmental and economic benefits to the region. The WRAP also concluded that implementing both renewable energy and energy efficiency program and policy measures together will yield larger emissions benefits than either energy efficiency or renewable energy measures would alone. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made similar presumptions in promulgating Section 309(d)(8) of the Regional Haze Rule.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 74 The inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the State Implementation Plan and estimated emission reductions and impacts from them does not cause such programs and estimates to become mandatory and/or federally enforceable. These programs are voluntary state and local programs that were never intended to be federally enforceable. 40 The WRAP has explicitly expressed its expectation that these programs will be implemented consistent with local economic, regulatory, and political conditions while protecting cultural resources and values. As such, these programs may be modified, changed, expanded, redirected or eliminated and new programs may be adopted and implemented without seeking approval from the federal government. The projected emission reductions are estimates only. It is expected that these programs and their associated emissions impacts will change over time without requiring a SIP revision. Utah will, as required, report its progress toward meeting the regional 10/20 renewable energy goals in the periodic SIP reviews required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).



### 1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs in Utah

Utah’s pollution prevention programs focus on improving the efficiency of energy usage by end-use consumers and increasing supplies of electrical power generated from renewable sources for Utah customers. Detailed descriptions of them can be found in the Utah TSD Supplement.



### 2. Inventory of Renewable Energy Generation Capacity and

Production in 2002

The State of Utah has based its inventory of existing installed renewable energy generation capacity on publicly available reports published by federal government agencies responsible for gathering energy information and/or licensing power plants. These sources maintain reliable data on larger renewable generating plant capacity and electric energy production. To supplement this information, the Utah Energy Office conducted surveys to estimate the capacity and electric energy production from medium, 25 kW to 10 MW, and small, less than 25 kW, renewable power generation systems installed within Utah that would not have been included in regularly maintained federal energy databases.

The State of Utah generates a substantial amount of power from hydroelectric sources. None of this hydroelectric capacity has been certified to meet the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute criteria that would be necessary for hydroelectric generation to be considered “renewable energy” under the definition endorsed by the Air Pollution

40 The GCVTC goal is 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in 2005 and 20 percent in 2015. With respect to the requirements of Section 309(d)(8), achieving the 10/20 goal is not mandatory or “enforceable.” This section of the rule simply establishes an “enforceable” re quirement for States “to assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVT C with respect to renewa ble energy”. To the extent they are not able meet the goal, States are required to provide an explanation of why the goals

cannot be met. See Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, page 35754, July 1, 1999. Regional Haze Regulations Final Rule.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 75 Prevention Forum of the WRAP. As a consequence no hydroelectric power or capacity has been included in the inventory of existing Utah renewable energy generation. Some existing hydroelectric plants in Utah may be cer tified in the future. If certified, they will be included as contributors toward meeting the regional renewable energy goals in future renewable energy inventories reported in the revisions to the Utah Regional Haze Implementation Plan.

Total renewable power generating capacity in Utah at the end of 2002, excluding all hydroelectric generation, was 42.136 Megawatts. Table12, prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes renewable energy generation capacity installed within Utah by 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 76 Table 12. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Capacity (Megawatts)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002
Utility Hydro 275 275 275 275
Non-Utility Hydro 10.496 10.496 10.496
Hydro Small Survey 0.037 0.046 0.055 0.059
Total Hydroelectric* 285.533 285.542 285.551 285.555
Geo Blundell (EIA) 26.1 26.1 26.1 26.1

Geo Cove Fort 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7

Total Geothermal 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8
Solar/PV Small Survey 0.013 0.016 0.018 0.018
Solar/PV Medium Survey 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.220

Total Solar/PV 0.233 0.236 0.238 0.238
Wind Small Survey 0.134 0.176 0.220 0.240
Wind Medium Survey 0.033 0.258 0.258 0.258

Total Wind 0.167 0.434 0.478 0.498

MSW Landfill Gas 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Wood and Wood Waste na na na na

Other Waste na na na na Total Renewable Capacity 327.333 327.612 327.667 327.691
Total w/o Hydro 41.800 42.070 42.116 42.136
*No Utah hydroelectric sites are currently certified as lo w-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI).

Sources: "Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, a nd 2000"; "Inventory of Nonutility Electric Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, and 2000"; FERC "Hydroelectric Projects U nder Commission License" and "Hydroelectric Projects Exempted from Licensing Requirements," NREL REPiS; Utah Energy Office Small and Large Renewable Plant Surveys.

Table13, prepared by the Utah Energy O ffice, summarizes electric energy production from renewable generation sources in Utah over the past four years. Electric energy production from renewable sources over the last four years averaged 200,995 MWh annually. In 2002, 223,664 MWh of power were generated from renewable sources

located within Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 77 Table 13. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Generation (Megawatt-hours)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Utility and Non-Utility Hydro 1,255,142 746,125 500,203 484,357

Hydro Small Survey Generation* 107 133 159 170

Total Hydroelectric** 1,255,249 746,258 500,362 484,527

Total Geothermal 185,926 186,461 185,989 211,565

Solar/PV Small Survey Generation 23 29 32 32

Solar/PV Medium Survey Generation 385 385 385 385

Total Solar/PV 408 414 417 417

Wind Small Survey Generation 235 308 385 420

Wind Medium Survey Generation 58 452 452 452

Total Wind 293 760 837 872

MSW Landfill Gas 8,169 9,110 1,534 10,810

Wood and Wood Waste na na na na

Other Waste na na na na

Total Renewable Generation 1,450,044 943,003 689,139 708,191

Total w/o Hydro 194,796 196,745 188,778 223,664

*All medium survey hydro plants were included in EIA Utility and Non-Utility Data **No Utah hydroelectric sites are currently certified as lo w-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI)

Sources: EIA, Form EIA-759, "Monthly Power Plant Repor t"; Form EIA-867, "Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report"; Form EIA-860B, "Annual Electric Generator Report - Nonutility "; Form EIA-906 Database, "Monthly Utility Power Plant Data" and "Monthly Nonutility Power Plant Data"; and Utah Energy Office Small and Medium Renewable Plant Surveys



### 3. Inventory of Total Utah Capacity and Production in 2002

Total installed generation capacity within Utah in 2002 was 5,485 MW. Nonhydroelectric renewable energy generation capacity represented 0.77 percent of the total installed capacity. Table14, prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes the installed generation capacity in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 78 Table 14. Utah Capacity by Source (Electric Power Annual). (Megawatts)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coal 4,705 4,781 4,781 4,781

Petroleum 54 47 47 47

Natural Gas 320 327 327 327

Petroleum/Natural Gas or Other Gas (Combined) 50 2 2 2
Hydroelectric 286 286 286 286

Other Renewable 42 42 42 42

Total 5,456 5,485 5,485 5,485

% Renewable 5.999% 5.973% 5.974% 5.975%
% Non-Hydro Renewable 0.766% 0.767% 0.768% 0.768%

Sources: "Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, and 2000"; "Inventory of Nonutility Electric Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, and 2000"; a nd Utah Energy Office Estimates for Hydroelectric and

Other Renewables.



### 4. Percent of Total Energy Generation Capacity and Production Derived from Renewable Energy

Power plants located in Utah produced 36,496,500 MW-h on average over the past four years. In 2002, Utah generators produced 36,640,000 MW-h of electric energy. Renewable power contributed 0.61 percent of this total. Table15, prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes electric energy pr oduction from all generation sources in Utah over the past four years.

Table 15. Utah Net Generation by Source, 1999-2002 (Thousand Megawatt-hours)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coal 34,695 34,477 33,678 34,348

Petroleum 31 57 58 31

Natural Gas 668 1,146 1,454 763
Hydroelectric 1,255 746 500 485

Other Renewable 195 197 189 224

Total 36,844 36,623 35,879 36,640

% Renewable 3.94% 2.57% 1.92% 1.93%

% Non-Hydro

Renewable 0.53% 0.54% 0.53% 0.61%

Sources: Form EIA-906 Database, "Monthly Utility Powe r Plant Data" and "Monthly Nonutility Power Plant Data"; and Utah Energy Office Small a nd Medium Renewable Plant Surveys.

Updated: 04/10/03Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 79 

### 5. Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

Utah has relied on the Air Pollution Prevention Forum’s guidance to interpret this provision. The Air Pollution Prevention Forum determined that the proper metric for measuring progress toward the regional goals is the amount of renewable energy Utahns bring on-line through their programs and incentives to serve indigenous loads. The Air Pollution Prevention Forum chose this metric to foster economic efficiency in the development of renewable energy within the region. The choice of this metric allows states to take credit for renewable energy generated anywhere within the interconnected grid so long as that State relies on the renewable energy facility to serve its loads, one of its renewable energy programs supports the development and/or its consumers are paying for the power output. Table 16 prepared by the Utah Energy Office summarizes Utah’s consumption of power from renewable sources compared to all generating sources over the past three years .

Table 16. Utah Consumption of Rene wable Power; 2000-2002 (Gigawatt-hours)

2000 2001 2002 Average

Total Non-Hydro RE Off-Grid/Small-Scale 1.174 1.255 1.290 1.239

Blue Sky 0.673 3.799 7.810 4.094
Other Green Pricing

- - - -

Non-Hydro RE Pcorp 87.533 99.900 112.439 99.957

Non-Hydro RE Non-Pcorp 34.618 33.247 29.681 32.515

Non-Hydro RE Non-Utility 9.110 1.534 10.810 7.151

Total Non-Hydro RE Consumption 133.108 139.734 162.030 144.957

Total Electricty Consumption 23,198.084 23,390.443 23,384.241 23,324.256
% Non-Hydro RE 0.57% 0.60% 0.69% 0.62%

Sources: Utah Small and Medium Renewable Energy Surveys; Form EIA-906 (utility and non-utility) and EIA-826 Databases; Form EIA-759; Form EIA-867; Form EIA- 860B; ScottishPower Environmental Performance Report

2001/2002.



### a. States' Contributions to the Regional Renewable Energy

Generation Goal

Because only five of the nine transport regi on states plan to file state implementation plans under 40 CFR 51.309, it is not possible to allocate shares of the renewable energy generation goals to individual states. Even if an allocation of the goal to individual states were possible, any forecast of program performance would be uncertain. The states submitting implementation plans under Section 309 do not know if the nine-stateSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 80 transport region will achieve the regional goals of 10 percent of electric energy generation from renewable sources by 2003 and 20 percent by 2015.

Although only five states may submit plans under Section 309, efforts by other states in the transport region will contribute to achieving the regional goals. In addition to the efforts expected from the five states pl anning to address regional haze under Section 309, California and Nevada are aggressively pursuing renewable resources.

Nevada has adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring utilities in the state to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2004.

California, representing 48 percent of electricity sales in the nine-state transport region during 2000, recently enacted a more aggressive RPS than its earlier standard. The statutory requirements governing California's expanded RPS are contained in Senate Bill 1078 and Senate Bill 1038, which took effect on January 1, 2003, and are codified in Public Utilities Code (PUC) sections 399.11 through 399.15, and sections 381, 383.5, and

445.

SB 1078 establishes an RPS program that requires retail electricity sellers, such as investor-owned utilities, to increase the renewable content of their electricity deliveries by one percent per year over a baseline level to be determined by the California PUC. Retail sellers must meet a target of 20 percent renewable content in their electricity portfolio by December 31, 2017. SB 1038 revises the structure and funding allocation for the California Energy Commission's Renewable Energy Program, linking payments it makes to new renewable electricity generating facilities to the RPS, with the goal of increasing the amount of renewable generation in California.

The states filing plans under Section 309 will report on regional progress toward the renewable energy goals for the nine-state transport region in their 2008 submittals.



### b. Utah's Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

Utah has relied on the Air Pollution Prevention Forum's guidance to interpret this provision. The Forum determined that the proper metric for measuring progress toward the regional goals is the amount of renewable energy that Utahns bring on line through their programs and incentives to serve indigenous loads. The Forum chose this metric to foster economic efficiency in the development of renewable energy within the region. The choice of this metric allows each state to take credit for renewable energy generated anywhere within the interconnected grid so long as that state relies on the renewable energy facility to serve its loads, one of its renewable energy programs supports the development, and/or its consumers are paying for the power output. Table 15 prepared by the Utah Energy Office summarizes Utah's consumption of power from renewable sources compared to all generating sources over the past three years.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 81 The Forum estimated that approximately 20 GW or 20,000 MW of new renewable energy generating capacity would need to be added to the interconnected grid by 2018 for the region to meet its goals of producing 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2005 and 20% by 2015. Using information from the Energy Information Administration and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), the Utah Energy Office estimates that Utah’s peak summer electricity demand is about 2.8% of the overall WECC peak summer electricity demand. WECC includes all of the states comprising the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region. If Utah consumers were allocated a portion of the 20,000MW required to meet the regional 10/20 goals based on the proportion of peak summer electricity demand they now represent, Utah would need to contribute 560 MW of new renewable generation capacity toward meeting the goals. Utah estimates that it will contribute about 550 MW of new renewable generating capacity through its various programs to meet the regional goals by 2013. At this time, there is not enough information available to reasonably estimate what additional renewable generating capacity Utah will bring on line to serve indigenous loads from 2013 to 2018. The WRAP’s Air Pollution Prevention Forum and Utah both expect wind power production to provide most of the new capacity. In addition to reporting on its progress toward meeting the regional renewable energy goals, Utah will update and revise its current estimate of its contribution to the goals when it makes its 2008

submittal.



### 6. State of Utah Programs to Encourage Early Compliance

a. Western Backstop SO 2 

### Trading Program Early

Reduction Credits.

As further described in Part E.3.a(1)(c) of the stationary source provisions of this plan,

industrial sources of SO 2 subject to the trading program which, upon verification by the State, reduce emissions to levels below their floor amount prior to the program trigger date shall receive additional emission allowances. Such allowances may be used by the source for compliance purposes or may be sold to other parties, hence providing an incentive for sources to go beyond compliance (i.e., their floor) or to achieve early compliance (i.e., reductions prior to the program trigger date).



### b. Western Backstop SO 2 

### Trading Program Renewable Energy Credits.

As further described in Part E.3.a(1)(c) of the stationary source provisions of this plan, allowances shall be provided to the owners of renewable energy facilities installed since October 1, 2000. Such allowances will hold a market value and therefore provide an incentive for power suppliers to invest in renewable energy facilities with zero or very low air pollutant emissions.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 82 

### 7. Summary of Utah Programs to Expand Energy Conservation

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), Table 17 lists programs that are offered in Utah to preserve and expand existing energy conservation efforts. Detailed information about these programs is provided in the Utah TSD Supplement.

Table 17. Programs to Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts

PROGRAM TYPE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS PacifiCorp Integrated Resource Planning – Demand Side Management Utility Integrated Resource Planning UAMPS Integrated Resource Planning – Demand Side Management Low-income Weatherization Program Residential Energy Efficiency Residential Energy Efficiency Program Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Demonstration Program Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Industries of the Future Program

State Buildings Energy Efficiency Program Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency Program Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan Program Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency

Salt Lake Airport Electricity Conservation Program Energy Education in Schools Program Technical Assistance “PowerForward” Program



### 8. Areas Where Power Is Lacking and Renewable Sources Can Supply It

Supplying power from renewable sources where it is now lacking is linked fundamentally to whether or not line extensions are affordable compared to off-grid renewable power applications. Most populated areas of Utah a nd their associated electrical loads are being served from the interconnected transmission and distribution system. There are very limited opportunities to supply power from renewable sources to areas without existing service. Where off-grid power production is appropriate, it probably will be solar generation and will offset on-site diesel genera tion. In areas without electrical service, the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy generation can only be determined within the context of site-specific resource availability, the conversion technology and its capitalcosts, alternative power generation costs, fuel prices and volatility, proximity to gridconnected distribution lines, the cost of line extensions, and other relevant variables. Utilities’ line extension policies may also encourage or dissuade off-grid renewable power development. In general, small loads located more than 3 miles from the transmission and distribution grid have the highest potential for being served cost effectively by on-site renewable power genera tion. A map of Utah’s transmission system is shown below. It can be compared to the maps depicting Utah’s renewable energySection XX - Regional Haze. Page 83 resource distribution (Figures 12 - 15) to get a rudimentary sense for the areas where renewable power might be used to serve loads that do not have power today.

Figure 5. Utah's Transmission and Distribution Network.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 84 

### 9. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention

and EERE Measures

a. Regional Approach to Analyses

The goal of serving 10 percent of “the regional power needs” from renewable generation sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015 is a regional one. The goal was not apportioned to the individual states comprising the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region. Instead, each state has been required to take steps that contribute to achieving an overarching regional outcome. This approach appropriately reflects the nature of the western electricity grid. Load growth in one area of the western electricity system is regularly met by generation additions in another, geographically separated location within the interconnected western system. This fosters economic efficiency and helps to keep electricity rates for retail customers low. While it may be feasible to forecast where load growth is most likely to occur within the western region, it is not realistic to suggest anyone can predict where and when new generation additions from renewable or any other sources might come onto the interconnected system to serve it.

Because they depend largely on how the interconnected electricity system expands and may be developed, the emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with meeting the regional renewable energy goals, preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts and operating pollution prevention programs cannot be rationally tied prospectively to any particular state. Further, these derived benefits are small. The pollution prevention recommendations of the GCVTC were part of an overall strategy for reducing haze causing emissions across the entire geographic region affecting the visibility at Class I areas on the Colorado plateau. All benefits whether environmental or economic were intended to be accrued to the region. Attempting to apportion them to individual states is not reasonable and could be misleading.

The WRAP analyzed the emissions reductions, cost savings, and secondary benefits the Transport Region, all nine states and the tribal lands within them, could expect from implementing the pollution prevention recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The analysis focused on stationary sources, including electricity generation and industrial steam production plants and refineries, smelters and other

facilities that emit SO 2 from processing. The assessment assumed every state would participate to implement the pollution prevention recommendations. Five of the Transport Region states are preparing Regional Haze Implementation Plans under Section 309. Two others, California and Neva da, have adopted aggressive sets of policies including Renewable Portfolio Standards and System Benefits Charges to promote the development of new renewable power plants before 2018. Because these states are all taking steps to achieve the regional 10/20 goal and represent an overwhelming portion of the load within the Transport Region, the assumptions used by WRAP to model emission reductions, cost savings, and secondary benefits should beSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 85 representative. Utah has relied on their analysis 41 to prepare this section of the UtahRegional Haze Implementation Plan. Additional modeling using different or statespecific assumptions seems unlikely to yield any significant, substantive improvement over the projections the WRAP has developed.



### b. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from

Pollution Prevention and EERE Measures

(1) Modeling Method and Assumptions. The Air Pollution Prevention Forum of the WRAP developed a three-phase analytical framework to assess the potential emissions reductions, cost savings and secondary regional economic impacts of implementing the 10/20 goals and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts within the Transport region. These included: (1) assumptions and scenario development, (2) modeling of the electric, steam and process source sectors, and (3) modeling of the secondary regional economic impacts.

The Air Pollution Prevention Forum developed two types of scenarios to examine the emissions reductions, cost savings and secondary regional economic impacts of meeting the 10/20 goals and preserving and expanding en ergy conservation efforts. The first was

a Business-As-Usual scenario that character ized how the future might unfold with the proposed, “backstop,” regional SO 2 trading program but without any policy measures designed to achieve the 10/20 goals or enhance energy efficiency. The second set of scenarios reflected a future with the regional SO 2 trading program and policy drivers designed to meet the 10/20 goals or preserve and expand energy conservation efforts, or both. Assessments of emissions reductions, cost savings and secondary regional economic impacts were estimated by analyzing the differences between the policy scenarios compared to the Business-As-Usual scenario.

(2) Forecast Power Supply Changes. Achieving the 10/20 goals and implementing the Air Pollution Prevention Forum energy efficiency recommendations will stimulate significant renewable energy capacity additions, 20,000 MW by 2018. Figure 6 summarizes the growth in renewable energy capacity spawned by meeting the 10/20 goals. Figure 7 contrasts the generation mix in 2018 between the Business-As-Usual and 10/20 goal policy scenario.

41 Prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership Air Pollution Prevention Forum. Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/20 Goal s and Energy Efficiency Recommendations. Draft Report of October, 2002;Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 86 Figure 6. Forecast Renewable Energy Capacity Additions to Meet 10/20 Goals.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Wind Geothermal Landfill GasCapacity Additions by 2018 (GW)

Figure 7. Generation Mix in 2018: Business-As-Usual and Meeting 10/20 Goals.

Business as Usual Meeting 10/20 Goals

As illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, wind power dominates the growth in new renewableenergy generation capacity and the increased use of renewable energy displaces new gasfired generation. While these results illustrate only the impact from meeting the 10/20 renewable generation goal, similar impacts occur with increased energy efficiency. The key point illustrated by the projected change in the mix of generation capacity from meeting the 10/20 goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts is that new renewable power generation and energy conservation compete against new conventional capacity additions without significantly affecting existing electricity generating sources.

(3) Emissions Reductions. The analyses completed by the WRAP indicate that meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and implementing the recommendations developed by the Air Pollution PreventionForum as “best practices” to preserve and expand energy conservation can serve as cost31%

0%

37% 4% 8% 14% 6%

29%

0%

26% 4% 7% 14% 6% 14%

Coal

O/G Steam & Turbines

Combined Cycles

Existing Renewables

Cogens

Hydro

Nuclear

New RenewablesSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 87 effective air pollution prevention strategies because they provide emissions reductions at modest costs or with some savings.

The fact that renewable energy capacity additions and energy efficiency are likely to compete against generation from new gas-fired facilities affects the projected emissions reductions from meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and implementing more aggressive energy efficiency programs. As illustrated in Figure 8, the WRAP estimates the potential reduction in NO

x emissions from meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts will likely be between 8,000 tons and 14,000 tons, 1 percent to 2 percent relative to Business-As-Usual. In Figure 8, the bar labeled “10/20 goals” represents NO

x emissions reductions from a scenario in which the 10/20 goal is meet, the one marked “EE” represents NO

x emissions reductions from a scenario in which the Air Pollution Prevention Forum energy efficiency recommendations are implemented and the one labeled “EE + 10/20 goals” represents

NO

x emissions reductions from the policy scenario in which both the 10/20 goal and the energy efficiency recommendations have been fully accomplished.

Figure 8. Potential NO

x Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations.

- 2

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

2005 2010 2015 2018Change in NOxEmission Relative to BAU(Thousands Tons of NOX) 10/20 Goals

EE

EE + 10/20 GoalsSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 88 Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and pursuing energy efficiency aggressively

also leads to reductions in CO 2 emissions through the displacement of new fossil fuel generation. As illustrated in Figure 9, CO 2 emissions reductions in 2018 from meeting the 10/20 goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts have been projected to range between 40 million and 55 million metric tones, 10 percent to 14 percent relative to Business-As-Usual.

Figure 9. Potential CO 2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE.

- 10 20 30 40 50 60

2005 2010 2015 2018Change in CO2Emissions Relative to BAU(Million Metric Tonnes of CO2) 10/20 Goals

EE

EE + 10/20 Goals

The WRAP modeling suggests accomplishing the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts do not reduce SO 2 emissions because the regional SO 2 trading program proposed under the Annex is the controlling factor in reducing SO 2 emissions. Since the trading program creates a monetary value for emissions reductions, any potential for emissions reductions is fully offset by increases in

SO 2 emissions from sources affected by the trading program. In other words, SO 2 emissions in 2013 and 2018 will reflect the emissions caps specified by the Annex. However, meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy

conservation efforts could decrease the cost of the SO 2 trading program by as much as $7 million in 2018, about 10 percent of its projected cost, 42 and could displace 1,200 MW to 1,700 MW of new scrubber capacity by 2018.

(4) Visibility Improvements. Projections of visibility improvements for the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau are provided in Table 23 found in Part K. These projections include the combined effects of all measures in this SIP, including air pollution prevention programs. Although emission reductions and visibility improvements from air pollution prevention programs are expected at some level, they were not explicitly calculated because the resolution of

42 Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/ 20 Goals and Energy Efficiency Recommendations , page 36.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 89 the regional air quality modeling system is not currently sufficient to show any significant visibility changes resulting from the marginal nitrogen oxide emission reductions described above for air pollution prevention programs.

(5) Cost Savings and Secondary Regional Economic Impacts. Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and implementing the Air Pollution Prevention Forum efficiency recommendations could be done for a modest production cost increase or with some financial savings. In particular, preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts could yield net, levelized annual production costs 43 savings of $750 million to $1 billion, 4 percent to 7 percent relative to Business-As-Use. These net savings reflect the cost of implementing the energy efficiency recommendations, the avoided investment costs for transmission and distribution system upgrades, and the reductions in electricity and steam production costs resulting from lower electricity demand. Figure 10 compares the production costs estimated for Business-As-Usual and those resulting from taking recommended steps to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts across the transport region.

Figure 10. Annual Levelized Production Costs for Business-As-Usual and Efficiency.

$16.4 $16.7 $17.4

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20

BAU EE EE + 10/20 GoalsAnnual Levelized Production Costs (Billion2001$)

Accomplishing the10/20 renewable energy goal by itself will increase annual levelized production costs modestly. Electricity pr oduction costs could rise between $300 million and $900 million, 2 percent to 5 percent compared to Business-As-Usual. This increase is largely driven by the capital investments in new renewable energy generation capacity and is offset by production cost savings from displaced fossil fuel generation. Figure 11 compares the annual levelized production costs associated with Business-As-Usual and meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal with and without cost and performance improvements that may occur over the planning period.

43 Annual levelized production costs reflect the capital, fuel and operation and maintenance expenditures associated with the production of electricity and industrial steam levelized over the years 2005 – 2022. These modeled production costs do not include the sunk costs (capital cost or carrying charges) of existing units.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 90 Figure 11. Annual Levelized Production Costs for BAU and Meeting the 10/20

Goal.

$17.7 $18.3
$17.4

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20

BAU 10/20 Goals 10/20 Goals with No Cost & Performance ImprovementsAnnual Levelized Production Costs (Billion 2001$)

Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts has little or no impact on the regional economy. Most of the estimated regional impacts are less than one half of one percent. Table 18 summarizes the annual average secondary region economic impacts from meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and pursuing energy effi ciency improvements more aggressively.

Table 18. Annual Average (2005-2020) Changes for Key Economic Indicators

Employment Gross Regional Product Personal Disposable Income (Persons) (% Change) (Million 2001$) (% Change) (Million 2001$) (% Change)

10/20 Goals 627 0.00% -312 -0.01% 73 0.00% Energy Efficiency (EE) 8,415 0.02% 450 0.02% 776 0.04%
10/20 Goals + EE 4,097 0.01% -58 0.00% 547 0.03%

The regional economic analysis suggests that meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts may, on average, lead to an increase in economic activity. Over time, there may be small increases in regional economic activity in the early years and a small decline in later years from air pollution prevention programs. The impacts from 2005 to 2015 are largely the result of investments made in new renewable energy generation that increase labor demand and have secondary impacts on output and income. Following the investment and construction boom, the region could see some decline in employment, gross regional product and personal disposable income.

In general, accomplishing the 10/20 renewable energy goal probably will lead to small increases in employment and personal income along with a small decline in grossSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 91 regional product. Preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts within the Transport Region results in small increases in employment, personal disposable income and gross regional product. This is sparked by new energy conservation investments.



### 10. Utah Programs to Meet the Regional Renewable Energy Goals

a. Summary of Utah Programs

Following the findings of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Air Pollution Prevention Forum, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) found that energy efficiency and renewable energy can be effective tools to reduce regional haze and can reduce emissions, improve visibility, reduce energy costs and provide secondary environmental and economic benefits to the region. The WRAP also concluded that implementing both renewable energy and energy efficiency program and policy measures together will yield larger emissions benefits than either energy efficiency or renewable energy measures al one would yield. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made similar presumptions in promulgating Section 309(d)(8) of the Regional Haze Rule.

The inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the State Implementation Plan and estimated emission reductions and impacts from them does not cause such programs and estimates to become mandatory and/or federally enforceable. These programs are voluntary state and local programs that were never intended to be federally enforceable. 44 The WRAP has explicitly expressed its expectation that these programs will be implemented consistent with local economic, regulatory, and political conditions while protecting cultural resources and values. These programs may be modified, changed, expanded, redirected or eliminated and new programs may be adopted and implemented without seeking approval from the federal government. The projected emission reductions are estimates only. It is expected that these programs and their associated emissions impacts will change over time without requiring a SIP revision. Utah will, as required, report its progress toward meeting the regional 10/20 renewable energy goals in the periodic SIP reviews required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), Table 19 lists the programs that the State of Utah will employ to make its contribution toward meeting the regional renewable energy goals of supplying 10 percent of its power needs from renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015.

44 The GCVTC goal is 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in 2005 and 20 percent in 2015. With respect to the requirements of Section 309(d)(8), achieving the 10/20 goal is not mandatory or “enforceable.” This section of the rule simply establishes an “enforceable” re quirement for states “to assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVT C with respect to renewable energy.” To the extent they are not able meet the goal, states are required to provide an explanation of why the goals cannot be met. See 64 FR 35754, July 1, 1999. Regional Haze Regulations Final Rule.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 92 Table 19. Utah Renewable Energy Program Descriptions

PROGRAM TYPE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS PacifiCorp Integrated Resource Planning – Renewable

Additions Utility Integrated Resource Planning UAMPS Integrated Resource Planning Net Metering Utah Net Metering Program Green Pricing PacifiCorp Blue Sky Marketing Program Financial Incentives Renewable Energy Systems Tax Credit Program Supplemental Environmental Project Program Government Endorsed

Green Power

Purchases Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan Program

Technical Assistance Million Solar Roofs Partnership Program



### b. Potential for Renewable Energy Resources

(1) Renewable energy potential and areas where renewable energy can supply

power. The renewable energy resource potential in Utah and its geographic distribution across the state have been characterized succinctly in the Renewable Energy Atlas of the West

. 45
The Atlas was assembled using best available renewable energy resource maps and data. Data and map sources have been scrupulously documented. The Atlas was used as a source for preparing this section. The existing data and maps are useful to policymakers as a tool for planning. They serve their intended function within the context of the Utah Regional Haze Implementation Plan.

The potential to generate power from renewable energy sources reported in this section is based on the total estimated availability of each type of renewable energy source within Utah. The power production potential for each type of renewable resource is an estimate of what could be developed, not an estimate of what will be developed during any future period of time. The estimates are presented to document that Utah has sufficient renewable energy resource potential to meet the regional goals of generating 10% of its power from renewable resources by 2005 and 20% by 2015. In fact, Utah has the potential to generate much more than would be required to simply meet the regional goals. During the periodic SIP reviews re quired under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), an update of information required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) will be incorporated into the Utah Regional Haze Implementation Plan revisions.

45 Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development, and GreenInfo Network with support from the Hewlett Foundation and the Energy Foundation. Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A Guide to the Region’s Resource Potential . Available at www.energyatlas.org

.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 93 (a) Solar energy potential and distribution. The potential to generate power from incident solar radiation in Utah is estimated to be 69,000,000 MWh/yr. Most of this potential is located in the southern and southwestern portions of Utah. Assuming that the systems used to transform Utah's solar energy potential to power operate at a 20 percent capacity factor 46 , there is potential to install approximately 39,400 MW of solar power capacity in Utah. Presently, solar power production costs significantly more than other means for generating power. As a consequence, the vast majority of Utah's solar power potential is not economical to develop for utility system electricity sales at this time. Figure 12 characterizes the distribution and relative potential of the solar energy resource in

Utah.

46 "Capacity factor" is a value used to expre ss the average percentage of full power production capacity achieved or expected over a given period of time. For example, a generating facility that operates at an average of 60% of its normal full cap acity over a measured period has a capacity factor of 0.6 for that period. A capacity factor can apply to an individual generating unit or any collection of generating units. In mathematical terms this can be expressed as:

Installed renewable x capacity factor = renewable power production

capacity for the renewable source

Since the availability of many renewable energy s ources varies throughout the day and from day to day, renewable power generators operate at only a por tion of their full power production capacity. The capacity factors used in this section to convert th e potential power production in Utah from each type of renewable energy source to an estimate of the pot ential installed renewable energy capacity for each type of renewable resource were developed by the Utah Energy Office based on their experience and information reported in professional papers. It was done to permit readers to more easily compare Utah's existing installed capacity and power production with the installed capacity and power production that might be possible in the future from Utah's renewable energy resources.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 94 Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 95 (b) Geothermal energy potential and distribution. Utah is one of the few states to have developed geothermal power plants, 39.8 MW of generation capacity. Utah has substantial, additional, undeveloped geothermal power production potential. The potential to generate power from geothermal sources in Utah is estimated to be 9,000,000 MWh/yr. Assuming that systems used to transform Utah's geothermal energy potential to power operate at a 60 percent capacity factor, there is potential to install approximately 1,700 MW of geothermal generating capacity in Utah. Figure 13 characterizes the distribution and relative potential for producing electricity from geothermal sources in Utah.

Figure 13. Geothermal Energy Potential in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 96 (c) Wind energy potential and distribution. Some areas of Utah have excellent wind energy resources that may be suitable for utility-scale development. The potential to generate power from wind in Utah is estimated to be 23,000,000 MWh/yr. Figure 7 roughly characterizes the distribution and relative potential of the wind energy resource in Utah. The most recent map and estimate of the developable wind resource potential in Utah has been prepared by the Utah Energy Office and the National Renewabl e Energy Laboratory, and is included below as Figure 14. Assuming that systems used to transform Utah's wind energy potential to power operate at a 32 percent capacity factor, there is potential to install approximately 8,200 MW of wind generating capacity in Utah. Most of the wind energy potential in Utah comes from areas with lower power production capability. Wind power developers generally want to build only in the windiest areas to assure their competitiveness in electricity markets. As a consequence, only a fraction of Utah's overall wind potential will be attractive for wind development in the near term.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 97 Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 98 (d) Biomass energy potential and distribution. The potential to generate power from landfill gas and plant and animal wastes in Utah is estimated to be 1,000,000 MWh/yr. Most of this potential is located in the northern and northwestern portions of Utah. Assuming that systems used to transform Utah's biomass energy potential to power operate at an 80% capacity factor, there is potential to install approximately 140 MW of biomass generating capacity in Utah. Figure 15 characterizes the distribution and relative potential for generating power from

biomass in Utah.

Figure 15. Biomass Energy Potential in Utah.

(e) Landfill gas energy potential. The estimated power production potential from landfill gas in Utah that is embedded in the biomass map and energy production projections was derived from the Environmental Protection Agency Landfill Methane Outreach Program database (2001). The detailed landfill gas database for Utah is presented in Table20.Section XX - Regional Haze.Page99Table 20. Utah Land-fill Gas ResourcesProjectID #LandfillID #LMOPTerritoryLandfill NameLandfill CityLandfillCountyLandfillStateWIP (tons)YearLandfillOpenedLandfillClosureYearLandfill OwnerProject StatusProjectDeveloperUtilization Type(Direct-Use vsElectricity)SpecificUtilizationTypeCapacity(MW)LFG Flowto Project(mmscfd)EmissionReductions(MMTCO2E)1619 1542 3 Salt Lake Valley LF Salt Lake Salt Lake UT 6,700,000 1982 2020Salt Lake ValleySolid WasteManagement Council ConstructionDTEEnergy Direct Boiler 0.2421604 1527 3City of Logan SanitaryLandfill Logan Cache UT 1,400,00019612016 City of Logan Potential Electricity1630 1553 3 Beaver County LF Beaver Beaver UT 107,648 1968 2014 Beaver City Unknown Direct1625 1548 3 Blanding LF Blanding San Juan UT 50,780 1956 1995Blanding City Unknown Direct1617 1540 3Bountiful City SanitaryLFWestBountiful Davis UT 2,171,531 1960 2058 City of Bountiful Unknown Direct1598 1521 3 Brigham City LF Brigham Box Elder UT 693,000 19601995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1606 1529 3 Callao LFJuab UT 1970Unknown Direct1621 1544 3 Carbon County LF Price Carbon UT 280,000 1956 1995Carbon County Unknown Direct1626 1549 3 City of Monticello LF Monticello San Juan UT36,000 1960 1995 Max Dalton Unknown Direct1618 1541 3Davis County SolidWaste ManagementSSD LFLayton Davis UT 1,840,150 1959 2022Wasatch EnergySystemsUnknown Direct1642 1565 3 Duchesne County LF Duchesne Duchesne UT 1984 2044Duchesne & WasatchCounties Unknown Direct180128 2074 3 ECDCEast CarbonUTUnknown1622 1545 3 Emery County LF Castledale Emery UT 212,184 19832024 Emery County Unknown Direct1609 1532 3 Eskdale LFMillard UTUnknown Direct1631 1554 3Garfield County/John'sValley LFGarfield Garfield UT 16,200 1992 2044 Garfield County Unknown Direct1632 1555 3GarfieldCounty/Ticaboo LF Garfield Garfield UT 8,852 1993 2014 Garfield County Unknown Direct1610 1533 3 Garrison LF Garrison Millard UT 660 1986 2094 Millard County Unknown Direct1624 1547 3 Grand County LF Moab Grand UT 76,300 1960 2004Grand County Unknown Direct1623 1546 3 Green River LF Green River Emery UT 79,205 1965 1995Green River City Unknown Direct1599 1522 3 Grouse Creek LFGrouseCreek Box Elder UT 1,760 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1633 1556 3Iron County/ ArmstrongPit LFCedar Iron UT 44,962 1993 2014 Iron County Unknown Direct1635 1558 3Kane County/GlendaleLF GlendaleKaneUT6,56019882094Western Kane CountySSD# 1Unknown Direct1634 1557 3 Kane County/Kanab LFKanab Kane UT 39,680 1981 2044Western Kane CountySSD# 1 Unknown Direct1641 1564 3 Manila City LF Manila Daggett UT 32,120 1974 1995Manila City/DaggettCounty Unknown Direct1611 1534 3 Millard County LF Delta Millard UT 67,650 1986 2034 Millard County Unknown Direct1607 1530 3 Nephi LF Nephi Juab UT 18,300 1987 2044 NephiCity Unknown DirectSection XX - Regional Haze.Page100Table 20. (Continued) Utah Land-fill Gas ResourcesProjectID #LandfillID #LMOPTerritoryLandfill NameLandfill CityLandfillCountyLandfillStateWIP (tons)YearLandfillOpenedLandfillClosureYearLandfill OwnerProjectStatusProjectDeveloperUtilizationType (DirectUse vsElectricity)SpecificUtilizationTypeCapacity(MW)LFG Flowto Project(mmscfd)EmissionReductions(MMTCO2E)1645 1568 3North Utah CountySpecial Service DistrictLFUtah UT 1,707,965 1964 1993Unknown Direct1600 1523 3 Park Valley LF Park Valley Box Elder UT 2,400 19801995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1608 1531 3 Partoun LFJuab UTUnknown Direct1614 1537 3 Payson City LF Payson Utah UT 616,029 1950 2014Payson CityCorporation Unknown Direct1646 1569 3 Provo LFProvo Utah UT 1,131,000 1963 1991 City of Provo Unknown Direct1605 1528 3 Rich County LF Laketown Rich UT 40,688 19812030 Rich County Unknown Direct1627 1550 3San Juan County/BluffLFBluff San Juan UT 1,600 1980 1995 San JuanCounty Unknown Direct1628 1551 3San Juan County/HallsCrossing LFHallsCrossing San Juan UT 9,464 1970 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct1629 1552 3San JuanCounty/Mexican Hat LF Mexican Hat San Juan UT 1,600 19801995 San Juan County Unknown Direct1612 1535 3 Sanpete SLF Coop Spring City Sanpete UT 108,396 19892066 Sanpete SLF Coop Unknown Direct1615 1538 3 Santaquin County LFSantaquin Utah UT 262,080 19001995 Santaquin City Unknown Direct1613 1536 3Sevier County/Sage FlatLF GlenwoodSevierUT70,20019932024SevierCounty Unknown Direct1601 1524 3 Snowville LF Snowville Box Elder UT 8,100 1970 Snowville Town Unknown Direct1616 1539 3South Utah CountySSD/Bayview LF Utah Utah UT 1,100,000 1991 2094South Utah ValleySolid Waste District Unknown Direct1637 1560 3Summit County/ThreeMile Canyon LF Wanship Summit UT 358,896 1986 2026 Summit County Unknown Direct1638 1561 3Tooele Army Depot LF#1Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct1639 1562 3Tooele Army Depot LF#2Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct1620 1543 3 Transjordan LF South Jordan Salt Lake UT 8,622,936 1955 2021 Trans-Jordan Cities Unknown Direct1602 1525 3 Tremonton LF Tremonton Box Elder UT 184,600 1970 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1643 1566 3Uintah County/VernalCity LFVernal Uintah UT 2,773,000 1950 2008Uintah County andVernal City Unknown Direct1636 1559 3Washington CountySolid Waste SSD #1 LF Washington Washington UT 1,292,000 19782067 Washington County Unknown Direct1644 1567 3 Weber County LF Ogden Weber UT 3,500,000 1966 1996Weber County Unknown Direct 0.81640 1563 3 Wendover City LF Wendover Tooele UT 118,260 1970 1996Wendover City Unknown Direct1603 1526 3 Yost LFYost Box Elder UT 800 1980 1995 BoxElder County Unknown Direct101 

## J. OTHER GCVTC RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

The recommendations of the GCVTC are presented throughout the June 1996 final report with varying degrees of specificity. Not all are included in the Regional Haze Rule. However, some of the recommendations were intended as a menu of options, with no expectation that any geographic area would implement all of them. The GCVTC pointed out in its final report that:

“Some of the Commission's recommendations ask the EPA to take specific actions or institute particular programs , in cooperation with the tribes, states and federal agencies as implementing bodies. Other recommendations provide a range of potential policy or strategy options

for consideration by the EPA and implementing entities. As the EPA develops policies and takes actions based on this report, this distinction between "actions" and "options" should be maintained with diligence. That is, recommendations intended as policy options should not become mandated actions or regulatory programs.” [ BOLD emphasis in original.] 47



### 2. Other State of Utah Long-term Strategy Components

a. Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Recommendations.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), Utah has evaluated the “additional” recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to determine if any of these recommendations can be practicably included in this implementation plan. Utah reviewed the GCVTC's 1996 report, Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas , to identify those recommendations that were not incorporated into Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule.



### b. Implementation of Additional Recommendations.

Based on the evaluation made by the State of Utah, no additional measures have been identified as being practicable or necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress. Report to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Public to Satisfy the Requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9) includes a complete list of all additional recommendations and their

status. 48 This report is to be reviewed and updated if necessary in 2008, 2013, and 2018.

47 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page i.

48 Utah Division of Air Quality. Report to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Public to Satisfy the Requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9) . Salt Lake City, Utah. December, 2003.102 

## K. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT

ANTICIPATED FROM LONG-TERM STRATEGY

The Western Regional Air Partnership performed extensive analysis and modeling in order to determine the impact of the regional haze program on visibility at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. This work was performed by several contractors under the direction of various technical and policy forums of the WRAP.

This work began with development of a comprehensive inventory of emissions throughout the region for all categories of sources. In addition, econometric models and new technology profiles were used to project changes in those emissions over time that are expected from implementation of current requirements under the CAA. The WRAP also estimated emission changes resulting from the programs contained in the long-term strategy for regional haze under 40 CFR 51.309.

The emission inventories and projections were used by the WRAP Regional Modeling Center to estimate aerosol concentrations and visibility at each of the 16 Class I areas.WRAP also developed estimates of aerosol concentrations and visibility for the nonGCVTC Class I areas. The WRAP Regional Modeling Center used the Community Multi-scale air Quality (CMAQ) model to estimate aerosol concentrations from the emission inventories and projections.

Emission inventories and modeling results are generated from the technical work conducted by the WRAP, which evaluated the visibility improvements resulting from the application of the regional haze control strategies and programs. The WRAP developed a Technical Support Document (TSD) that contains detailed descriptions of the emissions inventory and projection methods as well as the air quality modeling techniques and results. The following sections contain an overview of the projected changes in emissions and visibility resulting from the implementation of the Regional Haze Rule.



### 1. Effect on Emissions of Long-term Strategy Components

a. Inventory Methodology and Scope

The base WRAP emission inventories used for assessment of visibility included the following pollutants:

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs);

• Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X );

• Carbon Monoxide (CO);

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 );

• Particulate Matter smaller than 10 microns (PM 10 );

• Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ); and

• Ammonia (NH 3 ).103 For visibility modeling, the PM 2.5 emissions inventory was broken into components, or species, representing the key visibility impairing species of interest. This breakdown is necessary since each component has a different effect on visibility. These PM 2.5 species are organic carbon particles (OC), elemental carbon particles (EC), and other fine particles such as soils and dusts. The factors used to allocate PM 2.5 into its components are based on source specific speciation factors. In addition, the coarse material (CM)

fraction of PM 10 (i.e., PM 10 minus PM 2.5 ) was also computed, since coarse particulate matter has a different effect on visibility than fine particulate matter.

The geographic domain for the inventory included the 22 states west of the Mississippi River, and portions of Mexico and Canada. A detailed base year emission inventory was developed for 1996 and included emissions from all of the following categories of

sources:

• Area Sources;

• Stationary Point Sources;

• Mobile Sources (both on-road and non-road);

• Road Dust (from both paved and unpaved road surfaces);

• Fire Emissions (agricultural burning, prescribed fire, and wild fire); and

• Biogenic Sources.

In support of the WRAP Regional Haze air quality modeling efforts after 2003, the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) deve loped annual emissions inventories for the 2002 actual emissions base case, a planning case to represent the 2000-04 regional haze baseline period using averages for key emissions categories, and a 2018 base case of projected emissions determined using factors known at the end of 2005 and 2007 with a final update in 2008. Each of these inventories has undergone a number of revisions throughout the development process with input from UDAQ staff, to arrive at the final versions used for air quality modeling. The WRAP emission inventories developed by the

RMC include:

• The 2002 base case emissions scenario is referred to as “2002 Base Case” or “Base02”. The purpose of the Base02 inventory is to represent the actual conditions in calendar year 2002 with respect to ambient air quality and the associated sources of criteria and particulate matter air pollutants. The Base02 emissions inventories are used to validate the air quality model and associated databases by demonstrating acceptable model performance with respect to replicating observed particulate matter air quality.

• The 2000-04 baseline period planning case emission scenarios are referred to as the “Plan02”series. The purpose of the Plan02 inventories is to represent baseline emission patterns based on average, or “typical”, conditions. This inventory series (cases Plan02 a, b, c) was developed in sequence to diagnose inventory problems and true up the representativeness and accuracy of the emissions for104 planning purposes. This inventory provides a basis for comparison with the future year 2018 projected emissions.

• Three 2018 future-year emission scenarios were developed. These emission inventories are used to represent conditions in 2018 with respect to sources of criteria and particulate matter air pollutants, taking into consideration growth and controls. Modeling results based on this emission inventory are used to define the future year ambient air quality and visibility metrics.

• Base Case (base18b) is a modeling case with estimated emissions growth plus all

controls “on the books” as of December 2004 without BART or the Section 309

SO2 milestone reductions.

• Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case (PRP18) is the modeling case with a refined emissions growth estimate plus all emission controls “on the books” as of May 2007, including presumptive limits or known SO2 BART controls on electric generating units (EGU).

• Final Reasonable Progress Case (FRP18) is a future modeling case with a refined emissions growth estimate plus all emission controls “on the books” as of May 2007, including all BART controls in the WRAP region and limits defined in the Section 309 SO2 milestone “better than BART” program.” The RMC anticipated that FRP 18 modeling will be complete by the third quarter of 2008.

UDAQ staff reviewed the Utah emission i nventory for consistency and provided feedback to WRAP on areas of the inventory that should be improved in the future. UDAQ staff concluded that the 1996 and 2002 i nventories were adequate for regional haze modeling given the uncertainties in a ny emission inventory process. UDAQ staff also reviewed the 2018 emission growth and projection factors used to develop the 2018 inventory and found the projection to be within the range expected from long range economic projections.



### b. Projected Changes in Emissions for Utah and the GCVTC Region

The changes in overall emissions for the State of Utah are summarized in Table21. As shown, emissions of sulfur dioxide are expected to decrease by 33% by 2018 from the 1996 levels. This reduction is due primarily to the long-term strategy for stationary sources of sulfur dioxide described in Part E that will generate a 60% reduction in emissions from stationary sources in the three states that are participating in the Western Regional Milestones and Backstop Trading Program by 2018 from a 1990 baseline. Also, emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) in the state are expected to decline by 36% and 38%, respectively, due to the implementation of new federal engine standards and fuel standards described in Part F and BART controls for

NO

x and PM 2.5 described in Part D. The emission inventories for VOC and coarse particulate matter (CM) are also shown, but it is difficult to compare the 1996 and 2018 inventories for these pollutants due to significant changes in the methodology for estimating emissions from dust, fire, and oil and gas production. Therefore a percent change is not shown for those pollutants.105 Table 21. Summary of the Change in Emissions from 1996-2018 for Utah Sources (Thousands of Tons per Year)(Plan 02d – PRP 18a)

VOC NO

x SO 2 PM 2.5 * CM

1996 172 270 67 85 64

2002 186 227 54 53 98

2018 233 172 45 53 110 % Change (1996- 2018) -36% -33% -38%

*PM 2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts.

Table 22 shows similar emission reductions for the nine-state GCVTC region, except that regionally, sulfur dioxide emissions will be reduced by 53% by 2018 from 1996 levels.

The reason Utah’s reduction of sulfur dioxide is smaller than that in the nine states is that the level of pollution controls on facilities in Utah was generally better than that in

several other states. Emissions of NO

x and PM will decrease in the region by 57% and 31% respectively. The detailed county-level emission inventories for the entire WRAP region are included in the 2003 and 2008 WRAP TSDs.

Table 22. Changes in Emissions from 1996 - 2018 for 9 GCVTC States (Thousands of tons per year)(Plan 02d – PRP 18a)

VOC NO

x SO 2 PM 2.5 * CM
1996 3,325 3,952 1,063 1,197 1,171
2002 2,449 2,241 675 832 1,886
2018 2,760 1,683 503 832 2,104 % Change (1996-2018) -17% -57% -53% -31% 80%

*PM 2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts.106 Figure 16. Class I Areas in the WRAP Region

The emission reductions in Utah occur throughout the state and will therefore benefit all Class I areas outside of Utah that might be impacted by emissions from Utah. Figure 16 shows the Class I areas in the WRAP region. The Class I areas that are not on the Colorado Plateau are indicated by green dots.

Northern Utah. The urban area in northern Utah that may impact Class I areas in Idaho, Nevada and Wyoming will have a significant reduction in NOx emissions from mobile sources as described in Section XX.F of this plan. Mobile (on-road and non-road) NOx emissions in the four main urban counties (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah) are projected to decrease by 42,000 tons/yr or 61% between 2002 and 2018. Mobile sources dominate the NOx emission inventory in Utah’s urban area. Class I areas that have some days when nitrates are a significant contributor to visibility impairment, such as Craters of the Moon National Park, will benefit from the NOx emission reductions during those episodes. As can be seen from the following graphs in Figure 17, the contribution to nitrate on the 20% worst days from sources in Utah decreases substantially between 2002107 and 2018 at Craters of the Moon in Idaho, Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas in Wyoming, and Jarbidge Wilderness Area in Nevada. The contribution to sulfates at the same Class I areas is also shown, but is not significant at any of the sites. Figures 17 through 19 were drawn from the PM Source Apportionment Technique (PSAT) modeling completed by the WRAP in 2006 to attribute the visibility impact at Class I areas to surrounding states. The PSAT modeling was based on the Plan 02c and Base 18b inventories that included growth estimates for all sources, as well as emission reductions that were already in the works such as the Tier 2 emission reductions for vehicles. In the Base 18b inventory, point source emissions for both NOx and SO 2 were projected to increase due to assumptions about growth in Utah.

Later inventories developed by the WRAP (Plan 02d and Prp 18a) include some, but not all, of the stationary source emission reductions due to the SO 2 milestones and BART. These inventories show a significant decrease in stationary source NOx and SO 2 emissions. Table 25 shows the difference between the Plan 02c and 02d inventories, and

the Base 18b and PRP18a inventories.

Table 23. Comparison of WRAP Inventories for Utah.

Scenario Year Point Anthro

Fire Natural

Fire Biogenic Area WRAP

Area

O&G OnRoad

Mobile OffRoad

Mobile

Plan02c 2002 91067 321 8942 12597 6147 5316 77381 47100 Nitrogen

Oxides Base18b 2018 97009 229 8942 12597 8462 13456 27364 28426

Plan02d 2002 84237 321 8942 12597 6146 3335 77381 47100 Nitrogen

Oxides Prp18a 2018 79846 229 8942 12597 8462 6297 27364 28426

Plan02c 2002 43373 81 3095 3449 147 0 1893 4919 Sulfur

Oxides Base18b 2018 53587 62 3095 3597 5 0 433 432

Plan02d 2002 42183 81 3095 0 3449 17 1893 4919 Sulfur

Oxides Prp18a 2018 38292 62 3095 0 3597 1 433 432

Because the PSAT modeling does not include all of the stationary source reductions it is

most useful to show the benefits of mobile source reductions and also to show the relative degree of visibility impact at neighboring Class I areas from Utah vs other states.108109 Figure 17. Class I Areas with Contributions from Northern Utah110 • Central and Southern Utah. As described in Section XX.D.6 of this plan, two BART-eligible plants in central Utah are projected to decrease SO 2 emissions by 13,200 tons and NOx emissions by 6,200 tons between 2002 and 2018. Central and Southern Utah are sparsely populated and the inventory is dominated by point sources. The exception is Washington County that is becoming more urban due to the growth of St. George and the inventory is therefore dominated by mobile source emissions. In Washington County, NOx emissions from mobile sources (on-road and non-road) are projected to decrease by 2,300 tons or 57% between

2002 and 2018. These emission reductions will benefit Class I areas in southern Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona that may be affected by emissions from Utah. The nearby Class I areas that would see the greatest benefit are part of the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. As can be seen in Figure 18, Class I areas that are not on the Colorado Plateau show some benefit, but in general the impact from sources in Utah is not significant at La Garita Wilderness Area and Great Sand Dunes National Monument in Colorado, Bandalier National

Monument in New Mexico and Mazatal and Pine Mountain Wilderness Areas in

Arizona.111112 Figure 18. Class I Areas with Impacts from Central Utah.113 • Eastern Utah. Oil and Gas emissions dominate the inventory in eastern Utah and are increasing between 2002 and 2018. Approximately 90% of current emissions from oil and gas development in Uintah and Duchesne Counties in Eastern Utah occur on land that is under the jurisdiction of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Ouray Reservation and is therefore not covered by Utah’s SIP 49 . The Deseret Generation and Transmission, Bonanza Power Plant is also under the jurisdiction of the Ute Indian Tribe. These emissions may affect Class I areas in Northeastern Colorado and the State of Utah expects that this impact will be addressed in the TIP or FIP that is developed for the Ute Tribe.

49 Phase III Oil and Gas Inventory: Final Report, Development of Baseline 2006 Emissions from Oil and Gas Activity in the Uinta Basin , Environ, March 25, 2009, page

39.114 Figure 19. Class I Areas with Impacts from Eastern Utah, including the Ute Indian Reservation that is not covered by Utah’s Regional Haze SIP.



### 2. Projected Changes in Visual Air Quality

a. Applicable Class I Areas

This projection of visibility improvement covers the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(1).



### b. Projected Visibility Improvement

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), Table 23 indi cates the projected visibility improvement for each of the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau. The table below compares the monitored 2000-04 baseline visibility conditions in deceviews 50 for the 20% Best and 20% Worst days to the projected visibility improvement resulting from the 2018 Base Case (Base 18b) and 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP18 a ) modeling scenarios completed to date.

When SO 2 and NOx controls for all BART sources have been adopted in the WRAP region, and the §309 states re

- adopt the SO 2 milestone program, a 2018 Final Reasonable Progress (FRP18) modeling scenario will then be analyzed

.

All 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas show a projected visibility improvement for 2018 using the monthly averages on the 20% Worst average visibility days, and no degradation on the 20% Best average visibility days for each monitoring site. The monthly average

50 Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. Its method of calculation is defined in 40 CFR 51.301, and is reprinted in Appendix A. Lower deciview numbers indicat e better visibility, while higher numbers indicate more impaired visibility.115 method for projecting visibility improvement is an allowed variation of EPA guidance. 51 The monthly averaging method was chosen because it was the shortest averaging period for making the future visibility projections, while avoiding the use of the EPA specific days method that only assesses improvements on the Worst and Best days observed during one year (2002) of the 2000-04 baseline monitoring period.

The visibility improvement observed in the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas is not as significant as might be expected considering the large emission reductions that are projected to occur in the region. This is because the 20% worst days are dominated by wildfire emissions that temporarily overwhelm all other sources in the region. International emissions and dust storms can also be a major factor on the 20% worst days. These emission sources are not controllable and therefore little improvement is seen during these episodes. The metric required by the regional haze rule focuses on the 20% worst days; thus the visibility benefits on those days when fires and other uncontrollable sources are not dominating the inventory are not as apparent. It is perhaps more revealing to focus on the improvements that will occur on the 20% best days when visibility is already excellent. Visibility is expected to improve on the best days at most of the Colorado Plateau Class I areas (including all five Class I areas in Utah). The emission reductions from stationary sources, mobile sources and controllable fire emissions will provide a benefit every day of the year even though that benefit may not be as obvious when fires are burning in the region.

51 WRAP Technical Analysis Forum, Technical Recommendations on Monitoring Metrics for Regional Haze Planning, 3/23/2007116Table2423. Projected Visibility ImprovementVisibility Impairment in Deciviews*20% Worst Visibility Days20% Best Visibility DaysProjected Visibility(Monthly Average Method)Projected Visibility(Monthly Average Method)Colorado PlateauClass I areasunder §309(d)(2)State2000-04RegionalHaze RuleBaselineMonitoringData2018BaseCase(Base18b)2018PreliminaryReasonableProgress Case(PRP18a)2018FinalReasonableProgress Case(FRP18)2000-04RegionalHaze RuleBaselineMonitoringData2018BaseCase(Base18b)2018PreliminaryReasonableProgress Case(PRP18a)2018FinalReasonableProgress Case(FRP18)Grand Canyon National Park AZ 11.7 11.4 11.32.2 2.2 2.1Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ 11.9 11.5 11.43.0 2.9 2.8Petrified Forest National Park AZ 13.2 12.9 12.95.0 4.9 4.8Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ 15.3 15.1 15.15.6 5.6 5.6Black Canyon of theGunnison National ParkWildernessCO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9Flat Tops WildernessCO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5Maroon Bells WildernessCO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5Mesa Verde National Park CO 13.0 12.8 12.64.3 4.1 4.0Weminuche WildernessCO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9West Elk WildernessCO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM 10.2 10.0 9.81.5 1.3 1.2Arches National ParkUT 11.2 11.0 10.93.8 3.6 3.5Bryce Canyon National Park UT 11.6 11.3 11.22.8 2.7 2.6Canyonlands National Park UT11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5Capitol Reef National Park UT 10.9 10.6 10.54.1 4.0 3.9Zion National ParkUT 13.2 13.0 13.05.0 4.7 4.7* Data are from:http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx--> Modeling --> Visibility Projections117 

## L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS

1. Periodic Progress Reports fo r Demonstrating Reasonable Progress.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), the State of Utah shall submit to EPA, as a SIP revision, periodic progress reports for the years 2013 and 2018 for the purpose of demonstrating reasonable progress in Class I ar eas within Utah, and Class I areas outside Utah that are affected by emissions from Ut ah. This demonstration may be conducted by the WRAP, with assistance from Utah, and shall address the elements listed under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G), as summarized below:

• Implementation status of 2003 SIP measures;

• Summary of emissions reductions;

• Assessment of most/least impaired days;

• Analysis of emission reductions by pollutant;

• Significant changes in anthropogenic emissions;

• Assessment of 2003 SIP sufficiency; and

• Assessment of visibility monitoring strategy.



### 2. Actions To Be Taken Concurrent with Periodic Progress Reports.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), the State of Utah shall take one of the following actions based upon information contained in each periodic progress report:

• Provide a negative declaration statement to EPA saying that no implementation plan revision is needed if reasonable progress is being made, in accordance with section L.1 above;

• If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from outside the state, Utah shall notify EPA and the other contributing state(s), and initiate efforts through a regional planning process to address the emissions in question. The State of Utah shall identify in the next progress report the outcome of this regional planning effort, including any additional strategies that were developed to address the plan’s deficiencies;

• If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from another country, Utah shall notify EPA and provide information on the impairment being caused by these emissions; or

• If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from within Utah, Utah shall develop additionalSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 118 strategies to address the plan deficiencies and revise the implementation plan no later than one year from the date that the progress report was due.119 

## M. STATE PLANNING/INTERSTATE COORDINATION

AND TRIBAL IMPLEMENTATION

1. Participation in Regional Planning and Coordination

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the State of Utah has participated in regional planning and coordination with other states in developing its emission reduction strategies under 40 CFR 51.309, related to protecting the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. This participation was through the Western Regi onal Air Partnership (WRAP). Appendix D of this implementation plans illustrates the interstate planning and coordination programs developed by WRAP and the State of Utah’s participation in regional planning and

interstate coordination.



### 2. Applicability to Tribal Lands

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(12), and in accordance with the Tribal Authority Rule, the Tribe whose lands are surrounded by the State of Utah has the option to develop a regional haze TIP for its lands to assure reasonable progress in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. As such, no provision of this chapter of the implementation plan shall be construed as being applicable to tribal lands.



### 3. Interstate Coordination

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), the State of Utah has participated in regional planning and coordination with other states in developing management strategies for emissions from within the State that would contribute to visibility impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area outside of the State. The 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau are excluded from the consultation provisions of 51.308 given the reasonable progress and visibility improvement requirements under Section 309. Consultation participation was conducted through the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). A more detailed description of the goals, objectives, management, and decision-making structure of the WRAP has been included in Appendix D. The following WRAP forums have provided consultation opportunities between states on emission management strategies:

• Economic Analysis Forum

• Stationary Sources Forum

• Emissions Forum

• Technical Analysis Forum

• Fire Emissions Forum

• Sources In and Near Class I Areas Forum

• Air Pollution Prevention ForumSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 120 • Mobile Sources Forum

• Dust Emissions Forum

Opportunities for consultation on emission strategies provided through the WRAP are documented in more detail in Appendix D.

Changes in visibility impairing emissions from sources in the State of Utah are projected to show significant decreases by 2018 from 1996 levels. Based on WRAP modeling projections and current emission inventories, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) are expected to decrease in Utah 36%, 33% and 38% respectively. These reductions are due primarily to the long-term strategy developed in conjunction with western states through the WRAP. Decreases in SO 2 for stationary sources are described in Part E. Emission reductions of NOx and PM 2.5 are due to the implementation of new federal engine standards and fuel standards described in

Part F and BART controls for NO

x and PM 2.5 described in Part D.

# Utah State Implementation Plan

Section XX

Regional Haze



# APPENDICES

Addressing Regional Haze Visibility Protection for the Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309



## Complete Document Available On-line at http://www.airquality.utah.gov/SIP/Regionalhazesip/ regionalhaze.htm

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................... 1 Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.301, in effect on July 1, 2007................. 1 Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.309, in effect on July 1, 2003................. 4 Definitions for the Fire Program............................................................................. 4

Definitions for the Western Emi ssion Backstop Trading Program ........................ 5

B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS........................................ 9

C. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT.......................................... 18 A. Modeling Scenarios ...................................................................................... 18 Visibility Measurements over the Years............................................................... 19

D. WRAP INTERSTATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES............ 22Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 1 

## A. DEFINITIONS

Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.301, in effect on July 1, 2007

BART-eligible source means an existing stationary facility as defined in this section.

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant, which is emitted by an existing stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining us eful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.

Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calculated based on the following equation (for the purposes of calculating deciview, the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol measurements):

Deciview haze index = 10 1n

e (b ext /10 Mm -1 ).

Where b ext = the atmospheric light extinction coefficient, expressed in inverse megameters (Mm -1 ).

Existing stationary facility means any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants, including any reconstructed source, which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant. In determining potential to emit, fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, must be counted.

Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers), Kraft pulp mills, Portland cement plants, Primary zinc smelters, Iron and steel mill plants, Primary aluminum ore reduction plants, Primary copper smelters, Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, Petroleum refineries,Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 2 Lime plants, Phosphate rock processing plants, Coke oven batteries, Sulfur recovery plants, Carbon black plants (furnace process), Primary lead smelters, Fuel conversion plants, Sintering plants, Secondary metal production facilities, Chemical process plants, Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels, Taconite ore processing facilities, Glass fiber processing plants, and Charcoal production facilities.

Federal Class I area means any Federal land that is classified or reclassified Class I.

Federal Land Manager means the Secretary of the department with authority over theFederal Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-Campobello International

Park Commission.

Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions which are enforceable by the Administrator under the Clean Air Act including those requirements developed pursuant to parts 60 and 61 of this title, requirements within any applicable State Implementation Plan, and any permit requirements established pursuant to Sec. 52.21 of this chapter or under regulations approved pursuant to part 51, 52, or 60 of this title.

Geographic enhancement for the purpose of §51.308 means a method, procedure, or process to allow a broad regional strategy, such as an emission trading program designed to achieve greater reasonable progress than BART for regional haze, to accommodate BART for reasonably attributable impairment.

Implementation plan means, for the purposes of this part, any State Implementation Plan, Federal Implementation Plan, or Tribal Implementation Plan.

Indian tribe or tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village, which is federally recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians

because of their status as Indians.

In existence means that the owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site construction of the facility or (2) entered into bindingSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 3 agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time.

Least impaired days means the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest amount of visibility impairment.

Major stationary source and major modification mean major stationary source and major modification, respectively, as defined in Sec. 51.166.

Mandatory Class I Federal Area means any area identified in part 81, subpart D of this

title.

Most impaired days means the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amount of visibility impairment.

Natural conditions includes naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration.

Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable. Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary source.

Reasonably attributable means attributable by visual observation or any other technique the State deems appropriate.

Reasonably attributable visibility impairment means visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small number of sources.

Regional haze means visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and

area sources.

State means ``State'' as defined in section 302(d) of the CAA.

Stationary Source means any building, structure, facility, or installation, which emits or may emit any air pollutant.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 4 Visibility impairment means any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under

natural conditions.



### Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.309, in effect on July 1, 2003

16 Class I areas means the following mandatory Class I Federal areas on the Colorado Plateau: Grand Canyon National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park,

and Zion National Park.

Transport Region State means one of the States that is included within the Transport Region addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming).

Commission Report means the report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission entitled ``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas,'' dated June 10,

1996.

Fire means wildfire, wildland fire (including prescribed natural fire), prescribed fire, and agricultural burning conducted and occurring on Federal, State, and private wildlands and

farmlands.

Milestone means the maximum level of annual regional sulfur dioxide emissions for a given year, assessed annually, through the year 2018, consistent with paragraph (d)(4) of

this section.

Continuous decline in total mobile source emissions means that the projected level of emissions from mobile sources of each listed pollutant in 2008, 2013, and 2018, are less than the projected level of emissions from mobile sources of each listed pollutant for the previous period (i.e., 2008 less than 2003; 2013 less than 2008; and 2018 less than 2013).

Base Year means the year for which data for a source included within the program were used by the WRAP to calculate emissions as a starting point for development of the milstone required by paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section.



### Definitions for the Fire Program

Agricultural Fuel or Agricultural Burning means any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives (i.e., managed to achieve resource benefits) on agricultural land.

Alternatives to Fire means non-burning techniques that replace fire and that are used to achieve a particular land management objective, including but not limited to reduction ofSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 5 fuel loading, manipulation of fuels, enhancement of wildlife habitat, and ecosystem restructuring.

Emission Reduction Techniques means techniques for controlling emissions from prescribed fires to minimize the amount of emission output per unit or acre burned.

Fire means wildfire, wildland fire( including prescribed natural fire), prescribed fire, and agricultural burning conducted and occurring on federal, state and private wildlands and

farmlands.

Land Manager means any federal, state, local, or private entity that owns, administers, directs, oversees or controls the use of public or private land, including the application of

fire to the land.

Prescribed fire or prescribed burn means any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives, such as achieving resource benefits.

Wildfire means any unwanted, non-structural fire.

Wildland means an area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for pipelines, power lines, roads, railroads, or other transportation or conveyance facilities.

Wildland Fire means all types of fire occurring in the wildland, except for fire on agricultural land.

Wildland Fire Used for Resource Benefits means naturally ignited wildland fire that is managed to accomplish specific prestated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas.



### Definitions for the Western Emi ssion Backstop Trading Program

Account Certificate of Representation means the completed and signed submission required to designate an Account Representative for a Western Emission Backstop (WEB) source or an Account Representative for a general account.

Account Representative means the individual who is authorized through an Account Certificate of Representation to represent ow ners and operators of the WEB source with regard to matters under the WEB Trading Program or, for a general account, who is authorized through an Account Certificate of Representation to represent the persons having an ownership interest in allowances in the general account with regard to matters concerning the general account.

Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Actual Emissions means total annual SO 2 emissions as reported to the executive secretary in accordance with the requirements R307-250-9 or R307-150, as applicable.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 6 Allocate means to assign allowances to a WEB source in accordance with sections XX.E.3.a. through XX.E.3.e of this plan.

Allowance means the limited authorization under the WEB Trading Program to emit one

ton of SO 2 during a specified control period or any control period thereafter subject to the terms and conditions for use of unused allowances as established by R307-250.

Allowance limitation means the tonnage of SO 2 emissions authorized by the allowances available for compliance deduction for a WEB source for a control period under R307- 250-12(1) on the allowance transfer deadline for that control period.

Allowance Tracking System means the system where allowances under the WEB Trading Program are recorded, held, transferred and deducted.

Allowance Tracking System account means an account in the Allowance Tracking System established for purposes of recording, holding, transferring, and deducting

allowances.

Compliance account means an account established in the Allowance Tracking System under R307-250-8(1) for the purpose of recording allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance limitation.

Control period means the period beginning January 1 of each year and ending on December 31 of the same year, inclusive.

Emissions tracking database means the central database where SO 2 emissions for WEB sources as recorded and reported in accordance with R307-250 are tracked to determine compliance with allowance limitations.

Emission Unit means any part of a stationary source, which emits or has the potential to emit any pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

EPA Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Administrator’s duly authorized representative.

Existing source means a stationary source that commenced operation before the Program Trigger Date.

Floor allocation means the amount of allowances set by the executive secretary in accordance with this Plan that represents the minimum necessary for a source to operate under stringent control assumptions.

General account means an account established in the Allowance Tracking System under R307-250-8 for the purpose of recording allowances held by a person that are not to be used to show compliance with an allowance limitation.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 7 Milestone means the maximum level of stationary source regional sulfur dioxide emissions for each year from 2003 to 2018, established according to the procedures in section XX.E.1 of this plan.

New WEB Source means a WEB source that commenced operation on or after the Program Trigger Date.

New Source Set-aside means a pool of allowances that are available for allocation to new WEB sources and modified WEB sources that have increased capacity in accordance with the provisions of Section E.3.c of this plan.

Opt-in means to choose to participate in the WEB Trading Program by following the procedures in R307-250-4(4) and to comply with the terms and conditions of the R307-

250.

Program Trigger Date means the date that the executive secretary determines that the WEB Trading Program has been triggered in accordance with the provisions of section XX.E.1.b of this plan.

Reducible allocation means the amount of allowances set by the executive secretary in accordance with section XX.E.3.a(2)(i) of this plan that represents, for each source, emissions in excess of the floor allocation that shall be reduced over time as the regional

milestone is decreased.

Retired source means a WEB source that has received a retired source exemption as provided in R307-250-4(5).

Special Reserve Compliance Account means an account established in the allowance tracking system under R307-250-8(1) for the purpose of recording allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance limitation for emission units that are monitored for sulfur dioxide in accordance with 250-9(1)(b).

Stationary source means any building, structure, facility or installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Ton means 2000 pounds and, for any control period, any fraction of a ton equaling 1000 pounds or more shall be treated as one ton and any fraction of a ton equaling less than 1000 pounds shall be treated as zero tons.

Tracking System Administrator means the person designated by the executive secretary as the administrator of the WEB Allowance Tracking System and the emission tracking

database.

Tribal Set-Aside means an 2,500-ton SO 2 WEB allowance allocated to tribes on an

annual basis. The tribes will decide how to distribute the allowances in the set-asideSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 8 among tribes in the region. The set-side is intended to ensure equitable treatment for tribal economies and to prevent barriers to economic development.

Trigger refers to the activation of the WEB Trading Program for SO 2 in accordance with section XX.E.1 of this plan.

WEB source means a stationary source that meets the applicability requirements of

R307-250-4

WEB Trading Program refers to the Western Backstop (WEB) Trading Program Rule, R307-250, that shall be triggered as a backstop in accordance the provisions in section XX.E.1 of this plan to ensure that regional SO 2 emissions are reduced.

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) means the collaborative effort of tribal governments, state governments, and federal agencies to promote and monitor implementation of recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission authorized under Section 169B(f) of the Clean Air Act, and to address other common Western regional air quality issues.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 9 

## B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS

Protocol WEB-1 : SO 2 Monitoring of Fuel Gas Combustion Devices

1. Applicability

(a) The provisions of this protocol are applicable to fuel gas combustion devices at petroleum refineries.

(b) Fuel gas combustion devices include boilers, process heaters, and flares used to burn fuel gas generated at a petroleum refinery.

(c) Fuel gas means any gas which is generated and combusted at a petroleum refinery. Fuel gas does not include(1) natural gas, unless combined with other gases generated at a petroleum refinery, (2) gases generated by a catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator, (3) gases generated by fluid coking burners, (4) gases combusted to produce sulfur or sulfuric acid, or (5) process upset gases generated due to startup, shutdown, or

malfunctions.

2. Monitoring Requirements

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section 2, fuel gas combustion devices shall use a continuous fuel gas monitoring system (CFGMS) to determine the total sulfur content (reported as H 2 S) of the fuel gas mixture prior to combustion, and continuous fuel flow meters to determine the amount of fuel gas burned.

(1) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored for sulfur content at one location, if monitoring at that location is representative of the sulfur content of the fuel gas being burned in any fuel gas combustion device.

(2) The CFGMS shall meet the performance requirements in Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60, and the following:

(i) Continuously monitor and record the concentration by volume of total sulfur compounds in the gaseous fuel reported as ppmv H 2 S.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 10 (ii) Have the span value set so that the majority of readings fall between 10 and 95% of the range.

(iii) Record negative values of zero drift.

(iv) Calibration drift shall be  5.0% of the span, for initial certification and daily calibration error tests.

(v) Methods 15A, 16, or approved alternatives for total sulfur, are the reference methods for the relative accuracy test. The relative accuracy test shall include a bias test in accordance with paragraph 4.(c) of this section.

(3) All continuous fuel flow meters shall comply with the provisions of section 2.1.5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

(4) The hourly mass SO 2 emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated using the following equation:

E t = ( C S )( Q t )( K )

where: E t = Total SO 2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable fuel gas combustion devices

C

S = Sulfur content of the fuel gas as H 2 S(ppmv) Q t = Fuel gas flow rate to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices (scf/hr)

K

= 1.660 x 10 -7 (lb/scf)/ppmv

(b) In place of a CFGMS in paragraph (a) of this Section 2, fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored

with an SO 2 CEMS, a flow CEMS, and (if necessary) a moisture monitoring system at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is representative of the SO 2 emission rate (lb SO 2 /scf fuel gas burned) of all applicable fuel gas combustion devices. Continuous fuel flow meters shall be used in accordance with paragraph (a), and the fuel gas combustion device monitored by a CEMS shall have separate fuel metering.

(1) Each CEMS for SO 2 , flow, and (if applicable) moisture, shall comply with the operating requirements, performance specifications, and quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part

75.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 11 (2) All continuous fuel flow meters shall comply with the provisions of section 2.1.5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

(3) The SO 2 hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be determined by the ratio of the amount of fuel gas burned by the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device to the total fuel gas burned by all applicable fuel gas combustion devices using the following equation:

E t

= (E

m ) ( Q t )/( Q

m )

where: E t = Total SO 2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable fuel gas combustion devices

E

m = SO 2 emissions in lb/hr from the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device, calculated using Equation F-1 or (if applicable) F-2 in Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 75 Q t = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices Q

m = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device

(c) In place of a CFGMS in paragraph (a) of this section, fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored with an SO 2 - diluent CEMS at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is representative of the SO 2 emission rate (lb SO 2 /mmBtu) of all applicable fuel gas combustion devices. If this option is selected, the owner or operator shall conduct fuel gas sampling and analysis for gross calorific value (GCV), and shall use continuous fuel flow metering in accordance with paragraph (a) of this Section 2, with separate fuel metering for the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device.

(1) Each SO 2 -diluent CEMS shall comply with the applicable provisions for SO 2 monitors and diluent monitors in 40 CFR Part 75, and shall use the procedures in section 3 of Appendix F to Part 75 for determining SO 2 emission rate (lb/mmBtu) by substituting

the term SO 2 for NO

x in that section, and using a K factor of

1.660 x 10 -7 (lb/scf)/ppmv instead of the NO

x K factor. (2) All continuous fuel flow meters and fuel gas sampling and analysis for GCV to determine the heat input rate from the fuel gas shall comply with the applicable provisions in sections 2.1.5 and 2.3.4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

(3) The SO 2 hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated by using the following equation:Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 12 E t

= (E

m ) ( Q t ) (GCV) /10 6

where:

E t

= Total hourly SO 2 mass emissions in lb/hr from the applicable fuel gas combustion devices

E

m = SO 2 emission rate in lb/mmBtu from the CEMS - monitored fuel gas combustion device Q t = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices

GCV = Fuel Gross Calorific Value (Btu/scf)

10 6 = Conversion from Btu to

million Btu

(d) Calculate total SO 2 mass emissions for each calendar quarter and each calendar year based on the emissions in lb/hr and Equations F-3 and F-4 in Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix F.

3. Certification/Recertification Requirements

All monitoring systems are subject to initial certification and recertification testing as follows:

(a) The owner or operator shall comply with the initial testing and calibration requirements in Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 and paragraph 2 (a)(2) of this section for each CFGMS.

(b) Each CEMS for SO 2 and flow or each SO 2 -diluent CEMS shall comply with the testing and calibration requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 75, section 75.20 and Appendices A and B, except that each SO 2 -diluent CEMS shall meet the relative accuracy requirements for a NO

x -diluent CEMS (lb/mmBtu).

(c) A continuous fuel flow meter shall comply with the certification and quality-assurance requirements in sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 to Appendix D

to 40 CFR Part 75. 4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Requirements

(a) A quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan shall be developed and implemented for each CEMS for SO 2 and flow or the SO 2 -diluent CEMS in compliance with sections 1, 1.1, and 1.2 of Appendix B to Part 75.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 13 (b) A QA/QC plan shall be developed and implemented for each continuous fuel flow meter and fuel sampling and analysis in compliance with sections 1, 1.1, and 1.3 of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75.

(c) A QA/QC plan shall be developed and implemented for each CFGMS in compliance with sections 1 and 1.1 of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75, and the following:

(i) Perform a daily calibration error test of each CFGMS at two gas concentrations, one low level and one high level. Calculate the calibration error as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the error is greater than 5.0% of the span value.

(ii) In addition to the daily calibration error test, an additional calibration error test shall be performed whenever a daily calibration error test is failed, whenever a monitoring system is returned to service following repairs or corrective actions that may affect the monitor measurements, or after making manual calibration adjustments.

(iii) Perform a linearity test once every operating quarter. Calculate the linearity as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the linearity error is greater than 5.0 percent of a reference value, and the absolute value of the difference between average monitor response values and a reference value is greater than 5.0 ppm.

(iv) Perform a relative accuracy test audit once every four operating quarters. Calculate the relative accuracy as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the relative accuracy is greater than 20.0% of the mean value of the

reference method measurements.

(v) Using the results of the relative accuracy test audit, conduct a bias test in accordance with Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, and calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor if required.

5. Missing Data Procedures

(a) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an SO 2 CEMS or flow CEMS specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the requirements in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 14 (b) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an SO 2 - diluent CEMS specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data on a rate basis (lb/mmBtu) in accordance with the requirements for SO 2 monitors in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.

(c) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by a continuous fuel flow meter or for fuel gas GCV sampling and analysis specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with missing data requirements in Appendix D to 40 CFR Part

75.

(d) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by the CFGMS specified in this section, hourly missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the missing data requirements for units performing hourly gaseous fuel sulfur sampling in section 2.4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

6. Monitoring Plan and Reporting Requirements

In addition to the general monitoring plan and reporting requirements of Section I of this Rule, the owner or operator shall meet the following additional requirements:

(a) The monitoring plan shall identify each group of units that are monitored by a single monitoring system under this Protocol WEB-1, and the plan shall designate an identifier for the group of units for emissions reporting purposes. For purpose of submitting emissions reports, no apportionment of emissions to the individual units within the group is required.

(b) If the provisions of paragraphs 2.(b) or (c) are used, provide documentation and an explanation to demonstrate that the SO 2 emissionrate from the monitored unit is representative of the rate from nonmonitored units.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 15 

### Protocol WEB-2 : Predictive Flow Monitoring Systems for Kilns with Positive

Pressure Fabric Filter

1. Applicability

The provisions of this protocol are applicable to cement kilns or lime kilns that (1) are controlled by a positive pressure fabric filter, (2) combust only a single fuel, no fuel blends, and (3) have operating conditions upstream of the fabric filter that the WEB source documents would reasonably prevent reliable flow monitor measurements. This protocol does not modify the SO 2 monitoring requirements in

section I of this Rule.

2. Monitoring Requirements

(a) A cement or lime kiln with a positive pressure fabric filter shall use a predictive flow monitoring system (PFMS) to determine the hourly kiln exhaust gas flow.

(b) A PFMS is the total equipment necessary for the determination of exhaust gas flow using process or control device operating parameter measurements and a conversion equation, a graph, or computer program to produce results in cubic feet per hour.

(c) The PFMS shall meet the following performance specifications:

(1) Sensors readings and conversion of sensor data to flow in cubic feet per hour must be automated.

(2) The PFMS must allow for the automatic or manual determination of failed monitors. At a minimum a daily determination must be performed.

(3) The PFMS shall have provisions to check the calibration error of each parameter that is individually measured. The owner or operator shall propose appropriate performance specifications in the initial monitoring plan for all parameters used in the PFMS comparable to the degree of accuracy required for other monitoring systems used to comply with this Rule. The parameters shall be tested at two levels, low: 0 to 20% of full scale, and high: 50 to 100% of full scale. The reference value need not be

certified.

(4) The relative accuracy of the PFMS must be < 10.0% of the reference method average value, and include a bias test in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of this section.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 16 3. Certification Requirements

The PFMS is subject to initial certification testing as follows:

(a) Demonstrate the ability of the PFMS to identify automatically or manually a

failed monitor.

(b) Provide evidence of calibration testing of all monitoring equipment. Any tests conducted within the previous 12 months of operation that are consistent with the QA/QC plan for the PFMS are acceptable for initial certification

purposes.

(c) Perform an initial relative accuracy test over the normal range of operating conditions of the kiln. Using the results of the relative accuracy test audit, conduct a bias test in accordance with Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, and calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor if required.

4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Requirements

A QA/QC plan shall be developed and implemented for each PFMS in compliance with sections 1 and 1.1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 75, and the following:

(a) Perform a daily monitor failure check.

(b) Perform calibration tests of all monitors for each parameter included in the PFMS. At a minimum, calibrations shall be conducted prior to each relative accuracy test audit.

(c) Perform a relative accuracy test audit and accompanying bias test once every four operating quarters. Calculate the relative accuracy (and bias adjustment factor) as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the flow relative accuracy is greater than 10.0% of the mean

value of the reference method.

5. Missing Data

For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by the PFMS specified in this section, hourly missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the flow monitor missing data requirements for non-load based units in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.

6. Monitoring Plan Requirements

In addition to the general monitoring plan requirements of Section I of this Rule, the owner or operator shall meet the following additional requirements:Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 17 (a) The monitoring plan shall document the reasons why stack flow measurements upstream of the fabric filter are unlikely to provide reliable flow

measurements over time.

(b) The initial monitoring plan shall explain the relationship of the proposed parameters and stack flow, and discuss other parameters considered and the reasons for not using those parameters in the PFMS. The [state or tribe] may require that the subsequent monitoring plan include additional explanation and documentation for the reasonableness of the proposed PFMS.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 18 

## C. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT

A. Modeling Scenarios

Improvement in visibility for the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas was modeled for two scenarios, the results of which are shown in Tables 22 and 23 in Part K of this

SIP.

Control Strategies

The WRAP modeled two control scenarios for 2018, with and without optimal smoke management. The results are found in the WRAP TSD. Scenario 1 is designed to assess the effect of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recommended control strategies, comparing the 1996 modeled base case to the visibility improvement resulting from the implementation of the following GCVTC strategies: the sulfur dioxide Annex Milestones, the regional pollution prevention program, maintenance of existing base smoke management programs, and accounting for the 2018 base case emissions (known and adopted federal, tribal, state, and local control programs in the contiguous WRAP region). Visibility changes resulting from regional implementation of state pollution prevention programs were modeled by the Regional Modeling Center, as part of the other Section 309 control strategies. Visibility changes resulting from implementation of pollution pr evention programs by individual states or tribes were not modeled. Emissions changes from state or tribal pollution prevention programs, and the resulting visibility changes are small, based on the regional pollution prevention emissions analysis, but are accounted for in the regional modeling.

Scenario 2 is designed to assess the effect of the implementation of enhanced smoke management programs, as reflected in the WRAP Fire Emissions Joint Forum’s 2018 optimal smoke management inventory. Enhanced smoke management programs were recommended by GCVTC and are required in Section 309(d)(6) of the Regional Haze Rule. This scenario uses the emissions inventories from Scenario 1, except the optimal smoke management inventory was substituted for fire emissions. Thus, the results for Scenario 2 are a comparison of visibility changes resulting from emission reductions between the 2018 baseline smoke management and 2018 optimal smoke management fire

inventories.

Modeling results projecting visibility improvement in 2018

Visibility at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau was estimated for the 2018 Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 control strategies. Tables 22 and 23 display the improvements in visibility from the 2018 base case (i.e., without the strategies included in this Plan) to the 2018 controlled case with all the strategies included in this Plan. In all cases, visibility is expected to be better with this Plan than without it.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 19 Visibility estimates for Scenarios 1 and 2 are found in the WRAP Technical Support Document, Chapter 2. A comparison of the visibility estimates for 2018 Scenarios 1 and 2 at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau for the worst 20% and best 20% days reveals that 2018 Scenario 2 always estimated improved visibility as compared to 2018 Scenario 1. That is, the optimal smoke management programs produces visibility improvements over the base smoke management programs across all 16 Class I areas for both the worst 20% and best 20% days.



### Visibility Measurements over the Years

The National Park Service conducted visibility monitoring at Utah's parks for many years, but the data is not comparable because improvements in equipment have been made. The only modern data available for a lengthy period is from Bryce and Canyonlands since 1988. IMROVE monitors were installed at Zion and Capitol Reef in 2001, though the Zion monitor was moved to a more appropriate site in the spring of 2003. There is too little data available from those monitors to draw any conclusions about trends in visibility or the sources of visibility impairment.

Displayed below are charts summarizing more than a decade of data from IMPROVE monitors at Bryce and Canyonlands National Parks. Projections of visibility for 2018

have been added.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 20 Figure1 Appendix. Contributions to Li ght Extinction at Bryce Canyon

Contributions to Calculated Annual Aerosol Light Extinction Bryce Canyon

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
YearAerosol Light Extinction (1/Mm)

Sulfate Nitrate Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Crustal Material

Sources: 1988-2001 data from IMPROVE Web site.

The only trend apparent in this chart is the small decline in sulfates over the period. Larger amounts of organic and elemental carbon in 1996 and 2001 are probably

attributable to fires.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 21 Figure 2 Appendix. Contributions to Light Extinction at Canyonlands

Contributions to Calculated Annual Aerosol Light Extinction Canyonlands

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

YearAerosol Light Extinction (1/Mm)

Sulfate Nitrate Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Crustal Material

Sources: 1988-2001 data from IMPROVE Web site.

Again, the chart shows a decline in sulfates over the period and a possible small increase

in nitrates.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 22 

## D. WRAP INTERSTATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING

ACTIVITIES

A. Overview of Western Regional Air Partnership

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is the regional planning organization for the development of regional haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in the west. The following overview was drawn from a fact sheet prepared by the WRAP and can be found at www.wrapair.org.



### What is the Western Regional Air Partnership--the WRAP?

The WRAP is a voluntary organization of wester n states, tribes and federal agencies. It was formed in 1997 as the successor to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, which made over 70 recommendations in June 1996 for improving visibility in 16 national parks and wilderness areas on the Colorado Plateau. The Partnership promotes, supports and monitors the implementation of those recommendations throughout the West. The WRAP is also implementing regional planning processes to improve visibility in all Western Class I areas by providing the technical and policy tools needed by states and tribes to implement the federal regional haze rule. The WRAP is administered jointly by the Western Governors' Association (WGA) and the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). The WRAP recognizes that residents have the most to gain from improved visibility and that many solutions are best implemented at the local, state, tribal or regional level with public participation.



### Who belongs to the WRAP?

The WRAP is made up of western states, tribes and federal agencies. The states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Ida ho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal board members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. Representatives of other tribes participate on WRAP forums and committees. Participation is encouraged throughout the Western states and tribes. Federal participants are the Department of the Interior (National Park Service and Fish & Wildlife Service,) the Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency.



### How does the WRAP make decisions?

The WRAP’s committees and forums seek consensus among the governmental partners and stakeholders including large and small businesses, academia, environmental groups and other public interest representatives. Scientific findings and policy options are presented to policy makers and the public for appropriate discussion and response. TheSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 23 WRAP is committed to bringing together all those who may contribute to or be affected by poor air quality. Findings and policy options go before the WRAP Board.



### How is the WRAP funded and Who does the work?

The Western Governors’ Association in Denver and the National Tribal Environmental Council in Albuquerque receive funding from the U.S. EPA to administer and support the WRAP and its committees and forums. The majority of the work is done by individuals serving on the WRAP committees and forums, with assistance from staff and outside contractors. Work plans are prepared by the WRAP forums and work products are reviewed by the forums and the co-directors. The WRAP recognizes the great contribution from organizations and indivi duals who contribute often un-reimbursed time

and effort to committee and forum work.



### How can individuals and organizations be involved in the WRAP’s

work and decisions?

The WRAP’s success depends on the participation of concerned and informed participants who devote time and energy to this endeavor. Committees and forums are continuously accepting applications for a number of appointments. See our Web site, www.wrapair.org if you are interested in getting involved.



### B. WRAP Committees and Forums

The following overview of the current WRAP committees and forums was drawn from a fact sheets prepared by the WRAP and can be found at www.wrapair.org

.



### Initiatives Oversight Committee

The Initiatives Oversight Committee is responsible for establishing and overseeing the work of forums that develop policies and programs to improve and protect our air quality.

IOC forums are:

The Air Pollution Prevention Forum (AP2) The Air Pollution Prevention Forum is tasked with developing energy conservation initiatives and programs to expand the use of renewable energy sources. They are working to find, and encourage use of, energy sources that minimize air pollution.

The Economic Analysis Forum (EAF) This Forum assists with studies to evaluate the economic effects of air quality programs being developed by the WRAP to diminish haze throughout the West.

Sources In and Near Class 1 Areas Forum (Class 1) This Forum is looking at pollution sources in and near federally mandated Class 1Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 24 areas to determine their impact on visibility in those areas. The group also will address mitigation and outreach options.

The Mobile Sources Forum (MSF) This Forum addresses the impact of motor vehicles and other mobile sources of pollution. For example, the Forum developed a plan presented to the WRAP, suggesting a revision of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules regarding the production of low-sulfur fuel by small refineries. The Forum also

recommended reforms for off-road emissions and diesel fuel.



### Technical Oversight Committee (TOC)

The Technical Oversight Committee’s tasks are to identify and manage technical issues and to establish and oversee the work of forums and work groups that are developing and analyzing, scientific information related to air quality planning in the West. TOC forums and work groups include:

The Air Quality Modeling Forum (AQMF) This Forum identifies, evaluates the performance of, and applies mathematical air quality models, which can be used to quantify the benefits of various air quality programs for reducing haze in the western United States.

The Ambient Monitoring and Reporting Forum (AMRF) This Forum oversees the collection, use, and reporting of ambient air quality and meteorological monitoring data as needed to further the WRAP’s overall goals.

The Emissions Forum (EF) This Forum is developing the first comprehensive inventory of haze-causing air emissions in the West, including a comprehensive emissions tracking and forecasting system. The forum also monitors trends in actual emissions and forecasts emissions reductions anticipated from current regulations and alternative control strategies.

Attribution of Haze Work Group (AoH) This Work Group is preparing guidance for states and tribes regarding both the types of pollution emitters and the regions in which pollutants contribute to visibility impairment in national parks and other Class 1 wilderness areas. Three state and three tribal representatives form the work group along with all members of the Technical Oversight Committee and one representative each from the Initiatives Oversight Committee, the technical and joint forums and the Tribal Data Development Work Group.

The Tribal Data Development Work Group (TDDWG) This Work Group is identifying gaps in air quality data for tribal lands and working with tribes to collect that data. While some tribes have adequate staff andSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 25 equipment for such an undertaking, many lack the manpower and technical resources to accomplish the work on their own. This Work Group is providing help by both enhancing the tribes’ ability to collect the necessary data and establishing an organized way to standardize and catalogue the information for subsequent analysis.



### Joint Technical and Policy Forums

Joint Forums address both technical issues and policy. Both the TOC and the IOC have oversight.

The Dust Emissions Joint Forum (DEJF) This Forum is seeking first to improve the methods for estimating dust emissions and their inputs in air quality models. The Forum also is examining the extent of dust impacts and strategies to reduce dust emissions.

The Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) The Grand Canyon Commission confirmed that forest fires contribute significantly to visibility problems and that the use of prescribed fire is expected to increase as a forest management tool. The Fire Emissions Joint Forum is developing measures to reduce the effects of prescribed fires and is examining emissions from all kinds of fire, whether ignited naturally or by humans. The Forum is considering public health and nuisance effects as well as visibility impacts. It will develop a tracking system for fire emissions and management techniques to minimize emissions. This Forum is working to coordinate with and gain the full cooperation of federal, tribal, state, and local agencies as well as private landowners, forest managers, and the agriculture community.

The Stationary Sources Joint Forum (SSJF) The Stationary Sources Joint Forum, formerly the Market Trading Forum

, developed the details of an emissions trading program to achieve cost-effective

reductions from industrial sources of sulfur dioxide. The Forum first set emission milestones for sulfur dioxide between now and 2018 and then designed a trading program to be triggered if these emission targets are exceeded. The Forum is now examining other industrial source emissions, such as oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, and is assisting WRAP members in compliance with the stationary source provisions of the regional haze rule.



### Other Committees/Forums

Air Managers’ Committee (AMC) This Committee provides a venue for tribal and state air managers to deal with regulatory issues they face related to the WRAP process. The group, joined by air managers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and federal landSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 26 management agencies, also aids communication linkages between the air managers and the other technical and policy forums.

Communications Committee The Communications Committee facilitates the exchange of information among the WRAP Committees and Forums. The Committee also is charged with developing materials to help the general public understand the WRAP process and participate in its decision-making. A primary means of communication is through

this Web site.

Planning Group This group helps to provide coordination among the IOC, TOC, Air Managers Committee, and Communications Committee, whose co-chairs sit on the group. Among its duties are: administrative oversight and budget coordination as well as coordination to prevent duplication among forums.

*All of the above groups are formally recognized by the WRAP. Additional ad-hoc, taskspecific work groups may be formed within a forum or a committee to work on shorterterm assignments.



### C. Utah’s Participation in the Regional Process

Utah has been an active participant in interstate coordination and planning initiatives to address visibility impairment and regional haze. The following is a brief summary of the committees and forums where Utah was an active member, and in many cases was co-chair of the committee or forum. Further information regarding the hundreds of meetings and conference calls that have occurred over the last 10 years can be found on the WRAP webpage at www.wrapair.org.

1991 – 1996 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

1997 – 2003 Western Regional Air Partnership, Annex and 2003 SIP Development

1. WRAP Co-Chair 2. Initiatives Oversight Committee Co-Chair 3. Market Trading Forum Co-Chair

4. Pollution Prevention Forum Co-Chair 5. Air Managers Committee member

6. Communications Committee member

7. Dust Emissions Joint Forum member

8. Emissions Forum member

9. Fire Emissions Joint Forum member 10. Air Monitoring and Reporting Forum member 11. Air Quality Modeling Forum memberSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 27 12. Utah provided data and reviewed materials prepared by the remaining WRAP forums and workgroups where Utah did not have direct representation and

used those materials in Utah’s 2003 SIP.

2004 – 2008 Western Regional Air Partnership, 2008 SIP Development

1. 309 Coordinating Committee member

2. Air Managers Committee member

3. Implementation Work Group member

4. Stationary Sources Joint Forum member

5. Technical Analysis Forum member

6. Attribution of Haze Work Group member

7. Utah provided data and reviewed materials prepared by the remaining WRAP forums and workgroups where Utah did not have direct representation, and provided significant technical expertise during the development of the Technical Support System and regional modeling.

The State of Utah was a team member in the development of or has used the following WRAP work products in the 2008 update to Utah’s implementation plan:

1. Western Backstop SO 2 trading Program Model Rule 2. Technical Support System Website 3. Regional Modeling Center

4. VIEWS Website

5. Causes of Haze Website 6. IWG work products

7. GIS Landuse Database 8. Ao Phase II Project 9. Enhanced Smoke Management Programs 10. Fire Tracking Systems

11. Oil/Gas Area Source Emissions/Controls

12. EGU NOx Controls 13. Stationary/Area Source Data Pivot Tables 14. Stationary/Area Source Emission Projections

15. General BART Information 16. Identifying BART-Eligible Sources

The extensive collaboration and consultation that has occurred through the WRAP provided a regional view of a regional problem that could not have been addressed by one state independently.December 20, 2010

1 

## Supplement to the Technical Support Documentation for Utah’s 2008 Regional Haze SIP

On September 3, 2008, the Utah Air Quality Bo ard adopted a revision to Utah’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision addressed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for NO

x and particulate matter (PM), as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii). The SIP genera lly relies on EPA’s presumptive BART

emission rate for NO

x as the appropriate benchmark and, because EPA has not established a presumptive rate for PM, the SI P relies on technical work completed by the WRAP for PM. The purpose of this supplement is to more fully explain the analysis that was completed by UDAQ for the 2008 SIP.

While the SIP relies on presumptive emission rates for NO

x as the appropriate benchmark, the SIP also includes a BART analysis for NO

x , as required by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y that is summarized in Section D.6.d of the SIP. EPA completed extensive technical work to develop presumptive limits for NO

x , now codified in Appendix Y. 1 In addition, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRA P) evaluated the impact of PM, as well as other pollutants. Ut ah’s BART analysis relies on both of these

works.

The BART analysis performed by UDAQ was in fluenced by several important factors.

1. In the 1990s PacifiCorp installed first generation low NO

x burners on the four electric generating units (EGUs) that are s ubject to BART. As can be seen on the table below, Utah’s abilit y to achieve significant NO

x reductions that may have

been available at older uncontrolled plants was limited because of these previously installed low NO

x burners. Moreover, it is le ss cost effective to install controls on a lower-emitting plant than on an uncontrolled plant.

Pre-control
emission rate (lb/MMBtu) NO
x Controls installed prior to 2004 2004 NOx emission
rate with first generation low NO
x burners (lb/MMBtu)

Hunter Unit 1 0.50 LNC1 (Installed: 06/01/1999 -- Still in service) 0.35

Hunter Unit 2 0.55 LNC1 (Installed: 10/01/1997 -- Still in service) 0.35 Huntington Unit 1 0.52 LNC1 (Installed: 06/01/1997 -- Still in service) 0.34 Huntington Unit 2 0.43 LNC1 (Installed: 06/01/1998 -- Still in service) 0.36

1 40 CFR Part 51, Appx Y, Table 1, Presumptive NO

x Emission Limits for BART-Eligible Coal-Fired Units, note 20, says: These [presumptive NO

x ] limits reflect the design and technological assumptions discussed in the technical support document for NO

x limits for these guidelines. See Technical Support

Document for BART NO

x Limits for Electric Generatin g Units and Technical Support

Document for BART NO

x Limits for Electric Genera ting Units Excel Spreadsheet, Memorandum to Docket OAR 2002–0076, April 15, 2005.December 20, 2010

2 The information in the above table is drawn from the “Technical Support

Document for BART NO

x Limits for Electric Generating Units Excel Spreadsheet" (see footnote 1 above) and included in the TSD for Utah’s RH SIP.

2. In 2005 PacifiCorp began major pollu tion control projects, including the installation of next generation low NO

x burners, at the four EGUs that are subject to BART. The projects were desc ribed in the commitments made by MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company to the Utah Public Service Commission when purchasing PacifiCorp in 2005. The projects were based on the regulatory

framework established in Utah’s 2003 regional haze SIP and the 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule as well as EPA’s BART gui delines that were finalized in 2005.

The pollution control projects were designed to achieve overall emission reductions not only of NO

x but also of SO 2 , PM, and mercury. The emission rates that were ultimately included in the permits for these pollution control projects for NO

x and PM are shown in Table 5 of Utah’s RH SIP and summarized

below.

Utah Permitted Rate (pollution control project) in lb/MMBtu

NO

x PM Presumptive NO

x limit established in Appendix Y (lb/MMBtu)

Hunter Unit 1 0.26 0.015 0.28

Hunter Unit 2 0.26 0.015 0.28 Huntington Unit 1 0.26 0.015 (74 lb/hr) 0.28 Huntington Unit 2 0.26 0.015 (70 lb/hr) 0.28

As can be seen from the table above, th e pollution control projects at the Hunter and Huntington Plants, incl uding installation of low NO

x burners, achieve the presumptive BART limits for NO

x , as currently codified in 40 CFR 51, Appendix

Y Section IV.E.5 that states:

For coal-fired EGUs greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power plants and operating without post-combustion controls (i.e., SCR or SNCR), we have provided presumptive NO x limits , differentiated by boiler design and type of coal burned. You may determine that an alternative level is appropria te based on a careful consideration of the statutory factors. Emphasis added.

Utah’s RH SIP relies on the presumptive BART limit for NO

x as the appropriate benchmark, and Utah di d not choose to follow the voluntary path to establish an alternative level. This decision was based on a careful review of the supporting documentati on that EPA developed to support the presumptive NO

x limits in Appendix Y.

4. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transpor t Commission determined that sulfates were the primary stationary source pollu tant of concern in the sixteen Class I

areas on the Colorado Plateau. Utah’s RH SIP, based on the Commission’sDecember 20, 2010

3 recommendations, establishe d a regulatory framework that required stationary

sources to focus their re sources on reductions in SO 2 . The 2003 SIP included a regional SO 2 milestone with a backstop trading pr ogram that locked in substantial

SO 2 emission reductions, and also include d allocation provisions to encourage early reductions.

The milestones in the 2003 SIP required substantial SO 2 reductions in the region. If the milestones were not met, sources in the region would face significant financial penalties and the implementati on of a mandatory trading program. The milestones provided flexibility for companies such as PacifiCorp to schedule projects across their fleet of plants in the most cost-e ffective manner, as long as the regional emission reduction goals were achieved. The milestones could not be met unless major sources achieved the assu med emission reductions in the SIP.

After the 2003 had been fina lized, there was a huge grow th in applications for new power plants in response to the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, putting further pressure on existing sour ces to reduce emissions to meet the

milestones. The 2003 SIP also containe d a commitment to address BART for

NO

x and PM by 2008 with installation of cont rols within 5 years, as required by the regional haze rule.

PacifiCorp’s pollution control projects were developed within this regulatory framework, and achieved the s ubstantial reductions of SO 2 that were needed to

ensure that the SO 2 milestones would be met. P acifiCorp’s projects planned across their large fleet of plants, were done in an ordered manner and achieved cost savings by timing the upgrades to coin cide with other planned maintenance at the plants, achieving significant early reductions in the process.

The overall level of control in Utah’s RH SIP was weighted to achieve SO 2 reductions because SO 2 reductions would lead to th e greatest improvement in regional haze. PacifiCorp’s pollution control project reflected this weighting by achieving substantial reductions of SO 2 with an emission rate of 0.12 lbs/MMBtu,

which is an emission rate lower than the presumptive rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu established in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, Section IV.E.4. This high level of control, needed to meet the SO 2 milestones, meets Utah’s unique and dual needs of reducing SO 2 emissions and achieving NO

x emissions below EPA’s presumptive emissions rate.

The Commission’s recomme ndations to reduce NO

x emissions were focused on mobile sources that are the most significant source of NO

x in the region. The WRAP provided further analysis of the n eed for additional measures to address

NO

x emissions from stationary sources in a document titled Stationary Source

NO

x and PM Emissions in the WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts dated October 1, 2003. This report concludes that stationary source NO

x emissions probably cause 2% - 5% of the visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau. The BART analysis for NO

x was developedDecember 20, 2010

4 within the context of the substantial SO 2 reductions that had been achieved in the

2003 SIP.

5. In 2005, EPA finalized the Clean Air Me rcury Rule (CAMR) that established a national trading program for mercury. This trading program, designed to reduce mercury emissions from EGUs nationwide, allowed sources that could make costeffective reductions to reduce mercur y emissions and then sell the excess allowances to other plants that could not achieve the reductions in a cost-effective manner. The CAMR trading program was adopted into Utah’s SIP in 2007.

While the CAMR rule has since been vacated, emissions of mercury are an important concern. This is particularly the case in Utah where elevated mercury

levels have been measured in fish and ha ve also been measured in waterfowl at the Great Salt Lake, an internationally im portant migratory bird resource. The

State of Utah has identified reduction of mercury emissi ons as a priority for the State. When looked at in a multi-pollutant context, there is a strong rationale to focus resources where benefits beyond vi sibility can be achieved. Baghouses to reduce PM in conjunction with wet scrubbers to reduce SO 2 can significantly decrease mercury emissions. Pacifi Corp’s pollution control project was consistent with this multi-pollutant appro ach to achieve broad benefits in the most cost-effective way.

6. The overall pollution control projects at the Hunter and Huntington plants achieved early reductions that are already benefiting the Class I areas in Utah and in neighboring states.

Because of these overarching factors, UDAQ dete rmined that it would be appropriate to compress the 5-factor BART analysis by focusing on the NO

x and PM emission controls that had already been achieved at the Hunter and Huntington plants.December 20, 2010

5 

### BART Analysis for NO
x Step 1. The available retrofit control op tions and Step 2. Eliminate technically infeasible options.

As the EPA had already provided a s ubstantial analysis of potential NO

x controls at EGUs throughout the nation, UDAQ relied heavily on that analysis to address the first two steps in the BART analysis for NO

x .

EPA’s analysis identified three levels of feasib le control that are de scribed in Table 1 of the Methodology for Developing BART NO

x Presumptive Limits and reproduced below

as well as included in the TSD for Utah’s SIP.

Table 1. Coal-fired Control Cases

Control Case Control Action Taken Major Assumptions/Notes

1a Installation of current NO x combustion controls for units with no prior controls, or which had controls
installed before 1997. For units with controls installed in or after 1997,
install incremental controls if a complete set of combustion controls was not installed (LNBO or LNC3). For Cyclone units, apply Coal Reburn if no prior controls installed. For Cell Burners, install Current Combustion
Controls if the unit had no controls or
controls were installed before 1997. For Stokers install overfire air (OFA). Do not include existing SCR or
SNCR units in the Control Case NO x Rate.

1d Install SCR, unless unit already has
SCR installed or the 2004 NO x rate is already at or below the SCR floor

rate.

1e Install rotating opposed fire air (ROFA), unless unit already has SCR

or the 2004 NO x Rate is already at or below the ROFA floor rate. Also, for Cyclone units, install SCR. Do not include units with existing
SCR/SNCR in the Control Case NO x Rate. If the 2004 NO x rate was less than
the floor rate or the new controlled rate, no controls added. Used average heat input from 2002 – 2004 to calculate an Average NO x Rate. Assume 10,000 BTU/ kWh heat rate

for coal-fired boilers. The heat rate is a measure of how much fuel energy needed to get electric energy out. Therefore, 1,000,000 Btu/yr divided by 10,000 Btu/kWh = 100 kWh-yr. Multiply Avg Heat Input (mmBtu) by 100 to get kWhyr.December 20, 2010

6 Step 3. Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Control Technologies UDAQ used EPA’s analysis to determine the effectiveness of each option.

Case 1a (increase to LNC3) Case 1d (SCR) Case 1e (ROFA)

NO x emission

rate tons
reduced NO x emission

rate tons
reduced NO x emission

rate tons
reduced

Hunter 1 0.28 1,233 0.06 5,108 0.19 2,642

Hunter 2 0.28 1,131 0.06 4,685 0.19 2,423 Huntington 1 0.27 1,084 0.06 4,462 0.19 2,231 Huntington 2 0.29 1,082 0.06 4,507 0.20 2,404

Step 4. Evaluate Impacts UDAQ used EPA’s analysis to determine the cost of compliance for each option. A few key items from EPA’s analysis ar e provided in the following table.

total

annual

cost tons
reduced cost/ton total annual

cost tons
reduced cost/ton total annual

cost tons
reduced cost/ton Hunter 1 $367,235 1,233 $298 $6,772,337 5,108 $1,326 $1,889,141 2,642 $715 Hunter 2 $360,235 1,131 $319 $6,608,657 4,685 $1,411 $1,889,141 2,423 $780 Huntington 1 $359,195 1,084 $331 $6,584,352 4,462 $1,476 $1,889,141 2,231 $847 Huntington 2 $354,802 1,082 $328 $6,481,622 4,507 $1,438 $1,889,141 2,404 $786 Case 1a (increase to LNC3) Case 1d (SCR) Case 1e (ROFA)

Case 1a, increase to LNC3, assumes an upgrade to current low NO x burner technology. This case is the closest to Pacificorp’s pollution control project. Case 1d is the inst allation of post combustion controls (selective catalytic reduction). Case 1e is the installation of an emerging technology called rotating opposed fire air (ROFA).

PacifiCorp’s calculations of the costs associat ed with SCR are much higher that what is shown in this table. PacifiCorp estimat es that the costs w ould be $4,500 - $5,500 per ton

removed.

The cost/ton in Cases 1d and 1e are signifi cantly higher than the $567/ton that is shown as the average cost-effectiveness of NO

x controls for BART-eligible coal fired units in Table 3 of EPA’s July 6, 2005 final BART rule (70 Fed. Reg. 39135). Appendix Y on

its face shows that an alterna tive analysis is required only when a source cannot meet the presumptive NO

x limits. 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, Section IV.E.5 states,

Most EGUs can meet these presumptive NO x limits through the use of current combustion control technology, i.e. the careful control of combustion air and low-NO x burners . For units that cannot meet these [presumptive] limits using such technologies , you should consider whether advanced combustion control technologies such a rotating opposed fire air should be used to meet these limits. ( Emphasis added)

The preamble discussion of the presumptive lim its supports this read ing of Appendix Y. It clearly states that the presumptive lim its are reasonable, but the preamble also recognizes that in some limited cases, where a source could not meet that limit, the state

could demonstrate an alternative level of control.December 20, 2010

7 “States, as a general matter, must require owners and operators of greater than 750 MW power plants to meet these BART emission limits. We are establishing these requirements based on the consideration of certain factors discussed below. Although we believe that these requirements are extremely likely to be appropriate for all greater than 750 MW power plants subject to

BART , a State may establish different requirements if the State can demonstrate that an alternative determination is justified based on a consi deration of the five statutory factors....A State
is free to reach a different conclusion if the State believes that an alternative determination is justified based on a consideration of the five statutor y factors. Nevertheless, our analysis indicates that these controls are likely to be among the most cost-effective controls available for any source subject to BART, and that they are likely to result in a significant degree of visibility improvement .”

. . . . “EPA’s analysis indicates that the large majority of the units can meet these presumptive limits at relatively low costs. Because of differences in individual boilers, however, there may be situations
where the use of such controls would not be tech nically feasible and/or cost-effective. For example, certain boilers may lack adequate spac e between the burners and before the furnace exit to allow for the installation of over-fire air controls. Our presumption accordingly may not be appropriate for all sources. As noted, the NO x limits set forth here today are presumptions only; in making a BART determination, States have the ability to consider the specific characteristics of the source at issue and to find that the presum ptive limits would not be appropriate.”

. . . .

“We assumed that coal-fired EGUs would have space available to install separated overfire air. Based on the large number of units of various boiler designs that have installed separated over-fire air, we believe this assumption to be reasonable. It is possible, however that some EGUs may not have adequate space available. In such cases, other NO x combustion control technologies could be considered such as Rotating Opposed Fire Air (“ROFA”).

. . . .

“Although states may in specific cases find that the use of SCR is appropriate, we have not determined that SCR is generally cost effective for BART across unit types.”

70 Fed. Reg. 39,131, and 39,134-36. (Emphasis added)

What comes through from the BART regulatio ns in Appendix Y and the discussion in the preamble to the BART rule is that the presumptive NO

x level is adequate and expected for most sources, and only if a sour ce is not able to meet the presumptive BART limits is an alternate analysis required.December 20, 2010

8 

### BART Analysis for PM

EPA did not establish a presumptive BART li mit for PM. The pollution control projects at the Hunter and Huntingt on plants upgraded the PM c ontrols from electrostatic precipitators to baghouses, which is the curren t standard control technology for EGUs. 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Section IV.D, Step 1: Item 9 states:

If you find that a BART source has controls already in place which are the most stringent controls available (note that this means that all possible improvements to any control devices have been made), then it is not necessary to comprehensively complete each following step of the BART analysis in this section. As long these most st ringent controls available are made federally enforceable for the purpose of implementing BART for that source, you may skip the remaining analyses in this section, including the visibility analysis in step 5. Likewise, if a source commits to a
BART determination that consists of the most stri ngent controls available, then there is no need to complete the remaining analyses in this section

The visibility impact from stationary source PM emissions is not as significant as the impact from SO 2 and NO

x . However, when viewed in a broader, multi-pollutant approach, the combination of SO 2 controls and PM controls ar e very effective at reducing mercury emissions.

The SIP determined that the emission rate under the pollution contro l project met or was

better than BART.



### Enforceability

Utah’s State Implementation Plan concluded that the level of control already in place at the Hunter and Huntington Pl ants satisfied the BART requirement. Therefore the SIP

does not establish a BART emission limit. To put it in a different way, the SIP concluded

that BART was not an additional control a nd this determination does not require an

emission limit. This determination is re asonable because Utah’s broad SIP and permit program ensure that the underlying permits and regulations that are already applicable to the Hunter and Huntington plants are enforceable by both the State and EPA.

Utah’s State Implementation Plan and the pe rmits that are issued under that plan are

enforceable under State law and become fede rally enforceable when EPA approves the plan and incorporates it into 40 CFR Pa rt 52, Subpart TT. The following general description of this process is drawn from the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8’s web page (http://www.epa .gov/region8/air/sipreq.html).

Several sections of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) describe the states' planning obligations to achieve healthy air quality. Section 110 of the Act requires states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to EPA which provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Q uality Standards (NAAQS) established by EPA under Title I of the Act. Section 172, and other provis ions in Title I, Part D, of the Act identify additional SIP requirements for areas that do not meet the NAAQS and that have been designated
as nonattainment under section 107 of the Act. Section 175A of the Act describes the maintenance plan requirements for states wishing to redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment.December 20, 2010

9 Additionally, SIPs contain state air regulations that, for example, allow states to permit the construction and operation of stationary sources, es tablish specific requirements for categories of stationary sources, and identify open burning requirements.

Each SIP revision submitted by the state must undergo reasonable notice and public hearing at the state level, and SIPs submitted to EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS must include enforceable
emission limitations and other control measur es, schedules and timetables for compliance.

EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet the Act's requirements. If a SIP meets the Act's requirements, EPA will approve the SIP. EPA's notice of approval is published in the Federal Register and the approval is then codified in t he Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR Part 52. Once EPA approves a SIP, it is enforceable by EPA and citizens in federal district court.

Approval orders and Title V operating permits issued by the Executive Secretary of the Utah Air Quality Board are also federally enforceable. Approval orders become federally enforceable through R307-401 Permits: New and Modified Sources , and R307-405 Permits: Major Sources in Attainme nt or Unclassified Areas (PSD), when those rules are are approved by EPA as part of Utah’s SIP and codified in 40 CFR. § 52.2320 and 40 CFR 40 CFR § 52.2346. Under Title V of th e Clean Air Act, EPA has broad general authority to enforce state-issued Title V pe rmits. EPA approved Utah’s Operating Permit Program and codified that approval in 40 CFR Part 70, Appendix A on July 10, 1995.

Approval Orders issued by the Executive Secretary under author ity of R307-401 and R307-405 to the Hunter and Huntington plan ts, including provisions to make the pollution control projects enforceable, contain enforceable emission limits for NO

x and PM, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure that the emission limits are continuously met. EP A has discretion to federally enforce the provisions of these approval orders under author ity of the federally approved Utah SIP. There is no doubt that such approval orders are federally enforceable, as evidenced by lawsuits brought previously by EP A against other sources in Utah.

The applicable requirements in the approval orders for the Hunter and Huntington plants have been incorporated into the operating pe rmits for these plants under authority of R307-415. The operating permit program was designed to ensure that applicable requirements are clear and are enforceable. A source that violates one or more enforceable permit conditions is subject to an enforcement action including, but not limited to, penalties and corrective action. En forcement actions may be initiated by the local permitting authority (UDAQ), EPA or , in many cases, through citizen suits.

Utah’s new source review program for major a nd minor sources is pa rt of the federally approved SIP. If PacifiCorp seeks to relax or modify the limitations in the approval

orders for the Hunter or H untington plants at some point in the future, the company would be required to obtain a new approval order and apply BACT under either Utah’s major source (R307-405) or minor source (R 307-401) rules. A modification may potentially trigger other requirements, such as PSD review, NSPS standards, GHG review, or analysis of impact on new NA AQS. As has been evident throughout the federal Clean Air Act programs that EPA has delegated to Utah, there are substantial federally enforceable requirements in the broa d air program in Utah to ensure that theDecember 20, 2010

10 emission reductions achieved through the pol lution control projects are maintained (through state or federal enforcement if necessary) into the future.



### Conclusion

After reviewing the detailed analysis prep ared by EPA in support of Appendix Y, and reviewing whether that rate was achievable at the Hunt er and Huntington plants, UDAQ agreed with EPA’s presumptive BART emission rate for NO

x as applied to those Utah plants. As the Hunter and Huntington Plants already meet the presumptive NO

x emission rate in Appendix Y, no additional NO

x controls were needed to meet the BART requirement.

EPA has not established a presumptive BART emission rate for PM. However, the baghouses that are already requi red at the two plants meet or are better than BART and, therefore, no additional PM controls were needed to meet the BART requirement.

# Effective RuleR307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality. R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan. R307-110-28. Regional Haze. The Utah State Implementation Plan, Section XX, Regional Haze, as most recently amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on April 6, 2011, pursuant to Section 19-2-104, is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of these rules.

KEY: air pollution, PM10, PM2.5, ozone Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: April 6, 2011 Notice of Continuation: March 15, 2007 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-104(3)(e)

## Utah State Implementation Plan

Section XX

Regional Haze

Addressing Regional Haze Visibility Protection for the Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309

Adopted by the Air Quality Board April 6, 2011Section XX - Regional Haze. Page ii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 1

B. BACKGROUND ON THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE.................................... 3

1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 3

2. Definitions ........................................................................................................ 3

3. 1977 Clean Air Act ........................................................................................... 3 4. Reasonably Attributable Vi sibility Impairment SIP......................................... 4

5. 1990 Clean Air Act ........................................................................................... 5 6. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission ............................................. 5 7. Western Regional Ai r Partnership .................................................................... 7 8. Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in 2003 SIP................................ 7

C. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR TH E CLEAN-AIR CORRIDOR............. 10

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 10 2. Identification of the Clean-Air Corridor; Other Clean-Air Corridors ............ 11 3. Strategy for Clean Air Corridors .................................................................... 13

a. Comprehensive emissions tracking program. ........................................................ 13

b. Patterns of growth within the clean-air corridor.................................................... 13

c. Patterns of growth outside the clean-air corridor................................................... 13

d. Actions if impairment inside or outsi de the clean-air corridor occurs................... 14

D. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FO R STATIONARY SOURCES...................... 15

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 15

2. Achievement of a 13% or Greater Re duction of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by

2000................................................................................................................. 16 3. Strategy for Stationary Sources of Sulfur Dioxide ......................................... 16

a. 2018 Milestone 17

b. Interim Milestones ................................................................................................. 17

c. Triggering the Trading Program............................................................................ 18

d. Certainty that 2018 Milestone Will Be Me t on Time ............................................ 18

e. Trading Program Features ..................................................................................... 18

f. Allocations 18

g. State and Tribal Opt-In or Opt-Out........................................................................ 18 4. Geographic Enhancement Program ................................................................ 18

a. Procedure for addressing Reasonably Attri butable Visibility Impairment under the Regional Haze Rule................................................................... 19 5. Report on Assessment of NO

x /PM Strategies................................................. 19

a. Assessment of Need for NO

x and PM milestones.................................................. 19 6. Best Available Control Technology (BART) Assessment for NO

x and PM.. 20

a. Regional Haze Rule BA RT Requirements............................................................. 20

b. BART-Eligible Sources. ........................................................................................ 21

c. Sources Subject to BART...................................................................................... 21

d. BART Determination............................................................................................. 24

E. SULFUR DIOXIDE MILESTONES AND BACKSTOP TRADING

PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 27Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iii 1. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger........................................ 27

a. Regional Sulfur Dioxi de Milestones...................................................................... 27

b. Regional Program Ad ministration ......................................................................... 28

c. Determination of Program Trigger ........................................................................ 29

d. Year 2013 Assessment........................................................................................... 33

e. Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone ............................................... 34 2. Pre-Trigger Emissions Tracking Requirements.............................................. 35

a. SO 2 Emission Inventory......................................................................................... 35

b. Development of Emissi on Tracking System.......................................................... 36

c. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking Database ................................. 36 3. WEB Trading Program Requirements ............................................................ 37

a. Initial Allocation of SO 2 Allowances .................................................................... 37

b. Distribution of Allowances fo r Future Control Periods......................................... 45

c. Distribution of the New Source Allocation ........................................................... 45

d. Regional Tribal Set-aside....................................................................................... 46

e. Opt-in Sources 47

f. WEB Emissions and Allowance Tr acking System (WEB EATS)......................... 47

g. Allowance Transfers.............................................................................................. 49

h. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year.............................................................. 50

i. Monitoring/Recordkeeping.................................................................................... 52 j. Compliance, Excess Emi ssions, and Penalties....................................................... 54

k. Periodic Evaluation of the Trading Program ......................................................... 54

l. Retired Source Exemption ..................................................................................... 56

m. Integration into Permits ......................................................................................... 57 4. 2013 SIP Revision; Backstop for Beginning of Second Planning Period ...... 57

F. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR MOBILE SOURCES................................ 59

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 59 2. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile Sources ............ 60

a. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile Sources. .................. 60

b. Program to assure continuous declin e in mobile source emissions. ...................... 61

c. Backstop provision to address potential incr ease in non-road emissions in the event

Federal standards ar e not finalized............................................ 61 3. Other GCVTC Strategies for Mobile Sources ................................................ 61

G. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR FIRE PROGRAMS .................................. 62

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 62 2. Prescribed Fire Program Evaluation ............................................................... 62

a. Wildlands Fire 63

b. Agricultural Fire 64 3. Emission Inventory and Tracking System ...................................................... 65

a. Wildlands Inventory .............................................................................................. 65

b. Agricultural Lands Inventory................................................................................. 66
4. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers ................................. 66 5. Enhanced Smoke Management Program........................................................ 66Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iv a. Actions to Minimize Fire Emissions...................................................................... 66

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion ........................................................................... 67

c. Alternatives to Fire ................................................................................................ 67

d. Public Notification of Burning .............................................................................. 67

e. Air Quality Monitoring.......................................................................................... 67

f. Surveillance and Enforcement ............................................................................... 67

g. Program Evaluation ............................................................................................... 68

h. Burn Authorization ................................................................................................ 68

i. Regional Coordination........................................................................................... 68 j. ESMP for Agricultural Burning............................................................................. 68
6. Annual Emission Goals................................................................................... 68

H. ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS FROM PAVED AND UNPAVED ROAD

DUST.................................................................................................................... 69

1. Regulatory History and Requirements............................................................ 69 2. State of Utah Long-term Strategy for Road Dust Sources.............................. 69

a. Assessment of Paved and Unpave d Road Dust Emissions. ................................... 69

b. Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding...................................................... 70

I. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

............................................................................................................................... 71

1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs in Utah.................... 74 2. Inventory of Renewable Energy Gene ration Capacity and Production in 2002

......................................................................................................................... 74 3. Inventory of Total Utah Capacity and Production in 2002............................. 77 4. Percent of Total Energy Generation Capacity and Production Derived from Renewable Energy .......................................................................................... 78 5. Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

......................................................................................................................... 79

a. States' Contributions to the Regional Renewable Energy Generation Goal .......... 79

b. Utah's Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy

Goals ......................................................................................... 80 6. State of Utah Programs to Encourage Early Compliance............................... 81

a. Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program Early Reduction Credits. ...................... 81

b. Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program Renewable Energy Credits................... 81 7. Summary of Utah Programs to Expand Energy Conservation ....................... 82 8. Areas Where Power Is Lacking and Renewable Sources Can Supply It........ 82 9. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention and EERE Measures...... 84

a. Regional Approach to Analyses ............................................................................ 84

b. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention and EERE

Measures ................................................................................... 85 10. Utah Programs to Meet the Regional Renewable Energy Goals .................... 91

a. Summary of Utah Programs................................................................................... 91

b. Potential for Renewabl e Energy Resources........................................................... 92

J. OTHER GCVTC RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 101

1. Regulatory History and Requirements.......................................................... 101 2. Other State of Utah Long-term Strategy Components.................................. 101Section XX - Regional Haze. Page v a. Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

Recommendations. .................................................................. 101

b. Implementation of Additi onal Recommendations. .............................................. 101

K. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT ANTICIPATED FROM

LONG-TERM STRATEGY ............................................................................ 102

1. Effect on Emissions of Long-term Strategy Components ............................ 102

a. Inventory Methodology and Scope...................................................................... 102

b. Projected Changes in Emissions fo r Utah and the GCVTC Region .................... 104 2. Projected Changes in Visual Air Quality...................................................... 114

a. Applicable Class I Areas...................................................................................... 114

b. Projected Visibility Improvement........................................................................ 114

L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS............................... 117

1. Periodic Progress Reports for Dem onstrating Reasonable Progress. ........... 117 2. Actions To Be Taken Concurrent with Periodic Progress Reports. ............. 117

M. STATE PLANNING/INTERSTATE COORDINATION AND TRIBAL

IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................... 119

1. Participation in Regional Planning and Coordination .................................. 119 2. Applicability to Tribal Lands........................................................................ 119

3. Interstate Coordination ................................................................................. 119Section XX - Regional Haze. Page vi 

## LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Executive Summary of Long-Term Strategies ............................................... 1 Table 2. State-by-State Comparison of 1990 and 2000 Stationary Source Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in the 9 GCVTC Transp ort Region States (tons per year) . 16 Table 3. BART-Eligible Sources in Utah. .................................................................... 21 Table 4. Subject to BART Modeling ............................................................................ 23 Table 5. Emissions Rates (lb/MMBtu) for the Retrofitted Hunter and Huntington

Units ......................................................................................................................... 25 Table 6. Change in Emissions (tons/yr) for Retrofitted BART Units ....................... 25

Table 7. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Milestones ............................................................ 27 Table 8. Utility/Non-utility Split................................................................................... 41 Table 9. Mobile Source Inventory for 2003 and 2018 ................................................ 61 Table 10. Agricultural Burning Emissions Comparison............................................ 64 Table 11. Summary of Information Requirement for Pollution Prevention............ 72 Table 12. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Capacity (Megawatts)............ 76 Table 13. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Generation (Megawatt-hours)

............................................................................................................................... .... 77 Table 14. Utah Capacity by Source (Electric Power Annual). (Megawatts) ............ 78 Table 15. Utah Net Generation by Source, 1999-2002 (Thousand Megawatt-hours)

............................................................................................................................... .... 78 Table 16. Utah Consumption of Renewa ble Power; 2000-2002 (Gigawatt-hours) .. 79 Table 17. Programs to Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts ........... 82 Table 18. Annual Average (2005-2020) Changes for Key Economic Indicators...... 90 Table 19. Utah Renewable Energy Program Descriptions......................................... 92

Table 20. Utah Land-fill Gas Resources ...................................................................... 99 Table 21. Summary of the Change in Emissions from 1996-2018 for Utah Sources

............................................................................................................................... .. 105 Table 22. Changes in Emissions from 1996 - 2018 for 9 GCVTC States ................ 105 Table 23. Comparison of WRAP Inventories for Utah. ........................................... 107 Table 24. Projected Visibility Improvement ............................................................. 116Section XX - Regional Haze. Page vii 

## LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 16 GCVTC Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309.............................. 8 Figure 2. Utah Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309......................................... 9 Figure 3. Map of the Clean Air Corridor in the Transport Region.......................... 12 Figure 4. Relationship between Utah potential BART-eligible sources and Class I areas. Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 modeled separately

at maximum 300 km. .............................................................................................. 23 Figure 5. Utah's Transmission and Distribution Network......................................... 83 Figure 6. Forecast Renewable Energy Capacity Additions to Meet 10/20 Goals. ... 86 Figure 7. Generation Mix in 2018: Business-As-Usual and Meeting 10/20 Goals. . 86 Figure 8. Potential NO

x Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations. ......................................... 87 Figure 9. Potential CO 2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE.

............................................................................................................................... .... 88 Figure 10. Annual Levelized Production Costs for Business-As-Usual and Efficiency. ................................................................................................................ 89 Figure 11. Annual Levelized Production Costs for BAU and Meeting the 10/20

Goal. ......................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah. ................................................................. 94 Figure 13. Geothermal Energy Potential in Utah. ...................................................... 95 Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah. ................................................................. 97 Figure 15. Biomass Energy Potential in Utah. ............................................................ 98 Figure 16. Class I Areas in the WRAP Region.......................................................... 106 Figure 17. Class I Areas with Contributions from Northern Utah ......................... 109 Figure 18. Class I Areas with Impacts from Central Utah. ..................................... 112 Figure 19. Class I Areas with Impacts from Eastern Utah, including the Ute Indian Reservation that is not covered by Utah’s Regional Haze SIP. ........................ 114Section XX - Regional Haze. Page viii 

## APPENDICES TO THE SIP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A Definitions

Appendix B WEB Trading Program Monitoring Protocols

Appendix C Projection of Visibility Improvement

Appendix D WRAP Interstate and Regional Planning ActivitiesSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 1 

## A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document comprises the State of Utah's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Regional Haze Rule in Section 309 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (40 CFR 51.309). Part B includes introductory and background information. The remaining parts identify the SIP requirements under Section 309 and detail how Utah is addressing those requirements, and appendices include more detail about certain parts. Table 1 is a brief summary of each of the 309 SIP requirements along with Utah's approach in addressing those requirements.

Table 1. Executive Summary of Long-Term Strategies

Clean Air Corridors 309(d)(3) Part C documents that emission growth inside and outside of the Clean Air Corridor is not shown to be contributing currently to impairment within the Clean Air Corridor. Stationary Sources 309(d)(4) Part D includes proof of a 13% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2000, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for NO

x and PM , geographic enhancement provisions, and other stationary source

materials.

Sulfur Dioxide

Milestones and Backstop Trading Program 309(d)(4) Part E includes milestones for sulfur dioxide emissions along with a backstop market cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide emissions from specific sources.

Mobile Sources 309(d)(5) Part F demonstrates that federal programs (such as low sulfur diesel, vehicle emission standards, etc.) lead to decreasing mobile source emissions throughout the planning period. Programs Related to

Fire 309(d)(6) Part G demonstrates that Utah has developed a smoke management regulation (R307-204) that implements the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility Policy

. Paved and Unpaved

Road Dust 309(d)(7) Part H discusses the WRAP finding that dust emissions are not now a significant regional contributor to visibility impairment within the Colorado Plateau 16 Class I areas.

Pollution Prevention 309(d)(8) Part I describes programs and policies within Utah related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Utah's anticipated contribution to the pollution prevention goals is outlined.

Additional

Recommendations 309(d)(9) Part J summarizes that Utah has not identified any other recommendations in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report to implement in Utah at this time. A report on each recommendation is included in the Utah Technical Support Document Supplement.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 2 Projection of Visibility Improvement 309(d)(2) Part K projects visibility improvement for the 20% best and worst days for each of the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau (Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Zion

National Parks in Utah and the other 11 Class I areas in adjacent states that were addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission)

Periodic Revisions 309(d)(10) Part L commits the State of Utah to submit periodic revisions to this SIP every five years. State Planning and

Interstate Coordination 309(d)(11) Part M describes Utah's participation in the Western Regional Air Partnership.

Reasonable Progress for

Additional Class I Areas 309(g) Utah has no additional Class I areas.

Technical Support Documents

Accompanying this implementation plan and associated appendices are two other documents. The first is a Technical Support Document (TSD) developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) that contains the results of numerous collaborative studies by the WRAP members on which the State of Utah relied in the development of the 2003 SIP. In the implementation plan, this is referred to as the “WRAP TSD.” The WRAP TSD also includes appendices. In addition, there are other supplemental materials that are state-specific technical support information. In the implementation plan, these are referred to as the “Utah TSD Supplement.”

In 2008, the Regional Haze SIP was updated to address changes in the regional haze rule and EPA’s BART Guidelines. The WRAP developed a new TSD, a Technical Support System (TSS) that contains the results of updated modeling, and an Emission Data Management System (EDMS). In the implementation plan these combined materials are referred to as the 2008 WRAP TSD and updated state-specific materials are referred to as the 2008 Utah TSD supplement.

In 2011 the SO 2 milestones in Part E of the SIP were revised to address a reduced number of states participating in the regional backstop trading program, and changes in growth projections for electric utilities in the west.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 3 

## B. BACKGROUND ON THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE

1. Introduction

Good visibility is important to fully enjoy the experience of visiting our national parks and wilderness areas. Visibility is impaired by light scattering and absorption caused byparticulate matter and gases in the atmosphere that occur from both natural and humancaused activities. Visibility can be impaired by natural sources such as rain, wildland fires, volcanic activity, sea mists, and wind blown dust from undisturbed desert areas. Visibility also can be impaired by human-caused sources of air pollution such as industrial processes, (utilities, smelters, refineries, etc.), mobile sources (cars, trucks, trains, etc.) and area sources (residential wood burning, prescribed burning on wild and agricultural lands, wind blown dust from disturbed soils, etc.) These sources emit pollutants that, in higher concentrations, also can affect public health.

The State of Utah has implemented this section of the State Implementation Plan to address visibility protection in the mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas) required under 40 CFR 51.309. It contains all measures necessary to address regional haze visibility impairment to ensure the State of Utah makes reasonable progress toward the national goal contained in 42 U.S.C. 7491.



### 2. Definitions

This Plan contains terms and phrases that have formal definitions under 40 CFR 51.301, 40 CFR 51.309(b), and other terms specific to the programs set forth in this Plan. These definitions are contained in Appendix A of this section and shall prevail over other interpretations as to the meaning and intent of this Plan.



### 3. 1977 Clean Air Act

In the 1977 Clean Air Act, Congress established requirements for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in areas within the United States and for the review of pollution controls on new sources. 1 Coupled with this, Congress established a visibility protection program for those larger national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Federal Class I areas (Class I areas). 2 This program established a national goal of "...the prevention of any future, and remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Federal class I areas, which impairment results from man-made air pollution" and requires states to develop long-term strategies to

1 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 , United States Congress. 42 U.S.C. 7470-7479. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. August 7, 1977.

2 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Section 169A , United States Congress. 42 U.S.C. 7491. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. August 7, 1977.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 4 assure reasonable progress toward this national goal. The program also requires states to address any visibility impairment caused by emissions of air pollutants from certain large industrial sources if the source was less than 15 years old as of August 1977, through the establishment of emission limits based on best available retrofit technology (BART). Congress also established mandatory criteria for states to use when establishing BART emission limits and developing long-term strategies for reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.



### 4. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment SIP

In 1980, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued final regulations to address the requirements of the 1977 Clean Air Act, requiring states with Class I areas to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions with new source review plans, monitoring plans, BART implementation plans, and long-term strategies to address reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. 3 Utah's SIP for visibility protection was submitted to EPA on April 26, 1985, and approved on May 30, 1986.

In the mid-1980s, Governor Bangerter appointed a Task Force on Visibility Protection to determine the appropriate level of protection for Utah's Class I areas, and to determine the sources of impairment of visibility in those areas. The Task Force included representatives of industry, environmental groups, local governments, and citizens at large. The Task Force visited many sites within Utah's five Class I areas and heard presentations from technical experts in the science of visibility. After more than a year of investigation, the Task Force recommended that all Utah Class I areas need protection, and that the biggest cause of visibility impair ment is not individual industrial sources, but rather the regional haze from a multitude of sources that is transported over long

distances.

In 1985, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program was established to coordinate the monitoring of air quality in national parks and wilderness areas and to ensure sound and consistent scientific methods were being used. 4
The IMPROVE Steering Committee established monitoring protocols for visibility measurement, particulate matter measurement, and scientific photography of the Class I areas. IMPROVE monitoring is designed to establish reference information on visibility conditions and trends to aid in the development of visibility protection programs. Monitoring from the IMPROVE network demonstrated that visibility in all the Class I areas is impaired to some degree by regional haze.

3 40 CFR Part 51 - Protection of Visibility, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 45 FR 80089. Government Printing Office: Wash ington, D.C. December 2, 1980.

4 IMPROVE Home Page. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve (accessed April 2003).Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 5 

### 5. 1990 Clean Air Act

Although the 1980 regulations addressed reasonably attributable visibility impairment from specific sources, also known as plume bli ght, it did not adequately address visibility impairment from large collections of sources whose emissions are mixed and transported over long distances, creating a uniform haze (regional haze). In the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress established the requirements to address regional haze visibility impairment, giving the EPA authority to establish visibility transport commissions and promulgate regulations to address regional haze, and requiring the establishment of a visibility transport commission to investigate and report on regional haze visibility impairment in the Grand Canyon National Park located in northern

Arizona. 5



### 6. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) was established by EPA in November of 1991, consisting of seven western governors (or their designees), and five ex-officio members representing federal land management agencies and EPA. When establishing the GCVTC, EPA designated a transport region including seven western states: California, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. Although part of the Transport Region, the State of Idaho declined the invitation to participate in the GCVTC. Utah's governor was vice-chair of the GCVTC. Although Congress required a commission to be established for the Grand Canyon National Park, the member states agreed to expand the scope of the GCVTC to address all 16 of the

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC elected to use a stakeholder-driven process to accomplish its objectives. Ultimately, the organization included 200+ political, policy and technical stakeholders who staffed a variety of committees and subcommittees to perform policy analysis and technical studies, and to participate in the public debate. The GCVTC was funded by EPA grants and contributions from stakeholders, including substantial in-kind labor. During its four-and-one-half year development, the GCVTC was expanded to include the State of Wyoming and tribal leaders as members. The GCVTC appointed a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) representing broad stakeholder interests to pr ovide input and feedback to the GCVTC. Many Utahns were members of the PAC, with two serving on the PAC Steering Committee, and one serving on the Executive Committee as Vice-Chair of the PAC. The 80+ member Public Advisory Committee developed a consensus report of recommendations for the GCVTC that was ultimately adopted by the GCVTC and

submitted to EPA in June 1996. 6

5 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Section 169B , United States Congress. 42 U.S.C. 7492. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. November 15, 1990.

6 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas

. Western Governors' Association: Denver, CO, June 10, 1996.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 6 Recommendations of the GCVTC include the following:

• Policies based on energy conservation, increased energy efficiency and promotion of the use of renewable resources for energy production;

• Careful tracking of emissions growth that may affect air quality in clean air corridors;

• Regional targets for sulfur dioxide emissions with a backstop program, probably including a regional cap and possibly a market-based trading program;

• Cooperatively developed strategies, expanded data collection and improved modeling for reducing or preventing visibility impairment in areas within and adjacent to Class I areas, pending further studies of sources adjacent to Class I

areas;

• Emissions cap for mobile sources at the lowest level (expected to occur in 2005) and establishment of a regional emissions budget, as well as implementation of national strategies aimed at reducing tailpipe emissions;

• Further study to resolve issues regarding the modeled contribution to visibility impairment of dust from paved and unpaved roads;

• Continued bi-national cooperation to resolve data gaps and jurisdictional issues around emissions from Mexico;

• Programs to minimize emissions and visibility impacts and to educate the public about impacts from prescribed fire and wildfire, because emissions are projected to increase significantly through 2040; and

• Creation of an entity like the GCVTC to promote, support and oversee the implementation of many of the recommendations in this report.

EPA initially proposed regional haze regulations in 1997. 7 The proposed regulations described a generic program to apply nationally and did not include provisions to address the recommendations of the GCVTC. The Western Governors' Association (WGA) engaged key stakeholders to develop a recommendation on how to transform the GCVTC recommendations into a Regional Haze Rule. WGA approved their recommendation and

transmitted it to EPA in June 1998. 8 Based on this and other public input, EPA issued the final Regional Haze Rule in July 1999 with a national program (§ 308) that could apply to any state or tribe and an optional program (§ 309) relying on the work of the GCVTC that is available to the states and tribes in the nine-state GCVTC transport region. 9

7 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Regulations; Proposed Rule - 62 FR 41138 . United States Environmental Protection Agency, Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. July 31, 1997.

8 Leavitt, M. O., Governor of Utah, Letter to EPA Administrator Browner on behalf of the Western Governors' Association, June 29, 1998.

9 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Rule; Final Rule, 64 FR 35714 . United States Environmental Protection Agency, Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. July 1, 1999.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 7 

### 7. Western Regional Air Partnership

The GCVTC recognized the need for a long-term organization to address the policy and technical studies needed to address regional haze. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) was formed in September 1997. The WRAP's charter allows it to address any air quality issue of interest to WRAP members, though most current work is focused on developing the policy and technical work products needed by states and tribes in writing their regional haze state implementation plans (SIPs) and tribal implementation plans (TIPs). The WRAP has been co-chaired by the governor of Utah and the governor of the Acoma Pueblo. The WRAP Board is currently composed of representatives from 13 states, 13 tribes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The WRAP operates on a consensus basis and receives financial support from EPA. The WRAP established stakeholder-based technical and policy oversight committees to assist in managing the development process of regional haze work products. Stakeholder-based working groups and forums were established to focus attention on the policy and technical work products the states and tribes need to develop their implementation plans.

The WRAP developed and submitted an Annex to the GCVTC recommendations to define a voluntary program of sulfur dioxide emission reduction milestones coupled with a backstop market-trading program to assure emission reductions. EPA proposed changes to the Regional Haze Rule to incorporate the GCVTC Annex, and the final rule was published on June 5, 2003. 10 The WRAP is completing a suite of work products to support states and tribes developing GCVTC-based regional haze implementation plans.

Additional information about the WRAP can be found on the WRAP web site at http://www.wrapair.org

.



### 8. Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in 2003 SIP

The Regional Haze Rule under 40 CFR 51.309 requires states to address visibility protection for regional haze in the 16 Class I areas studied by the GCVTC in the initial regional haze SIP submitted by December 31, 2003. Other Class I areas are to be

addressed after interstate consultation. These will be addressed in future SIP revisions as

necessary.

Five of the 16 GCVTC Class I areas are in Ut ah, and Utah has no other Class I areas not covered under this initial SIP for regional haze. The Class I areas addressed are shown in Figure 1. The areas within the state of Utah are shown in Figure 2.

10 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule, 68 FR 33764, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. June 5, 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 8 Figure 1. 16 GCVTC Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 9 Figure 2. Utah Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 10 

## C. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR THE CLEAN-AIR

CORRIDOR

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

One of the required tasks of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission was to

review whether clean-air corridors exist for the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. A clean-air corridor is a geographic region that contributes clean air to the Class I areas on the days with best visibility. If clean-air corridors were found to exist, the GCVTC was required to recommend whether additional control strategies were needed to manage emissions growth to protect visibility on the least impaired days in the Class I areas. For the purpose of assessment, the GCVTC considered the average of the days representing the 20% best visibility conditions to be the least impaired days. EPA also used this definition in defining the term in the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309).

In 1995 the GCVTC Meteorology Subcommittee completed an analysis of the geographical source areas contributing to least impaired days in the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. The analysis, in a report entitled, Clean-Air Corridors: A Framework for Identifying Regions that Influence Clean Air on the Colorado Plateau

, 11 showed that the area north and west of the Grand Canyon National Park does provide clean air to the Grand Canyon area primarily due to a combination of favorable meteorological conditions (rain washout and higher ventilating winds) and low emissions of pollutants from the sparsely populated area. The GCVTC Public Advisory Committee (PAC) reviewed the clean-air corridor analysis and emission projections and determined that, for the period through 2040, emissions growth is projected to be less than the amount that would degrade visibility on the least impaired days in the 16 Class I areas. Based on this finding, the PAC recommended emissions growth be monitored in the future but that no additional control strategies were needed in the clean-air corridor at that time. The GCVTC adopted this recommendation and included it in its final report to EPA, which was integrated into the Regional Haze Rule. 12

The projections of visibility conducted by the WRAP and documented in Appendix C also indicate that visibility on the 20% best and worst days will improve through 2018.

The Regional Haze Rule requires states submitting implementation plans under 40 CFR

51.309 to determine if there are additional areas to be considered as clean-air corridors for emission tracking purposes in the GCVTC areas. The successor to the GCVTC, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), completed a technical analysis to validate the emissions growth projections in the clean air corridors. This analysis was included as

11 Meteorology Subcommittee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Clean Air Corridors: Framework for Identifying Regions t hat Influence Clean Air on the Colorado Plateau. Western Governors' Association: Denver, CO, July 1995.

12 64 FR 35751, July 1, 1999.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 11 part of the WRAP consensus policy. 13 A copy of this policy is contained in the Utah TSD Supplement. The WRAP policy defined a clean air corridor previously identified by the GCVTC Meteorology Subcommittee, and modified to recognize county level emission inventory practices and an emissions tracking requirement in the clean air corridor. The technical studies and findings supporting the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy are located in Chapter 3 of the WRAP Technical Support Document.



### 2. Identification of the Clean-Air Corridor; Other Clean-Air

Corridors

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the State of Utah concurs with the identification of an existing clean-air corridor as defined in the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy. The boundary of the clean-air corridor is indicated on the map in Figure 3 provided below. This clean-air corridor was identified using studies conducted by the Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC, and updated in the WRAP technical and policy analysis of the area described in the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy. A large portion of Utah

resides in the identified clean-air corridor.

13 WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors, adopted by Western Regional Air Partnership, November 13, 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 12 Figure 3. Map of the Clean Air Corridor in the Transport Region.

Source: Figure 1 from the WRAP Policy on Clean Air Corridors.

The State of Utah, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), has determined, based on the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy and technical analysis, that no other clean-air corridors are identified at this time. The State of Utah commits to participating in a regional effort to review this determination as part of periodic plan revisions required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 13 

### 3. Strategy for Clean Air Corridors

a. Comprehensive emissions tracking program.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), the State of Utah commits to monitoring changes in emissions inside and outside the clean-air corridor with an emissions tracking program developed by the WRAP to ensure that visibility does not degrade on the least impaired days in any of the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. The State of Utah commits to providing statewide annual emission inventory data for use in the WRAP emissions tracking program. The state of Utah is working with the WRAP to develop a comprehensive emissions tracking system. 14 Utah, working with the WRAP, will summarize emission trends in order to identify any significant emissions growth that could lead to visibility degradation in the 16 Class I areas. Included in this summary will be an assessment of whether any significant emissions growth has occurred within or outside the clean-air corridor, in accordance with paragraphs C.3.b and c below. The State of Utah will work cooperatively with states not submitting a plan under 40 CFR 51.309 that have emissions within or outside the clean-air corridor that could affect air quality in the clean-air corridor, to ensure the emissions are incorporated into the tracking program through

inter-state consultation.



### b. Patterns of growth within the clean-air corridor.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii), the State of Utah has determined, based on the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy and WRAP tec hnical analysis, that current projections of emissions changes inside the identified clean-air corridor will not contribute to degradation of visibility on the least impaired days in the 16 Class I areas during the planning period through 2018. Future emissions growth will be tracked in accordance with the comprehensive emissions tracking system noted in paragraph C.3.a above. The

WRAP will summarize annual emission trends within the clean-air corridor and assess whether any significant emission growth has occurred within the corridor as an analysis

tool for states.



### c. Patterns of growth outside the clean-air corridor.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 309(d)(3)(iii), the State of Utah has determined, based on the WRAP Clean-Air Corridor Policy and technical analys is, that current projections of emission changes in areas outside the identified clean-air corridor will not contribute to degradation of visibility on the least impaired days in the 16 Class I areas during the planning period through 2018. The State of Utah will ensure that WRAP will track emissions in areas outside the clean-air corridor and report to the State of Utah on any significant changes in emission projections that may require a reassessment of this determination in future SIP revisions, as required in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

14 EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc, for the WRAP Emissions Forum. Emissions Forum Data Reporting, Management, and Tracking System: Draft Final Report: Needs Assessment for Evaluation and Design of an Emissions Data Reporting, Management, and Tracking System. July, 2003. From the WRAP Web site on August 20, 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 14 

### d. Actions if impairment inside or outside the clean-air

corridor occurs.

The State of Utah, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will review the WRAP's annual summary of emission trends inside and outside the clean-air corridor and determine if significant emissions growth as identified within the corridor in accordance with paragraph C.3.b above, or was identified outside the corridor, in accordance with paragraph C.3.c above. If si gnificant emissions growth is identified, the State of Utah, in coordination with other tr ansport region states and tribes, will conduct, or seek WRAP assistance in conducting, an analysis of the emissions growth on visual air quality impacts on the least impaired days in any of the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that this growth is causing visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the State of Utah, in coordination with other transport region states and tribes, will evaluate the need for additional emission reduction measures and identify an implementation schedule for such measures, if needed. The implementation of any additional emission measures shall be coordinated with all appropriate transport region state and tribes, on a mutually agreed upon timetable, and reported to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). If the WRAP regional planning process is unable to perform such an analysis for the Class I areas in Utah, or come to a consensus on the interpretation of such an analysis, the State of Utah will perform such studies and engage in independent interstate consultation provided for under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11).Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 15 

## D. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR STATIONARY

SOURCES

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) studied the long-term projected changes of emissions from stationa ry sources. It was found that emissions of sulfur dioxide from stationary sources would decline by at least 13% between 1990 and 2000. Also, emissions of sulfur dioxide would continue to decline through 2040 when only 30% to 50% of the 1990 emission levels would remain. This decline was due to the normal turnover of source technology as older sources retire and are replaced by newer and cleaner technologies.

The GCVTC decided that the most appropriate way to address emissions of sulfur dioxide from stationary sources was to establish regional emission milestones and allow voluntary measures to achieve the emission reductions. If the emission milestones are not achieved, then a backstop market trading program would be implemented to guarantee the emission reductions are achieved. The GCVTC did not have sufficient time to develop the details of the emission milestones or backstop program, but committed to develop it and submit it to EPA.

In the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, EPA required the states to complete the development of the stationary source program for sulfur dioxide and to submit it as an Annex to the GCVTC recommendations. The WRAP submitted the Annex in September, 2000. 15 On June 5, 2003, EPA issued the final rules related to the sulfur dioxide program for stationary sources. 16 These rules incorporated the materials in the Annex.

EPA’s approval of the Annex was challenged, and on February 18, 2005 the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s 2003 rules. 17 The Court determined that EPA had required a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) demonstration in the Annex that was based on a methodology that had been vacated by the Court in 2002. 18 On October

15 Western Regional Air Partnership. Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine Western States and a Backstop Market Trading Program, An Annex to the Report of the Grand Cany on Visibility Transport Commission. Denver, CO. September 29,

2000.

16 68 FR 33764.

17 Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) vs. Environmental Protection Agency, February 18, 2005.

18 American Corn Growers Association vs. Environmental Protection Agency, May 24, 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 16 13, 2006 EPA revised the regional haze rule to establish the methodology for states to develop an alternative to BART that was consistent with the Court’s decision. 19



### 2. Achievement of a 13% or Greater Reduction of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by 2000

The GCVTC projected a 13% or great er reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions between the years of 1990 and 2000. As shown in Table 2, regional SO 2 emission totals show that there was a 25% reduction in these emissions from 1990 to

2000. 20 There was a 33% decrease in SO 2 emissions during this time period from the three states that developed SIPs under 40 CFR 51.309 (New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, excluding emissions from sources in those states that are under tribal jurisdiction).

Table 2. State-by-State Comparison of 1990 and 2000 Stationary Source Sulfur

Dioxide Emissions in the 9 GCVTC Tran sport Region States (tons per year)

States 1990 2000
Arizona 185,398 99,133
California 52,832 38,501
Colorado 95,534 99,161
Idaho 24,652 27,763
Nevada 52,775 53,943
New Mexico 177,994 117,344 Oregon 17,705 23,362
Utah 85,567 38,521 Wyoming 136,318 124,110
Totals 828,775 621,838



### 3. Strategy for Stationary Sources of Sulfur Dioxide

The long-term strategy for stationary sources implements the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recommendation to develop regional sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) milestones and a backstop trading program to ensure that the milestone goals are

achieved. The GCVTC recommendations were further refined in an Annex to the Commission report that was submitted to EPA in September 2000.

The long-term strategy for stationary sources is implemented through the following

documents:

19 71 FR 60612

20 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. fo r the Western Governors’ Association. Year 2000 Point Source SO 2 Emissions Analysis - 9 State Western Region Report. Denver, CO, May 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 17 • Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Trading Program, Part E of this plan, describes the overall program and contains Utah’s commitment to implement all parts of the program as outlined in the plan. The plan establishes the regional SO 2 milestones, emissions tracking requirements, and, if the Western Backstop SO 2 Trading Program (WEB Trading Program) is triggered, the plan also describes how Utah will determine allocations and manage the allowance tracking system that is needed to implement the program.

• R307-250, Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxi de Trading Program, contains the requirements that will apply to major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide as a backstop regulatory program if the SO 2 milestones are exceeded. The rule may never be implemented if the goal to meet the regional SO 2 milestones through voluntary means is achieved. If the rule is implemented, it establishes the procedures and compliance requirements for sources in the trading program.

• R307-150 requires major industrial sources of SO 2 to submit an annual emissions inventory in the pre-trigger phase of the program to measure compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones. If the backstop program is triggered, then these requirements will eventually be replaced by more rigorous monitoring requirements in R307-250.



### a. 2018 Milestone

The 2018 milestone of 141,849 tons represents an emission reduction of approximately 216,515 tons of SO 2 from the 1990 baseline emissions of 358,364 tons for the three participating states, and is well on the way to the GCVTC’s goal of a 50-70% reduction by 2040. The 2018 regional sulfur dioxide m ilestone provides for greater reasonable

progress 21 than would be achieved by application of best available retrofit technology (BART) for SO 2 , as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) for both the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau and other Class I Areas that are affected by sources in the 3-state region that are subject to BART. The participating states estimated that BART reductions would total approximately 48,737 tons of SO 2 by 2018. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(g)(ii), no further demonstration will be needed prior to 2018 for Utah's stationary sources identified in the Annex, in terms of satisfying BART for SO2 under 40 CFR 51.308(e).



### b. Interim Milestones

Interim milestones were set based on expected emission reductions that were already planned between 2003 and 2018. These milestones show steady and continuing emission reductions, with most of the emission reductions occurring by 2013.

21 October 6, 2010 Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than

BARTSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 18 

### c. Triggering the Trading Program

States and tribes will collect an annual SO 2 inventory. Compliance with the milestones is determined by an annual comparison of the rolling 3-year average of total regional emissions with the rolling 3-year average of the milestones. For 2018, total emissions will be compared with the 2018 milestone. If a milestone is exceeded, the trading program is activated and emission allocations are made one year later with sources having five years from the year of exceedance to comply with their allocation. Sources may comply by retrofitting to bring emissions below their allocation, by buying credits to emit from other sources, by retiring the source, or by other means.



### d. Certainty that 2018 Milestone Will Be Met on Time

Part E of this Plan includes a mechanism for the states and tribes to activate the trading program in 2013 if available evidence indicates the 2018 milestone will not be reached. In order to be in compliance with the 2018 milestone, the 2018 emissions must be less

than the 2018 milestone. Sources that have not controlled their emissions in accordance with their allocations will be subject to financial penalties.



### e. Trading Program Features

Details of the backstop trading program such as applicability, monitoring and reporting, trading procedures, compliance requirements and penalties, are defined in R307-250.

Sources that reduce their emissions below their allocation will be able to sell excess allowances to other sources, within certain programmatic restrictions.



### f. Allocations

If the program is triggered, 2,500 tons of SO 2 allocations will be set aside for tribal interests, acknowledging that tribal lands are largely undeveloped and that tribes would not benefit from a plan based only on past emissions. There will be a new source set-aside to accommodate growth within the region. Existing sources will receive a

"floor" allocation based on a "clean unit" emission rate. The remainder of the allowances, which will decline over the years, will be allocated to existing sources. If the program is triggered, sources may buy and sell allowances to come into compliance.



### g. State and Tribal Opt-In or Opt-Out

In the event that any other states or tribes choose to participate in the regional trading program in the future the milestones will be adjusted through a SIP revision to reflect the changes.



### 4. Geographic Enhancement Program

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) allows states to submit a SIP, or tribes a TIP, which adopts an alternative measure to regional haze BART. Geographic enhancement is a voluntary approach provided in Section 308(e)(2)(v) that can be included in the plan for addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) for stationary sources, under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.302(c). RAVI is di fferent from regional haze in that itSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 19 addresses “hot spots” or situations where visibility impairment in a Class I area is reasonably attributable to a single source or small group of sources in relatively close proximity to the Class I area. In December 2004, the State of Utah signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Federal Land Managers to provide sources greater certainty regarding their potential risk of being certified as a RAVI source by a Federal Land Manager. Sources can incorporate this information into their business planning process, and use the efficiencies and reduced costs of the market to address potential RAVI issues.



### a. Procedure for addressing Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment under the Regional Haze Rule.

If the National Park Service certifies impairment, the State of Utah will fulfill its obligations to determine attribution and if necessary determine BART for the applicable source or group of sources in accordance with Utah's SIP for visibility protection submitted to EPA on April 26, 1985, and approved on May 30, 1986. Additional information regarding possible technical approaches for determining attribution is contained in the WESTAR report, Recommendations for Making Attribution Determinations in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART

.



### 5. Report on Assessment of NO

x 

### /PM Strategies

a. Assessment of Need for NO

x 

### and PM milestones.

The State of Utah has evaluated the need for NO

x and PM emission control strategies, the degree of visibility improvement expected, and whether such milestones are needed to avoid any net increase in these pollutants. This evaluation was based on an assessment of

NO

x and PM stationary source emissions made by the WRAP Market Trading Forum for all WRAP states, including the transport region states. 22

Several conclusions were reached based on the analyses.

• For the vast majority of Class I areas throughout the WRAP region, stationary

source NO

x and PM emissions are not a major contributor to visibility impairment on the average 20% best and 20% worst days. However, on some of the worst days nitrates and PM are the main components of visibility impairment.

• Stationary source NO

x emissions are projected to increase by 4% between 1996 and 2018. Stationary source NO

x emissions probably cause 2% - 5% of the visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau.

• Stationary source PM emissions are projected to increase by 29% between 1996 and 2018. Stationary source PM emissions probably cause less than 2% of the regional visibility impairment.

22 WRAP. Stationary Source NOx and PM Emissions in th e WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts. Denver, CO. Presented to the WRAP Board October 15, 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 20 • The current regional modeling does a poor job of predicting nitrate concentrations

in the winter when NO

x has the greatest impact on visibility impairment. The modeling also does a poor job of predicting the impact of localized fugitive dust impact. The WRAP is currently making significant improvements to the model

and to the emission inventories to address these issues.

• There is a wide range of emission reduction techniques available to control NO

x and PM emissions, and many of the technologies are cost-effective. The current emission inventory does not contain enough information to determine what technologies are currently in place in the West and the cost of additional controls.

• RAVI remedies are available in cases where particular stationary sources may impact particular Class I areas.

The complete report is provided in the 2003 Utah TSD Supplement.



### 6. Best Available Control Technology (BART) Assessment for

NO

x 

### and PM.

a. Regional Haze Rule BART Requirements

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), certain major stationary sources are required to evaluate, install, operate and maintain BART technology or an approved BART

alternative for NO

x and PM emissions. BART requirements can be addressed through a case-by-case review under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or through an alternative program under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The State of Utah has chosen to evaluate BART for NO

x and PM under the case-by-case provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). BART for SO 2 is addressed through an alternative program under 40 CFR 51.309 that is described in Part E of this plan.

EPA issued guidelines for BART determinations on July 6, 2005 that are codified in Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51. These guidelines establish a three step process.

• States identify sources which meet the definition of BART eligible

• States determine which BART eligible sources are “subject to BART”

• For each source subject to BART States identify the appropriate control technology.

The determination of NO

x limits for fossil-fuel fired power plants having a total generating capacity greater than 750 megawatts must be made pursuant to the guidelines in 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, Section E.5. 23

23 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Guidelines for BART De terminations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 FR 39158)Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 21 

### b. BART-Eligible Sources.

BART-eligible sources are those sources that fall within one of 26 specific source categories, were built during the 15-year window of time from 1962 to 1977, and have potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year of any visibility impairing air pollutant (40 CFR 51.301). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308 (e)(1)(i) a State is required to list all BART-eligible sources within the State.

Four BART-eligible electric generating units ha ve been identified in the State of Utah: PacifiCorp’s Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. The units are located at fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million Btu per hour heat input, one of the 26 specific BART source categories. The units have potential emissions greater than 250 tons per year of a visibility impairing pollutant. The units had commenced construction within the BART time frame of August 7, 1962 to August 7,

1977.

Table 3. BART-Eligible Sources in Utah.

SOURCE UNI

T ID SERVICE

DATE NET

DEPENDABLE

CAPACITY (MWn) BART
CATEGORY COAL TYPE BOILER

TYPE

Hunter 1 1978 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential

Hunter 2 1980 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential

Huntington 1 1977 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential

Huntington 2 1974 430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential
Note: Hunter Unit 3 commenced construction after 1977 and is therefore not BARTeligible.



### c. Sources Subject to BART

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) the State is required to determine which BARTeligible sources are also “subject to BART.” BART-eligible sources are subject to BART if they emit any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area.

PacifiCorp’s Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 were determined by the State to be subject to BART. The State utilized the technical modeling services of the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC). Modeling was performed according to the RMC modeling protocols 24 . For the WRAP BART exemption screening modeling, the RMC followed the EPA BART Guidelines in 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y and the applicable CALMET/CALPUFF modeling guidance (e.g., IWAQM, 1998; FLAG, 2000; EPA,

24 CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the

Western United StatesSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 22 2003c) including EPA’s March 16, 2006 memorandum: “Dispersion Coefficients for Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF”. 25

The basic assumptions of the WRAP BA RT CALMET/CALPUFF modeling protocols

are as follows:

• Three years of modeling (2001, 2002 and 2003) were used.

• Visibility impacts due to emissions of SO 2 , NO

x and primary PM emissions were

calculated

• Visibility was calculated using the Original IMPROVE equation and Annual Average Natural Conditions.

• The effective range of CALPUFF modeling was set at 300km from the sources

• For pre-control modeling, maximum 24-hour average actual emissions from the

Acid Rain database were used in CALPUFF model.

• For post-control modeling, expected New Source Review (NSR) permitted limits

were used in the CALPUFF model.

According to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, a BART-eligible source is considered to “contribute” to visibility impairment in a Class I area if the modeled 98th percentile change in deciviews is equal to or greater than the “contribution threshold.” The State of Utah evaluated BART exemption screening modeling results at the EPA-suggested

contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews with in a 300 Km radius of the BART-eligible

sources. 26 BART-eligible sources Hunter Unit 1, Hunter Unit 2, Huntington Unit 1, and Huntington Unit 2 had a modeled impact greater than the threshold level of 0.5 change in

deciviews in at least one of the seven Class I areas within a 300 km radius of the sources.

25 Atkinson and Fox, 2006

26 WRAP RMC BART Modeling for Utah Draft #6 April 21, 2007Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 23 Figure 4. Relationship between Utah potential BART-eligible sources and Class I areas. Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 modeled separately at

maximum 300 km.

Table 4. Subject to BART Modeling

Subject to BART Modeling - 98th Percentile 3 year average Delta Deciview

Capitol

Reef Canyonland

s Arches Bryce Canyo

n Zion Grand Canyo

n Black Canyon
Gunnison Mesa
Verde

Hunter 1 2.13 1.87 1.53 0.55 0.46 0.59 0.60 0.53

Hunter 2 1.89 1.62 1.36 0.47 0.41 0.52 0.53 0.47 Huntington 1 1.92 1.64 1. 39 0.48 0.43 0.55 0.56 0.48 Huntington 2 2.43 2.26 1. 89 .091 .078 .099 1.14 0.91Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 24 

### d. BART Determination

As required under 51.308 (e)(1)(A) the determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available. In the analysis the State must take in to account five factors:

• Available technology

• Costs of compliance

• Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts

• Existing control equipment and the remaining useful life of the facility

• The degree of improvement in visibility reasonably anticipated to result from the use of such technology

PacifiCorp has installed or has received permits to install the following retrofit control equipment at the Hunter Unit 1, Hunter Unit 2, Huntington Unit 1, and Huntington Unit 2 fossil fuel fired electric generating units (EGU):

Hunter Units 1 and 2:

• Conversion of existing electrostatic precipitators to pulse jet fabric filter baghouses

• The replacement of existing, first generation low-NO

x burners with Alstom TSF

2000TM low-NO

x firing system and installation of two elevations of separated

overfire air.

• Upgrade of existing flue gas desulfurization system to > 90% sulfur dioxide

removal.

Huntington Units 1 and 2:

• Conversion of existing electrostatic precipitators to pulse jet fabric filter baghouses

• The replacement of existing, first generation low-NO

x burners with Alstom TSF

2000TM low-NO

x firing system and installation of two elevations of separated

overfire air.

• Installation of a new wet-lime, flue gas de-sulfurization system at Unit 2 (FGD).

• Upgrade of existing flue gas desulfurization system to > 90% sulfur dioxide

removal at Unit 1.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 25 Table 5. Emissions Rates (lb/MMBtu) for the Retrofitted Hunter and Huntington

Units

Table 6. Change in Emissions (tons/yr) for Retrofitted BART Units

Unit PreControl

SO 2 PreControl

NOx PreControl

PM 10 PostControl

SO 2 PostControl

NO

x PostControl

PM 10 Delta

SO 2 Delta

NO

x Delta

PM 10

Hunter 1 2741 6833 533 2239 4851 280 -502 -1981 -253

Hunter 2 2425 5922 533 2185 4734 273 -240 -1187 -260
Huntington 1 2538 5676 444 2052 4445 256 -486 -1231 -188
Huntington 2 13703 5582 443 1743 3776 218 -11960 -1806 -225

TOTALS 21,407 24,013 1,953 8,219 17,807 1,027 -13,189 -6,206 -926

Pursuant to 51.308(e)(1)(C)(iv) each source subject to BART is required to install and operate BART no later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan. The PacifiCorp schedule for the four EGUs at Hun tington and Hunter sources is as follows.

Source Notice of Intent

Submitted Permit Issued Estimated In

Service Date

Hunter 1 June 2006 March 2008 Spring 2014

Hunter 2 June 2006 March 2008 Spring 2011 Huntington 1 April 2008 August 2009 Fall 2010 Huntington 2 October 2004 April 2005 Dec 2006

EPA under the BART Rule requires coal-fired electric generating plants of greater than 750 MW to meet BART presumptive limits. While EPA considers presumptive limits to be appropriate for all coal-fired power plants greater than 750 MW, the State may establish different requirements if the State can demonstrate that an alternative is justified

based on a consideration of the five BART factors.

27 Utah Division of Air Quality Approval Orders: Huntington Unit 2 - AN0238012-05, Huntington Unit 1 - DAQE-AN0102380019-09 (note – on January 19, 2010 an administrative amendment was made to the 2009 AO) , Hunter Units I and 2 - DAQE-AN0102370012-08

28 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 Federal Register 39135) Units Utah Permitted Rates 27 Presumptive BART Limits 28

Rate: lb/MMBtu SO2 NOx PM SO2 NOx

Hunter 1 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28

Hunter 2 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28 Huntington 1 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28 Huntington 2 0.12 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.28Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 26 “States, as a general matter, must require owners and operators of greater than 750 MW power plants to meet these BART emission limits... a State may establish different requirements if the State can demonstrate that an alternative determination is justified based on a consideration of the five statutory factors.” 29

“For Coal-fired EGU’s greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power plants and operating without post-combustion controls (i.e. SCR or SNCR), we have provided presumptive NOx limits, differentiated by boiler design and type of coal burned. You may determine that an alternative control level is appropriate based on careful consideration of the statutory factors.” (Appendix Y Part 51 – IV (E)(5). 30

EPA determined presumptive limits for SO 2 and NO

x for EGUs based on a methodology equivalent to that required in 50 CFR 51 Appendix Y for BART Rule. The EPA determination of presumptive limits included:

• Identification of all potential BART-eligible EGUs (all BART-eligible EGU’s were assumed to be Subject to BART)

• Technical analyses and industry research to determine applicable and appropriate SO 2 and NO

x control options,

• Economic analysis to determine cost effectiveness for each potentially BART-eligible EGU

• Evaluation of historical emissions and forecast emission reductions for each potentially BART-eligible EGU 31

.

• NOx and SO 2 CALPUFF modeling of emission impacts at model Class I

area.

The analysis included 491 potential BART EGUs including Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. The technical analysis conducted by EPA to determine presumptive BART limits for SO 2 and NO

x is in effect a BART determination analysis for 419 EGUs including Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. 32

Section IV (E) (5) of Appendix Y Part 51 clearly requires the implementation of presumptive NOx limits for coal-fired EGU’s greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power plants. Under Appendix Y, states are given the discretion to

29 Ibid. (70 Federal Register 39131).

30 70 Federal Register 39171

31 Ibid. (70 Federal Register 39134)

32 “Methodology for Developing BART NOx Presumptive Limits” EPA Clean Air Market Division June 15, 2005 HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0445 and “Technical Support Document for BART NOx Limits for Electric Generating Units Excel Spreadsheet, Memorandum April 15, 2005 HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0369Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 27 challenge presumptive limits through a five factor analysis, but presumptive limits were developed by EPA as a reasonable, equivalent and mandated substitution for a five factor analysis

. 33

Utah’s long-standing Prevention of Signifi cant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program (SIP Section VII and R307-405), New Source Review permitting program (SIP Section II and R307-401) and Visibility program (SIP section XVII and R307-406) will continue to protect Class I area visibility by requiring best available control technology for new sources, and assuring that there is not a significant degradation in visibility at Class I areas due to new or modified major sources.



## E. SULFUR DIOXIDE MILESTONES AND BACKSTOP

TRADING PROGRAM

1. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger

a. Regional Sulfur Dioxide Milestones

(1) Milestone Values. The regional sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) milestones for the years 2008 through 2018 are provided in Table 7. The milestones will be adjusted annually as described in paragraph E.1.a(2) of this plan.

Table 7. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Milestones

For the year the regional sulfur

dioxide milestone is and the annual SO 2 emissions for these years will determine whether emissions are greater

than or less than the milestone

2008 34 269,083 tons SO 2 Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008
2009 234,903 tons SO 2 Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009
2010 200,722 tons SO 2 Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010
2011 200,722 tons SO 2 Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011
2012 200,722 tons SO 2 Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012
2013 185,795 tons SO 2 Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013
2014 170,868 tons SO 2 Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014
2015 155,940 tons SO 2 Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015
2016 155,940 tons SO 2 Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016

33 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 Federal Register 39171)

34 The 2006 and 2007 annual milestones that are used to calculate the 2008 3-year average milestone in Table 8 have been adjusted to incl ude only the three states that are pa rt of the regional backstop trading program using the adjustment met hodology in the 2003 Regional Haze SIPSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 28 For the year the regional sulfur

dioxide milestone is and the annual SO 2 emissions for these years will determine whether emissions are greater

than or less than the milestone
2017 155,940 tons SO 2 Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017
2018 141,849 tons SO 2 Year 2018 only
2019 forward, until replaced by an approved SIP 141,849 tons SO 2 Annual; no multiyear averaging

(2) Milestone Adjustments.

(a) All milestone adjustments will require a SIP revision. Paragraph E.1.c(3) of this plan outlines adjustments to be made to the emissions inventory to ensure a consistent comparison to the milestones. These adjustments will be incorporated into the milestones every five years as part of the periodic implementation plan revisions required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). Adjustments to the milestones will be tracked in the annual emissions report described in paragraph E.1.c(4) of this

Plan.

(b) Within ninety days of adoption by the Utah Air Quality Board of the periodic Implementation Plan revision incorporating adjustments based on paragraph E.1.c(3) or (4) of this Plan, the State of Utah will provide notice to sources whose records were used to calculate the adjustments, including the date of the SIP adoption and a statement that the source needs to retain the applicable records for at least five years from the date that the SIP was adopted, or ten years from the date of establishing the record, whichever is longer.

(c) Opt-in Provisions for States and Tribes. The regional milestones in Table 7 were developed for a 3-state region: New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Other western states and tribes may choose to join this backstop trading program in the future. The addition of a state or tribe to the program will require a SIP/TIP revision of all participating states and tribes to adjust the regional milestones, and will not occur automatically. Any state or tribe that wishes to opt in to the program will propose milestone adjustments to the participating states and tribes using the same methodology that was used to develop the milestones in Table 7. A new participant must agree to develop a SIP and backstop trading rule that is consistent with those adopted by the other participating states and tribes.



### b. Regional Program Administration

(1) Pre-trigger tracking of regional SO 2 emissions. The executive secretary will work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are participating in the SO 2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program to ensure that an emission tracking system for the regional SO 2 inventory is developed and maintained.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 29 The executive secretary is responsible for all regional program administration functions as described in this plan. The executive secretary will perform these functions using the WRAP as the executive secretary’s agent. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) compiled the SO 2 emission inventories that were used during the development of the Annex and subsequent SIP revisions , and the WRAP continues to refine andimprove the overall tracking system for regional haze. The WRAP will maintain the pretrigger emissions tracking functions described in this plan for the foreseeable future. If the WRAP is no longer able to fulfill this function, then the executive secretary will ensure that other arrangements are made, either through a different regional organization or through a contractor, to maintain the SO 2 tracking system that is described in this plan. The WRAP has no authority to make regulatory determinations. The WRAP has limited authority under this plan to perform tracking and accounting functions, prepare reports, and perform other administrative functions as directed by the executive secretary. The executive secretary will work expeditiously to correct any problems if the WRAP fails to perform any of the functions described in this plan in a timely manner.

(2) Designation of the Tracking System Administrator. If the backstop trading program is triggered due to an exceedance of the SO 2 milestones as outlined in Part E.1.c of this plan, the executive secretary will work cooperatively with the other participating states and tribes to designate one Tracking System Administrator (TSA). The TSA will be designated as expeditiously as possible, but no later than six months after the program trigger date. In addition, before the TSA is designated, the executive secretary will enter into a binding c ontract with the TSA that will require the TSA to perform all TSA functions described in this plan. The State of Utah has sufficient authority under State contract law to ensure that the functions in this plan are carried out by the TSA.

(3) Information Provided by other States and Tribes. The executive secretary will accept the emission inventory and permitting information provided by the other participating states and tribes in order to determine the milestone value and program trigger if such other states and tribes have provided proper documentation and followed the public notification process in their federally approved implementation plans.



### c. Determination of Program Trigger

(1) The executive secretary will submit an annual emissions report to the WRAP and all participating states and tribes by September 30 of each year. The report will document actual sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous calendar year for all sources subject to the Sulfur Dioxide Milestone Inventory requirements of R307-150. The first report for calendar year 2003 was submitted in 2004. If the WEB Trading Program is triggered as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(10) of this plan, annual reports will be prepared during the interim period for informational purposes until the trading program is fully implemented. The executive secretary will prepare the supporting documentation that is included with the annual emissions report as noted in (2) and (3)

below.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 30 (2) The annual emissions report for Utah will include a source emissions change report that contains the following information:

(a) identification of any new sources that were not contained in the previous calendar year’s emissions report, and an explanation of why the source is now included in the program;

(b) identification of any sources that were included in the previous year’s report and are no longer included in the program, and an explanation of why this change has occurred; and

(c) an explanation for increases or decreases of emissions at any applicable source of more than twenty percent from the previous year.

(3) The annual emissions report for Utah will include the proposed emissions adjustment to ensure a consistent comparison to the milestones. Actual emission inventories for sources that change the method of monitoring or calculating their emissions will be adjusted to be comparable to the emission monitoring or calculation method that was used in the 2006 base year inventory.

(4) The annual sulfur dioxide milestone and emissions report for Utah will document any adjustments that should be made to the milestone for the previous year as

follows.

(a) Changes due to enforcement actions.

(i) Adjustments due to settlements arising from enforcement actions. Adjustments to the milestones will be made, as specified in subsection (iii) below, if:

(A) an agreement to settle an action, arising from allegations of a failure of an owner or operator of an emissions unit at a source in the program to comply with applicable regulations which were in effect during the base year, is reached between the parties to the action;

(B) the alleged failure to comply with applicable regulations affects the assumptions that were used in calculating the source’s base year and forecasted sulfur dioxide emissions; and

(C) the settlement includes or recommends an adjustment to the

milestones.

(ii) Adjustments due to administrative or judicial orders. Adjustments to the milestones will be made as directed by any final administrative orSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 31 judicial order, as specified in (iii) below. Where the final administrative or judicial order does not include a reforecast of the source's baseline, the executive secretary will evaluate whether a reforecast of the source's baseline emissions is appropriate.

(iii) Adjustments method and effective dates. The milestone will be decreased by an appropriate amount based on a reforecast of the source’s decreased sulfur dioxide emissions. The adjustments will not be made to

the milestone until after the source has reduced its sulfur dioxide emissions as required in the settlement agreement, or administrative or judicial order.

(iv) Documentation of adjustments for enforcement actions. The report will include the following documentation of any adjustment due to an enforcement action or a settlement agreement:

(A) identification of each source in Utah that has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions pursuant to a settlement agreement or an administrative or judicial order;

(B) for each source identified, a statement indicating whether the milestones were adjusted in response to the enforcement action;

(C) discussion of the rationale for the executive secretary's decision to adjust or not to adjust the milestones; and

(D) if SO 2 emissions reductions over and above those reductions needed for compliance with the applicable regulations were part of an agreement to settle an action, a statement indicating whether such reductions resulted in any adjustment to the milestones or allowance allocations, and a discussion of the rationale for the executive secretary's decision on any such adjustment.

(v) The State of Utah will include all accumulated milestone adjustments due to enforcement actions or settlement agreements in the periodic SIP revisions required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

(5) Compilation of Reports.

(a) The WRAP will compile the annual emissions reports submitted by all participating states and tribes into a draft regional emission report for sulfur dioxide. The WRAP will follow additional quality assurance procedures developed by member states and tribes to identify possible errors in the emissions data, including screening for missing or added sources, name changes, and significant changes in reported emissions. Any questions or anomalies regardingSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 32 Utah’s report will be resolved by the executive secretary prior to the submission of the draft regional emission report.

(b) By December 31 of each year, the WRAP will submit the draft regional emission and milestone report to the executive secretary and all participating states and tribes and will post the report on the WRAP’s web page. The report will include the following information:

(i) actual regional sulfur dioxide emissions in tons per year;

(ii) adjustments to account for changes in emission monitoring or calculation methods;

(iii) average adjusted emissions for the last three years for comparison to the regional milestone, if adjustments were made; and

(iv) regional milestone adjustments due to enforcement actions or settlement agreements.

(6) The executive secretary will evaluate the draft regional emissions report and will propose a draft determination that the sulfur dioxide milestone has either been met in the region, or has been exceeded. In the event that the WRAP has not submitted a draft regional emissions and milestone report to the executive secretary by the December 31 deadline for any year, the executive secretary will prepare the report for that year based upon the annual emissions reports submitted by all participating states and tribes to the WRAP for that year. The executive secretary will modify the data in these annual emissions reports, or use data where such report(s) have not been submitted, based upon direction received from the Environmental Protection Agency.

(7) The executive secretary will advertise availability of the draft regional emissions report and will notify the public of the draft determination by publishing a notice in newspapers of general circula tion throughout Utah. A 30-day public comment period will be established, and a public hearing will be held during the public comment period. The executive secretary will also submit the draft determination to EPA for review and comment concurrently.

(8) The executive secretary will consider any comments received during the comment period, and will submit a copy of all comments to the WRAP and to all participating states and tribes along with a response that addresses the comments.

(9) The WRAP will compile the comments and responses from all participating states and tribes and prepare a draft final regional emissions report. The report will be submitted to the states and tribes that are participating in the program and, if necessary, the report will propose a common program trigger date.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 33 (10) The executive secretary will review and approve the final regional emissions report. The executive secretary will then submit this report to the Environmental Protection Agency along with a final determination that the milestone either has been met in the region, or that the milestone has been exceeded and the WEB Trading Program has been triggered in Utah. This determination will be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency by the end of March, fifteen months following the milestone year. The first determination was submitted in 2005, for the 2003 milestone. If the milestone has been exceeded, the common trigger date proposed in the regional report will become the program trigger date for purposes of implementing the WEB Trading Program. In the event that the program trigger date must be established by the executive secretary in the absence of a regional emissions and milestone report prepared by the WRAP, the program trigger date will be March 31 of the applicable year.

(11) The executive secretary will publish a notice of the final determination in newspapers of general circulation throughout the state of Utah. This notice will include the milestone and the final annual regional SO 2 emissions for that year. If the milestone has been exceeded, the notice will specify the program trigger date and the first year that WEB sources must be in compliance with the WEB Trading Program provisions as

outlined in R307-250-12.



### d. Year 2013 Assessment

(1) Initial Assessment in 2013 Periodic SIP Review.

(a) The executive secretary will work cooperatively through the WRAP with other participating states and tribes to develop a projected emission inventory for

SO 2 through the year 2018, using the 2010 regional inventory as a baseline. This projected inventory will be included in the 2010 annual emission and milestone report that will be completed in March 2012 as outlined in paragraph E.1.c of this plan.

(b) The executive secretary will evaluate the projected inventory, and based upon this information will make an assessment of the likelihood of meeting the regional milestone for the year 2018. The executive secretary will include this assessment as part of Utah’s progress report that must be submitted by December 31, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

(2) Regional Emissions Report for 2012.

(a) The executive secretary will prepare an SO 2 emission report for the year 2012 by September 30, 2013, as described in paragraph E.1.c(1) of this plan. The executive secretary will include a list of all known or anticipated sources in Utah that are anticipated to affect total SO 2 emissions in 2018. This may include permitted sources, projects that are still in the planning stage, or projections from the affected sources of anticipated emissions in 2018. The status of these projectsSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 34 will be described to provide a better understanding of the degree of certainty that individual projects will be completed by 2018.

(b) The WRAP will compile the information from all participating states and tribes, prepare draft SO 2 inventory projections for the year 2018, and estimate the

effect of known future sources on SO 2 emissions. Projected 2018 emissions will be compared to the 2018 milestone. This information will be included in the draft regional emissions report for 2012 that will be submitted to the executive secretary by December 31, 2013, as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(5) of this Plan. The draft report will be published on the WRAP web site for a period of public review and comment for not less than 30 days.

(3) Consensus Decision. The executive secretary commits to meet with the participating states and tribes in March 2014 to discuss any comments received on the 2018 emission projections in the draft report. The participating states and tribes will decide, through a consensus process, whether it is necessary to trigger the WEB trading program early in order to meet the SO 2 emission reduction goals in 2018.

(4) Early Trigger: Timing. If the participating states and tribes unanimously decide in the March 2014 meeting that an early trigger of the backstop trading program is necessary, the executive secretary will trigger the WEB Trading Program and the timing of the program elements will be adjusted as follows to ensure that the WEB Trading Program is in place in 2018.

(a) The date of the consensus decision by the participating states and tribes to voluntarily trigger the WEB trading program will become the program trigger

date.

(b) Allowances for 2018 will be distributed to WEB sources by January 1, 2015.

(c) The first control period will be the year 2018. WEB sources will need to demonstrate at the end of the first control period that they have enough

allowances to cover their 2018 SO 2 emissions.

(5) Public Notification. The executive secretary will publish notice of the decision in newspapers of general circulation in Utah. If applicable, the notice will include a statement that the WEB Trading Program is in effect and will specify the program trigger date.



### e. Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone

If the WEB Trading Program is triggered as outlined in paragraph E.1.c of this Plan, and the first control period will not occur until after the year 2018, a special penalty will be

assessed if the 2018 milestone is exceeded.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 35 Details of the penalty provisions for violation of the 2018 milestone can be found in R307-250-13. In general, the penalty involves an assessment of the minimum $5,000 per

ton of SO 2 emissions in excess of the WEB source’s allowance limitation. The source can resolve its excess emissions violation by agreeing to the streamlined settlement approach outlined in R307-250-13.

The amount of the minimum monetary penalty in R307-250-13 will be evaluated at each five-year SIP review, and adjusted if needed, to ensure that the penalty per ton substantially exceeds the expected cost of allowances to ensure that this remains a stringent penalty.

The 2018 special penalty provision will continue to be applied each year after 2018 until

the 2018 milestone has been achieved.



### 2. Pre-Trigger Emissions Tracking Requirements

a. SO 2 

### Emission Inventory

40 CFR 51.309 sets forth emissions inventory requirements for tracking compliance with

the SO 2 milestones. R307-150 has been revised to supplement Utah’s inventory requirements to satisfy the needs of this program.

(1) Applicability. The sulfur dioxide milestone inventory requirements of R307- 150 require all stationary sources with actual emissions of 100 tons per year or more of

SO 2 in the year 2000, or in any subsequent year, to submit an annual inventory of SO 2 emissions, beginning with the 2003 emission inve ntory. A source that meets these criteria and then emits less than 100 tons per year in a later year must continue to submit an SO 2 inventory for tracking compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones until 2018 or until the WEB Trading Program has been fully implemented and emission tracking is occurring under R307-250-9, whichever is earlier.

(2) R307-150 contains enforceable requirements for WEB sources.

(a) Each source will submit an annual inventory of SO 2 emissions.

(b) Each source will use appropriate emission factors and estimating techniques and document the emissions monitoring or estimation methodology used.

(c) Each source will include emissions from start up, shut down, and upset conditions in the annual total inventory.

(d) Each source subject to the federal acid rain program will use methods from 40 CFR Part 75 to report emissions from all sources.

(e) Each source will include the rate and period of emissions, the specific installation that is the source of the air pollution, composition of air contaminant,Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 36 type and efficiency of the air pollution control equipment and other information necessary to quantify operation and emissions, and to evaluate pollution control.

(f) Each source will retain records for a minimum of 10 years from the date of their creation, or if the record was the basis for an adjustment to a milestone, 5 years from the date of an implementation plan revision, whichever is longer.

(3) The executive secretary will quality-assure the submitted inventory data as outlined in the Inventory Preparation Plan. The executive secretary will screen the inventories to identify changes in emission measurement techniques that would require an inventory and milestone adjustment as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(3) of this Plan.

(4) The executive secretary will retain historical emission inventory records for non-utilities from 2006 that may affect milestone calculations under paragraph E.1.c(3) and allocation decisions under paragraph E.3.a of this plan until the year 2018 to ensure that changes in emissions monitoring techniques can be tracked.



### b. Development of Emission Tracking System

The executive secretary will work cooperatively with the WRAP to ensure that an emission tracking system for the regional SO 2 inventory is developed and maintained.



### c. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking

Database

(1) During the pre-trigger phase when the executive secretary is tracking compliance with the regional SO 2 milestones, the executive secretary will work cooperatively with the participating states and tribes to ensure that an independent audit of the tracking database is conducted to make sure that the WRAP is accurately compiling the regional emissions report.

(a) The first audit will occur during the year 2006 and will review data collected during the first two years of the program.

(b) Subsequent audits will occur in 2011, which will cover emissions years 2005- 2009, and 2016, which will cover emissions years 2010-2014.

(2) The primary focus of the audit will be the process that is used to compile the regional inventory from the data provided by each state and tribe, and the tracking of accumulated changes during the period between SIP revisions. The audit will also review the accuracy and integrity of the regional reports that are used to determine compliance with the milestones. The audit will not be a full review of Utah’s process for compiling and reporting SO 2 emissions, but will include a broad review of Utah’s inventory management and quality assurance systems, including the presence and exercise of systems to assure data quality and integrity.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 37 (3) The audit will discuss the uncertainty of emissions calculations, and whether this uncertainty is likely to affect the annual determination of whether the milestone is exceeded. It will identify any recommended changes to emissions monitoring or calculation methods or data quality assurance systems. It will also review and recommend any changes to improve the administrative process of collecting the annual emissions data at the state and tribal level, compiling a regional emission inventory, and making the annual determination of whether the WEB Trading Program has been triggered.

(4) Changes to the SO 2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program, including any changes to the milestones due to the results of these periodic audits, will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision as part of the five-year SIP review required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

(5) The executive secretary will advertise the availability of the draft audit report by publishing a notice in newspapers of general circulation in Utah. A 30-day public comment period will be established, and a hearing will be held during the public comment period. The executive secretary will respond to comments and provide notice of the availability of the final audit report. The executive secretary will submit the final audit report to the EPA regional office.



### 3. WEB Trading Program Requirements

a. Initial Allocation of SO 2 

### Allowances

(1) Draft Allocation Report.

Within six months of the program trigger date, as outlined in paragraph E.1.c(11) of this plan, the executive secretary will submit a draft allocation report to all participating states and tribes and to the TSA. This report will contain the following information:

(a) A list of all WEB sources in Utah as defined in R307-250-2 that groups the sources into two categories:

(i) Category 1: WEB sources that commenced operation prior to January 1, 2008. These sources will receive a floor allocation and will be eligible for the reducible portion of the allocation.

(ii) Category 2: WEB sources that commenced operation on January 1, 2008 or a later date. These sources will receive a floor allocation, but will not be eligible for the reducible allocation. The floor allocation for Category 2 sources will be deducted from the new source set-aside.

WEB sources that have received a retired source exemption under R307-250-4(4) will be included in the allocation process in the same manner as WEB sources that are currently operating. However, sources that were permanently shut downSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 38 prior to the program trigger date are not considered WEB sources under R307- 250-4(1) and would therefore not be included in the allocation process.

(b) The floor allocation for all WEB sources in Utah.

(i) For non-utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor allocation will be asestablished in the E.H. Pechan Report, “Market Trading Forum NonUtility Sector Allocation Final Report from the Allocations Working Group” (November 2002). If any additional category 1 sources are identified, the executive secretary will calculate a floor allocation using the methodology outlined in the E.H. Pechan Report.

(ii) For utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor will be calculated by first assigning a “clean unit” emission rate to each unit. The clean unit emission rate will then be multiplied by an annual heat input (MMBtu) that represents a realistic upper bound for the unit.

(Note: The floor level approach described above is designed to address equity issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The State of Utah is participating in ongoing discussions with the other participating states, tribes and regional stakeholders to ensure that all equity issues have been addressed. The State of Utah will work with the other participating

states and tribes to ensure that the floor allocation is calculated in a consistent manner for all participants. As outlined further in this allocation methodology, the floor for both utilities and non-utilities is limited by the utility/non-utility split in Table 10. The floor allocation methodology will ensure that credits are available for early reduction allocations. In addition, the regional number of allowances allocated for each year cannot exceed the milestone for that year under any circumstances.)

Principles

• Each unit will have enough allowances to operate as a clean source and at an operating rate (capacity factor) that is a realistic upper bound for the

unit.

• There will not be significant winners and losers in this process.

• The focus is on a fair approach that is applied equally to all sources rather than on state and tribal budgets.

• The allocation process will use data that reflect current conditions, including current monitoring methodologies.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 39 Equity Issues

• Sources that are currently burning very low sulfur coal may see changes in their supply in the future. Historic actual emissions may not reflect future operations.

• Sources that are currently operating at a low utilization may not reach full capacity in the future. Assumptions about growth that are realistic on the regional level may provide a windfall to some sources, and not provide adequate allowances for other sources.

• There are some utility units in the region that are not BART-eligible and are operating at a low level of control for SO 2 . The relative responsibility of BART-eligible vs. non-BART-eligible is a consideration in the process.

• Sources that are operating at a high level of control are already bearing the cost of control and this affects their ability to compete in the market.

• Sources that have no SO 2 controls are facing a large expense that could affect their ability to continue to operate.

• Emission rate disparities exist throughout the region.

(iii) For Category 2 WEB sources the floor allocation will be the lower of the permitted SO 2 annual emissions for the WEB source, or SO 2 annual emissions calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100% utilization of the WEB source.

(c) A list of certified early reductions, expressed as tons of SO 2 . Early reductions

will be calculated and certified as follows:

(i) Any WEB source that installs control technology and accepts new permit emissions limits that are, for a non-utility source, below its floor as established in this section, or, for a utility source, below BACT, may apply for an early reduction bonus allocation as outlined in R307-250- 7(5). The bonus allocation will be available for reductions that occur between 2008 and the program trigger year. The application must show

that the floor was calculated in a manner that is consistent with the monitoring requirements of R307-250-9(1)(a) and the new permit must contain monitoring requirements that are consistent with R307-250- 9(1)(a). Emission units that are monitored using the less stringent monitoring requirements of R307-250-9(1)(b) are not eligible for early

reduction bonus allocations. The bonus allocations accumulate from the time the new controls come on line until the program trigger date and will be allocated to the WEB source over a 10 year period. The use of early reduction bonus allocations in any control period is limited to no moreSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 40 than five percent, systemwide, of the existing available allowances, as provided in paragraph E.3.a(2)(e) of this plan.

(ii) The executive secretary will review the application and will certify early reductions for each full year between 2008 and the program trigger year that meet the requirements of R307-250-7(5) and this plan.

(iii) A source’s certified early reductions for all years will be added together to obtain the total certified early reductions for that source.

(d) Historical SO 2 emissions data for all Category 1 sources for the purposes of calculating the reducible allocation.

(i) For utilities, annual SO 2 emissions for the year 2006. Another time period may be used for individual emission units, if needed, to be representative of normal operating conditions.

(ii) For non-utilities, the annual SO 2 emissions for the year 2006.

(e) Changes due to settlements arising from enforcement actions or due to administrative or judicial orders. The adjustment will be determined in accordance with paragraph E.1.c.(4)(b)(3)(c) of this Implementation Plan. The difference between the WEB source’s allocations prior to enforcement and after the enforcement action will be removed from the allocation pool.

(2) Compiled Allocation Report.

The TSA will compile the information provided by all participating states and tribes into a draft regional allocation report, and will submit this draft regional report to the executive secretary and all participating states and tribes for review and comment thirty days after receiving the preliminary allocation reports. The draft regional allocation report will include a proposed budget for each state and tribe and the proposed allocation

for each WEB source in Utah.

The State of Utah will work closely with the other participating states and tribes to ensure that the regional allocation is distributed consistently and fairly and to address any change in status that may affect this process.

The following methodology distributes the allowances available under the milestone in the following order: tribal set-aside, new source set-aside, floor, renewable energy credit, reducible allocation. The allocation process is limited by the number of allowances available under the milestone. It is not possible under this methodology to distribute more allowances that are available under the milestone. The State of Utah expects that there will be allowances available for all of the categories listed above. However, if at any time in the process there are not enough allowances available to fully cover a particular category, then the sources eligible for that category will receive a pro-ratedSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 41 allowance, and the process will stop. For example, if the renewable energy allocation is greater than the remaining available allowances under the milestone, then each of the renewable energy sources would receive a reduced renewable energy allocation, and

there would be no reducible allocation.

(a) Table 8 shows the major categories that will be used to allocate allowances under the milestone. The methodology to calculate the available allocation for existing sources is described below. The milestone for the 4-state region is the starting point.

Table 8. Utility/Non-utility Split

Milestone

from Table 7 Tribal SetAside New Source

Set-aside Remaining

Allocation Utility

Portion Non-utility portion
2008 269,083 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 260,444 tons 210,480 tons 76,635 tons
2009 234,903 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 226,260 tons 176,299 tons 76,635 tons
2010 200,722 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 192,079 tons 142,119 tons 76,635 tons
2011 200,722 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 192,079 tons 142,119 tons 76,635 tons
2012 200,722 tons 2,500 tons 6,143 tons 192,079 tons 142,119 tons 76,635 tons
2013 185,795 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 171,009 tons 121,048 tons 76,635 tons
2014 170,868 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 156,082 tons 106,121 tons 76,635 tons
2015 155,940 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 141,154 tons 91,194 tons 76,635 tons
2016 155,940 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 141,154 tons 91,194 tons 76,635 tons
2017 155,940 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 141,154 tons 91,194 tons 76,635 tons
2018 141,849 tons 2,500 tons 12,286 tons 127,063 tons 80,402 tons 75,935 tons

(b) Subtract the floor allocation for all WEB sources in the region that were identified as Category 2 from the new source set-aside to determine the available allocation for new sources that begin operation after the program trigger date.

This allocation methodology treats all Category 2 sources as existing sources because these sources will be operating on the program trigger date. However, the allowances for all Category 2 sources are actually drawn from the new source set-aside. If new source growth exceeds the projections used to develop this plan, it is possible that the above calculation will result in a negative number. Therefore, to address this problem, Category 2 sources will be ranked based on the date the permit is issued for each source. Sources will then be removed from the list of Category 2 sources, starting with the most recent permit, until the new source set-aside is no longer depleted. The last source on the list will receive a partial allocation. The sources that were removed from the list will be considered new sources as described in Part E.3.c of this plan. These sources will need to purchase allowances to cover their emissions because the new source set-aside for sources that begin operation after the program trigger date would be calculated as zero until it is replenished in the next 5-year period. The allocation process for these new sources is described in Part E.3.c of this plan.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 42 Example calculation of the new source set-aside. The example uses the following assumptions:

• Emissions exceed the milestones based on an average of the years 2004-2006.

• The program trigger date is March 31, 2008.

• The first 5 years of the program are 2012-2016.

• New sources that commenced operation between January 1, 2008 and the program trigger date have a total floor allocation of 600 tons

.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Maximum Possible

Set-Aside 6,143 12,286 12,286 12,286 12,286

Floor for Category 2

Sources -600 -600 -600 -600 -600

Remaining New Source

Set-aside 5,543 11,686 11,686 11,686 11,686

(c) The remaining allocation shown in Table 8 is available for distribution to category 1 sources. The final two columns in Table 8 split this remaining allocation into a utility allocation and a non-utility allocation.

(d) Subtract the floor allocations for all category 1 utility and non-utility sources in the region from the utility allocation or the non-utility allocation.

In the unlikely event that the total floor allocation for either utility or non-utility sources submitted by the participating states and tribes exceeds the total allocation available for that category, the TSA will notify the participating states and tribes of the discrepancy. The State of Utah commits to work with the participating states and tribes through a consensus process to ensure that the floor allocation has been calculated in a consistent manner for all participants and to

ensure that the floor allocation does not exceed the total allocation available for that category. The total number of allowances distributed can not exceed the milestone for any given year.

(e) Calculate the early reduction bonus allocation.

(i) Divide the number of certified early reductions for all WEB sources in the region by ten.

(ii) Add the utility allocation for 2018 to the non-utility allocation for 2018 and then multiply this total by 0.05.

(iii) If the product of paragraph (i) is no more than the product of paragraph (ii), the product of paragraph (i) is the early reduction bonusSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 43 allocation, and each source is allocated ten percent of its early reduction

bonus allocation.

(iv) If the product of paragraph (i) is more than the product of paragraph (ii), the early reduction bonus allocation for the region is the product of paragraph (ii). To determine a source’s allocation, divide the product of paragraph (ii) by 0.10 times the total number of early reduction bonus allocations and apply that ratio to the certified early reductions for the

source.

(v) Split the regional early reduction bonus allocation based on the ratio of utility to non-utility allocations in 2018 and subtract the early reduction bonus allocation from the utility and non-utility allocation totals.

(vi) The early reduction bonus allocation will be calculated in a similar manner for the second five-year allocation period under this program, and will then be discontinued for any future allocation periods.

(f) Any remaining allowances in the utility allocation or the non-utility allocation after subtraction of the early reduction allocation is considered the reducible allocation and will be assigned to Category 1 sources.

(i) For non-utility sources, add together the historic SO 2 emissions inaccordance with paragraph E.3.a(1)(d) of this plan for all Category 1 nonutility sources in the region to determine an historic emission total. Determine a percent contribution of SO 2 emissions for each WEB source to the historic emission total. Multiply the non-utility reducible allocation by the percent contribution for each WEB source to determine a reducible

allocation for each WEB source.

(ii) For utility sources, the reducible allocation will be distributed to sources that emitted above their floor in the baseline period (2006) based on their percentage of total floor emissions for sources emitting above the

floor times the number of reducible allowances available for the first five years of the WEB Trading Program. The number of allowances for any source receiving a reducible allocation will not exceed a recent historic emission rate times a heat input that represents a realistic upper bound for

the unit.

[Note: The approach for distributing the reducible utility allocation described above is designed to address equity issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The State of Utah is participating in ongoing discussions with the other participating states, tribes and regional stakeholders to ensure that all equity issues have been addressed. The principles and equity issues that are under discussion are listed in paragraph E.3.a.(1)(b)(ii) of this plan.]Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 44 (g) Add together the floor allocation, early reduction allocation, and reducible allocation for each WEB source to determine the proposed allocations for the first five years of the WEB Trading Program.

(h) Add together the proposed allocations for all of the WEB sources in the jurisdiction of each participating state and tribe to determine a draft SO2 allowance budget for each state and tribe.

(3) Public Comment Period. The executive secretary will publish notice of av ailability of the draft regional allocation report in newspapers of general circulation throughout Utah. A 30-day public comment period will be established, and a hearing will be held during the comment period. The executive secretary will consider the comments, and will revise the draft report as needed if the recommended changes are consistent with the allocation process outlined in this plan. The executive secretary will prepare a written response that explains why each comment has either been accepted or has been determined to be inconsistent with the allocation process outlined in this plan.

(4) Proposed Changes Submitted to Tracking System Administrator. The executive secretary will submit a copy of all comments received, the response to those comments, and any proposed changes to the budget and source allocations to the TSA within sixty days of receipt of the draft regional allocation report.

(5) Compilation of Changes. The TSA will compile the comments, responses, and proposed changes to the report and will submit a final draft regional allocation report that is consistent with the allocation methodology outlined in this plan to the executive secretary within 90 days of the receipt of the draft regional allocation report. Final Regional Allocation Report. The executive secretary will review the final regional allocation report and will determine the budget for Utah and allocations for WEB sources within Utah in accordance with the allocation methodology outlined in this plan within thirty days of receipt of the final draft allocation report. The executive secretary will submit the budget and allocations for all WEB sources in Utah to EPA, and will notify the TSA that the WEB source allocations should be recorded in the allowance tracking system.

(6) Notification. The executive secretary will notify all WEB sources within Utah of the number of allowances that have been recorded in their compliance account. The notice will include a warning to the WEB sources that reported annual sulfur dioxide emissions may change due to the implementation of new monitoring methods as required by R307-250-9. Allocations for the first five years of the program will not be adjusted to account forchanges due to the new monitoring method. However, allocations during the next fiveyear distribution will be adjusted as needed to account for paper changes in emissions due to changes in monitoring methodology.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 45 

### b. Distribution of Allowances for Future Control Periods

By December 1 of the year five years after the initial allocation, the executive secretary will follow the process outlined in paragraph E.3.a of this plan to distribute allowances for the next five-year period. This process will continue every five years until allowances have been allocated through the year 2018.



### c. Distribution of the New Source Allocation

(1) The new source set-aside will be available for two categories of sources.

(a) A new WEB source is eligible to receive an annual floor allocation equal to the lower of the annual sulfur dioxide limit in the source’s approval order, or sulfur dioxide annual emissions calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100% utilization of the WEB source, beginning with the first full calendar year of operation and in accordance with the provisions of R307-250-7(6).

(b) An existing WEB source that has increased production capacity after obtaining a new approval order issued under R307-401 is eligible to receive an allocation from the new source set-aside equal to:

(i) the permitted annual sulfur dioxide emission limit for a new unit; or

(ii) the permitted annual SO 2 emission increase for the WEB source due to the replacement of an existing unit with a new unit or the modification of an existing unit that increased the production capacity of the WEB source.

Permitted emission increases due to fuel switching or other process changes that are not directly related to increased production capacity are not eligible for

allocations from the new source set-aside. The allocation from the new source set-aside in the first year of operation will be adjusted to account for the number of days that the source is operating in that first year.

EXAMPLE. A new unit with a nameplate capacity of 400 MW is constructed at a power plant with two existing units with nameplate capacities of 400 MW and 300 MW. The two existing units install SO 2 controls and reduce emissions to meet PSD requirements for the construction of the new unit. In this example, the source would continue to receive a floor and a reducible allocation for each of the existing units, and would also be eligible to receive an allocation from the new source set-aside for the new unit. Even though total SO 2 emissions will decrease at this plant due to the construction of the new unit, the allowances allocated to the source will increase to reflect the increase in production capacity of 400 MW of electricity. If the new unit comes on line on July 1 the allocation for the first year will be reduced by 50 percent because the unit was operational for half of the year.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 46 (2) Allocations from the new source set-aside will remain constant for the applicable WEB source and will be made on an annual basis by March 31 of each year for the current control period. When the next five-year allocation block is distributed as outlined in paragraph E.3.b of this plan, all sources with an allocation under the new source set-aside will receive a five-year allocation block from the new source set-aside, and will continue to receive this allocation in future five-year allocation blocks.

(3) Owners or operators of new WEB sources or modified WEB sources that meetthe eligibility requirements of (1) may apply for an allocation from the new source setaside by submitting a written request to the executive secretary as outlined in Subsection R307-250-7(6).

(4) The executive secretary will review the application for an allocation for accuracy and completeness, and will notify the source of intent to distribute allocations from the regional new source set-aside pending verification that allowances are available in the new source set-aside account. The executive secretary will then forward the request

to the TSA.

(5) The TSA will document the date that the request is received by the TSA. Requests for allocation of allowances from the new source set-aside will be processed in the order received. The TSA will deduct the number of allowances requested from the regional new source set-aside that was established by the participating states and tribes, and will then record an equal number of allowances in the source’s compliance account for each remaining year of the five-year period. The TSA will then send written notification to the source and to the executive secretary that the allowances have been recorded in the source’s compliance account.

(6) If there are insufficient allowances remaining in the new source set-aside to fulfill the request, the source must purchase the allowances required to demonstrate compliance. Any eligible WEB source that does not receive an allocation from the new source set-aside because the set-aside was depleted will be first in line to receive an allocation when the new source set-aside is increased in the next five-year period as outlined in Table 8 of this plan. If there is more than one such source, their allocation requests will be processed in the order they were received by the TSA.

(7) A source that has received a retired source exemption and continues to receive an allocation as a retired WEB source is not eligible to receive an allocation from the new

source set-aside.



### d. Regional Tribal Set-aside

(1) Each year after the program is triggered for which allowances are allocated, 2,500 allowances will exist as a tribal set-aside.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 47 (2) The tribal caucus of the WRAP has stated its intent to determine the means for distributing the allowances among the tribes within one year after the program trigger date. The executive secretary understands that there will be a process that will meet the tracking and data security requirements of the allowance tracking system by which a tribe will move its set-aside allowances into the trading program for the purposes of trading.

(3) The executive secretary recognizes that the tribal set-aside allowances are bonus allowances for the tribes and, as such, are separate and additional to any allowances included in a tribal budget or the new source set-aside as outlined in the allocation report that is prepared in accordance with paragraph E.3.a(6) of this plan.



### e. Opt-in Sources

The WRAP Market Trading Forum has recommended including provisions in this plan that would allow smaller sources to opt in to the program. Opt-in sources may provide a more cost-effective way to reduce overall regional SO 2 emissions, and therefore may strengthen the market incentives of this program. While the benefits of allowing sources to opt in to the program are important, the program must also provide safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the program is not affected. For example, it would be counterproductive to allow sources that were already planning to shut down to opt in to the program and then sell allowances to an existing source. In this example, regional emissions could slowly creep upward in a manner that is not consistent with the goals of

the SO 2 milestones.

The State of Utah is deferring inclusion of provisions for opt-in sources until a future SIP revision to allow time to thoroughly consider how to provide the flexibility and potential benefits to the market by expanding the program while also ensuring that the SO 2 emission reduction goals are maintained.



### f. WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS)

The participating states and tribes will provide a centralized system for the tracking of allowances and emissions. The centralized system will be referred to as the WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS or EATS). The WEB EATS must provide that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and transactions is publicly available in a secure, centralized database. The EATS must ensure that each allowance is uniquely identified, allow for frequent updates, and include enforceable procedures for recording data.

The executive secretary will work cooperatively with other states and tribes participating in the WEB Trading Program to design this system. The executive secretary will be responsible for ensuring that all the EATS provisions are completed as described in this plan.

The EATS will not exist unless the program is triggered. Prior to the implementation of the WEB Trading Program, a separate emissions tracking database will be employed toSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 48 track the ongoing emissions of sources emitting SO 2 at amounts equal to or greater than 100 tons per year. The emissions tracking database, which was used to track and measure

SO 2 emissions against the milestones, will still exist once the WEB Trading Program is triggered; however, it will become incorporated into the SO 2 Emissions and Allowance Tracking System. Both the emissions tracking database and the EATS will be centralized systems and data will be posted in an electronic, Web-based program and available to all

persons.

The participating states and tribes will contract with a common TSA to service and maintain the WEB EATS. It is envisioned that the EATS will require the use of a contracted consultant or database design engineer to create a secure, efficient and transparent tracking system. Because the EATS will be utilized by all states and tribes participating in the program, the design will require a uniform approach and level ofsecurity that will satisfy regional needs and concerns as well as meet the electronic, Webbased, access needs and security provisions. Due to the dynamic needs of the marketplace, the EATS will require a database that will reflect the current status of allowances and allowance transactions. The EATS will be operational within one year after the program trigger date.

Specifications of the WEB EATS such as emissions tracking, the recording of allowance transactions, account management, system integrity and transparency are outlined in the Utah TSD Supplement. The specifications will be used as a guideline for developing the EATS if the program is triggered. However, the overall design will be greatly affected by computer software and hardware changes that will occur between the adoption of this Plan and the program trigger date. The on-going experience gained from other trading programs also may lead to improvements in the design of the system. The specifications and related sections of R307-250 detail how a WEB source will register for the EATS and how the source will, through an account representative, establish accounts, transfer allowances, and track unused allowances from a previous year.

Neither the executive secretary nor the TSA will adjudicate any dispute between the parties concerning the authorization of any account representative with regard to any representation, action, inaction, or submission of the account representative.

As an example of how the WEB EATS will generally function, once the WEB Trading Program is triggered, a WEB source will have its allowance allocation determined. At the same time, the WEB source’s account representative will register for the EATS under R307-250-6, and a compliance account will be established under R307-250-8. Each allowance will be assigned a serial number. The allowance serial number will be used by the WEB EATS to track allowance allocations, transfers (R307-250-10), and deductions, and to account for any unused allowances from a previous year (R307-250-11). The serial number also will be assigned to each allowance recorded in a general account, which is an account for allowances that are not held to meet program compliance requirements. Furthermore, the EATS will track tribal allowance set-asides and new source allowance set-asides not yet assigned to either a compliance or general account.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 49 It is important to note that while this plan has provided a design for and an operational understanding of the EATS, the components of the EATS will need to be examined and possibly altered upon each required SIP revision.



### g. Allowance Transfers

(1) Allowance transfers are defined as the conveyance from one account to another account (compliance account or general account) of one or more allowances by whatever means, including but not limited to purchase, trade, or gift in accordance with the procedures established in R307-250-10. This includes the transfer of allowances for the purpose of retirement. Once an allowance is retired, it is no longer available for transfer to or from any account. Allowances may be purchased by any person for the purpose of retirement.

(2) The TSA will have specific recording duties involving transfers. These required procedures will be detailed in the service contract and will include the following

activities.

(a) Recording of Allowance Transfers.

(i) Within five business days of receiving an allowance transfer, except when the transfer does not meet the requirements of R307-250-10, the TSA will record an allowance transfer by moving each allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified by the request, provided that the transfer is correctly submitted and that the transferor

account includes each allowance identified in the transfer.

(ii) Any allowance transfer that is submitted for recording following the allowance transfer deadline and that includes any allowances allocated for a control period prior to or the same as the control period to which the allowance transfer deadline applies will not be recorded until after completion of the compliance account reconciliation.

(iii) Where an allowance transfer submitted for allowance transfer recording fails to meet the requirements of R307-250-10, the TSA will not

record the transfer.

(3) Notification of the Recording of Allowance Transfers. The TSA has specific responsibilities involving the notification of the recording of any transferred allowances, including the failure to record any transfer of allowances. Again, these required procedures will be outlined in the service contract, but include the following.

(a) Within five business days of the recording of an allowance transfer, the TSA will notify the transferor’s and transferee’s account representatives of both accounts, and make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 50 (b) Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that fails to meet the requirements of R307-250-10, the TSA will notify the account representatives of both accounts of the decision not to record the transfer, and the reasons for not recording the transfer.



### h. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year

(1) Background. Unused allowances may be kept for use in future years in accordance with R307-250-11

and there are restrictions on the use of the allowances in accordance with R307-250-11. R307-250-11 prohibits the use after the year 2017 of allowances allocated for the years 2003 – 2017. This provision ensures that actual emissions will be less than the 2018 milestone because only allowances allocated for the year 2018 could be used to show compliance in that year. The provision also maintains flexibility by resetting the baseline to the year 2018 and then allowing sources to once again use extra allowances to show compliance in any future year. This flexibility is important for sources that have variable operations because the source may build up a reserve of unused allowances for use in a high production year.

The Annex explains the benefits of allowing the WEB source to use unused allowances from previous years, including increased flexibility and early reduction stimulus. The risk in allowing the use of allowances carried from a previous year could be an increase in emissions in later years as the unused allowances are withdrawn for compliance.

Because the regional haze SIP is based on reasonable progress requirements related to the remedying or prevention of any future visibility impairment, it is important to assure the use of these allowances will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any reasonable progress goals. The safeguard employed here to mitigate this type of risk is termed, “flow control”, and is described in paragraph (2) below.

(2) Flow Control Provisions.

(a) At the end of each control period, WEB sources may transfer allowances in and out of their compliance account for a period of 60 days to ensure that the account will contain enough allowances to cover sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous year. At the end of the sixty-day transfer period, allowances will be deducted from the compliance account of each WEB sources in an amount equal to the sulfur dioxide emissions of that source during the control period.

(b) After the deductions have been completed, the Tracking System Administrator will perform the following calculations and prepare a report according to paragraph E. 3.k(1)(b) of this Plan.

(i) Determine the total number of allowances remaining in the allowance tracking system that were allocated for the just completed control period and all previous control periods.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 51 (ii) If the number calculated in (i) exceeds 10 percent of the milestone for the next control period, then the flow control procedures in R307-250-11 will be triggered for that next control period. These flow control provisions will discourage the excessive use of allowances that were allocated for an earlier control period without establishing an absolute limit on their use. WEB sources will maintain the option to use allowances allocated for an earlier control period, but will be required to use two

allowances for each ton of SO 2 emissions. Flow Control operates as

follows.

(A) The flow control ratio will be calculated by multiplying 0.1 times the milestone for the next control period, divided by the total number of unused allowances remaining in the system.

(B) To calculate the number of prior-year allowances that can be used without restriction by a source for the next control period, the TSA will multiply the prior-year allowances by the flow controlratio. The resulting number of allowances may be used on a oneto-one ratio to show compliance with the source’s allowance limitation as outlined in paragraph E.3.j of this Plan.

(C) The remaining prior-year allowances may be used on a two-toone ratio to show compliance. Thus, WEB sources will maintain the option to use allowances allocated for an earlier control period, but will be required to use two of those allowances for each ton of

SO 2 emissions.

Example: On March 1, 2010 (the compliance transfer deadline for the 2009 control period) the Tracking System Administrator deducts allowances from the compliance

account for each WEB source to cover 2009 SO 2 emissions from that source. After completing these deductions, the TSA reports the following information:

Total number of allowances still in the system for the years 2003 – 2009 = 30,000 2010 milestone = 200,722

Percent of milestone = 14.94 %

Because the number of allowances not used in previous control periods is greater than 10% of the milestone, flow control procedures are triggered. In the annual report required in paragraph E.3.k of this Plan, the TSA will then calculate the flow control ratio for

2010:

0.1 x 2010 Milestone ÷ prior year allowances = flow control ratio 0.1 x 200,722 ÷ 30,000 = 0.70Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 52 On March 1, 2011 (the compliance transfer deadline for the 2010 control period) the TSA will apply the 2010 flow control ratio before deducting allowances from each WEB source’s compliance account

WEB Source A 2010 Allowances = 1,000 Remaining Prior Year Allowances = 600 2010 Emissions = 1,580

In this example, the TSA would multiply the prior year allowances by 0.70 to determinethe number of prior year allowances that could be used without restriction, at a one-toone ratio. This would equal 420. The remaining prior year allowances would then be used at a 2:1 ratio. 360 allowances would be needed to cover the remaining 180 tons of SO 2 emissions. The TSA would therefore deduct a total of 1,780 allowances (1,000 + 420 +360) to cover 1,580 tons of SO 2 emissions.



### i. Monitoring/Recordkeeping

(1) For WEB sources subject to 40 CFR Part 75, the TSA will use data that has been quality assured and finalized by the EPA. For WEB sources subject to the monitoring protocol in Appendix B of this Plan, the executive secretary will quality assure and finalize the data in accordance with these provisions for submission to the

TSA.

(2) The executive secretary will verify and submit the data to the emissions tracking database as soon as reasonably feasible after annual emissions are reported by the WEB sources. These timelines will be modified, as necessary, according to the monitoring protocols.

(3) Special Reserve Compliance Accounts. The WEB Trading Program requires most WEB sources to install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that meet the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 75. However, there are some emission units that are not physically able to install CEMS and there are also emission units that do not emit enough sulfur dioxide to justify the expense of installing these systems (see R307-250-9(1)(b)). The WEB Trading Program allows these emission units to continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow the WEB source to transfer any allowances that were allocated to that unit for use by another WEB source. The restriction on transferring these allowances is needed to ensure that an emission reduction of sulfur dioxide and the corresponding increase in sulfur dioxide are equal. The allowances associated with emission units that continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology are placed in a special reserve compliance account, while allowances for other emission units are placed in a regular compliance account. Allowances may not be traded out of a special reserve compliance account, even for use by emission units with CEMS at the same WEB source. However,Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 53 the WEB source may transfer allowances into the account as needed to demonstrate compliance with the WEB source's allowance limitation.

R307-250-9(b) allows WEB sources with any of the following emission units to apply to establish a special reserve compliance account:

(a) any smelting operation where all of the emissions from the operation are not ducted to a stack; or

(b) any flare, except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion device at a petroleum refinery; or

(c) any other type of unit without add-on sulfur dioxide control equipment, if the unit belongs to one of the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing.

The emission units described in (a) and (b) cannot physically be monitored using a CEM. The emission units described in (c) do not typically have add-on controls for sulfur dioxide. These units, described in R307-250-9(1)(b), are expected to operate within their floor-level allocation and therefore will not be affected by the market, unless they make a process change and wish to sell allowances on the market. Other sources that are meeting the more rigorous monitoring requirements opf R307-250-9(1)(a) and emit sulfur dioxide above their expected allocation will either need to purchase allowances or install sulfur dioxide controls. Therefore, it is important that all emission units that participate in emission trading have an accurate monitoring methodology that is comparable to other sources in the program to ensure that a ton of reductions is the same regardless of where the reductions originate.

The executive secretary will review the application to monitor under R307-250-9(1)(b).

If the emission units meet the criteria in R307-250-9(1)(b), the executive secretary will determine the portion of the WEB source's allocation that is associated with the emission units that will be monitored under R307-250-9(1)(b) and will require the TSA to record that portion of the WEB source's allocation in the special reserve compliance account. The executive secretary will use the methodology for determining allocations described in paragraph E.3.a of this Plan to determine the portion of the allocation that is associated with the Subsection R307-250-9(1)(b) emission units. The executive secretary will notify the WEB source that the application has either been accepted or rejected, including a notification of the allowances that are to be recorded in the WEB source's regular compliance account and the special reserve compliance account.

If an emission unit that is monitored under R307-250-9(1)(b) is permanently retired, the TSA will transfer the portion of allowances that were associated with that emission unit from the WEB source's special reserve compliance account to the source's compliance account. These allowances will then be available for use or sale by the WEB source. The allowances will be transferred after the compliance deduction has taken place for the last control period that the unit was in operation.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 54 

### j. Compliance, Excess Emissions, and Penalties

When a WEB source exceeds its allowance limitation in R307-250-12, the executive secretary will require the TSA to deduct allowances from the following year’s allocation in an amount equal to three times the WEB source’s emissions of SO 2 in excess of its allowance limitation. This deduction will be made from the WEB source’s compliance account after deductions for compliance are made under R307-250-12. If sufficient allowances do not exist in the compliance account for the next control period to cover this amount, the executive secretary will require the TSA to deduct the required number of allowances, regardless of the control period for which they were allocated, whenever

the allowances are recorded in the account.

Sources may also be liable for each day of vi olation of any other provision of the market trading program.



### k. Periodic Evaluation of the Trading Program

(1) Annual Report.

(a) Beginning one year after compliance with the trading program is required, the executive secretary will obtain from the TSA an annual report that contains the following information:

(i) the level of compliance program-wide;

(ii) a summary of the use and transfer of allowances, both geographically and temporally;

(iii) a source-by-source accounting of allocations compared to emissions;

(iv) a report on the use of unused allowances from a previous year, in

order to determine whether these emissions have or have not contributed to emissions in excess of the cap; and

(v) the total number of WEB sources participating in the trading program and any changes to eligible sources, such as retired sources, or sources

that emit more than 100 tons of SO 2 after the program trigger date.

(b) Within 2 months after the allowance transfer deadline for each control period when compliance with the trading program is required, the TSA will prepare a draft report that lists:

(i) the total number of allowances deducted for the control period,

(ii) the total number of allowances remaining in the Allowance Tracking System allocated for that control period and any earlier control period,Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 55 (iii) a proposed determination that flow control procedures have either been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period, and

(iv) if flow control procedures have been triggered, a draft flow control ratio calculated according to paragraph E.3.h(2) of this Plan.

(c) The executive secretary will evaluate the draft report, and will propose a determination that flow control procedures either have been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period.

(d) The executive secretary will publish a no tice of availability of the draft report in newspapers of general circulation in Utah, and will hold a 30-day public comment period.

(e) After the comment period the executive secretary will make a final determination that the flow control procedures either have been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period. If the flow control procedures have been triggered, the executive secretary will notify all WEB sources in Utah that flow control procedures will be in effect during the next control period.

(2) Five-year Evaluation.

(a) The executive secretary will work cooperatively with other participating states and tribes to conduct an audit of the WEB Trading Program no later than three years following the first full year of the trading program, and at least every five years thereafter. This evaluation does not replace the Plan assessments in 2008, 2013, and 2018. The evaluation will be conducted by an independent third party and include an analysis of:

(i) whether the total actual emissions could exceed the values in Table 7 of this Implementation Plan of the WEB Trading Program even though sources comply with their allowances;

(ii) whether the program achieved the overall emission milestone it was intended to reach;

(iii) the effectiveness of the compliance, enforcement and penalty provisions;

(iv) a discussion of whether states and tribes have enough resources to implement the WEB Trading Program;

(v) whether the trading program resulted in any unexpected beneficial effects, or any unintended detrimental effects;Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 56 (vi) whether the actions taken to reduce sulfur dioxide have led to any unintended increases in other pollutants;

(vii) whether there are any changes needed in emissions monitoring and reporting protocols, or in the administrative procedures for program administration and tracking;

(viii) the effectiveness of the provisions for interstate trading, and whether there are any procedural changes needed to make the interstate nature of the program more effective; and

(ix) the integrity of the emissions and allowance tracking system, including whether the procedures for recording transactions are adequate, whether the procedures are being followed and in a timely manner, whether the information on sources’ emissions are accurately recorded, whether the emissions and allowance tracking system has procedures in place to ensure that the transactions are valid, and whether back-up systems are in place to account for problems with loss of data.

(b) The public will have an opportunity to participate in this trading program

evaluation.

(c) In the event that any audit results in recommendations for program revisions, the State of Utah, in consultation with the WRAP, will make appropriate modifications to this Plan. The State of Utah will revise this Plan if the program is not meeting its emission reduction goals.

(d) The executive secretary will submit a copy of the report to the EPA regional

office.



### l. Retired Source Exemption

R307-250-4(4) outlines the procedure that a WEB source must follow to receive a retired source exemption. The exemption would allow the source to continue to receive an allocation, but would exempt the source from monitoring and recordkeeping requirements that would serve no useful function for a source that has ceased operations. The executive secretary will notify the source of its obligation to apply for a retired source exemption upon the cancellation or relinquishment of a permit.

To receive a retired source exemption, the source must submit a request for the exemption to the executive secretary. The executive secretary will review this request, and within 60 days of receipt of the request will notify the source that the retired source exemption has been granted or has been rejected. If the exemption has been rejected, the notification will contain an explanation of the reasons for rejecting the request.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 57 The TSA will continue to record an allocation to a WEB source that has received a retired source exemption. However, the allowances will be recorded in a general account rather than a compliance account for the source. The TSA will transfer any existing allowances in the retired source's compliance account or special reserve compliance account into the general account for the retired source, and will close the compliance

accounts.

A WEB source that is permanently retired and that does not request a retired source exemption will forfeit all abandoned allowances in that source’s compliance account, as outlined in R307-250-4(4)(e). The forfeited allowances will not be redistributed to other sources, and will be permanently retired from the Allowance Tracking System, as outlined in R307-250-10(3). During the next fi ve-year allowance distribution period the retired source will not receive an allocation, and the allowances that would have been

distributed to that source will be added to the new source set-aside.



### m. Integration into Permits

It is expected that all WEB sources at least initially will be subject to Utah’s Title V permitting requirements. Under R307-415, Utah’s delegated Title V permitting program, the pre- and post-trigger requirements of the market trading program fall under the definition of “applicable requirement,” and will be incorporated into each source’s Title V permit according to the schedules and procedures contained in that rule. R307-250-14 requires that any source that for any reason and at any time is not required to have a permit under R307-415 must obtain a New Source Review permit pursuant to R307-401 et seq. that incorporates the same requirements by submitting a Notice of Intent within 90 days of the program trigger. Both types of permits are enforceable both federally and by citizens pursuant to Utah’s SIP.



### 4. 2013 SIP Revision; Backstop for Beginning of Second Planning

Period

In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), the periodic SIP revision due in 2013 will include the following information:

a. Source specific allocations for all WEB sources in Utah for the year 2018; and

b. Either the provisions of a program designed to achieve reasonable progress for stationary sources of SO 2 beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP revision containing the provisions of such a program no later than December 31, 2016. The program will ensure that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 are achieved for the first planning period, including requirements that cannot be measured until after 2018, such as the determination of compliance with the 2018

milestone.

This 2013 SIP revision will provide certainty to sources regarding their potential liability under the special penalty provisions for the year 2018 outlined in paragraph E.1e of this Plan. The calculation of these allocations is delayed until 2013 to provide certainty aboutSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 58 the number of sources that will qualify as WEB sources at that time; the allocations needed for new sources in the region, and early reductions that will be included in the allocation process. It is difficult to estimate the impact of these factors in 2003 because circumstances may change during the next 10 years.

If the 2018 milestone is not met, the starting point for the next planning period will be the 2018 milestones, not actual emissions in 2018.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 59 

## F. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR MOBILE SOURCES

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

In its June 1996 Report, the GCVTC recommended EPA move forward on new national

vehicle emission and fuel standards to reduce emissions from mobile sources. The GCVTC also recommended other regional and local strategies be considered to manage mobile source emissions. One of the local strategies was to establish emission budgets for those pollutants in urban areas shown to significantly contribute to visibility impairment in any of the 16 GCVTC Class I areas. The budget caps were to be set at the

2005 emission levels.

When EPA finalized the regional haze rule in July 1999, the rule acknowledged the

GCVTC recommendations related to national ve hicle emission and fuel standards. EPA included a status of planned actions on those recommendations as of July 1999 (Preamble to the regional haze rule, 64 FR 35753). EPA noted these new measures were over and above those included in the regional haze rule for mobile sources that simply required a cap on emissions in significantly contributing urban areas at the 2005 level. EPA also indicated that emission reductions resulting from new standards adopted after the regional haze rule was approved would be creditable toward reasonable progress. EPA also committed to work with the states if new national standards impacted the efficacy of regional or local strategies.

After the regional haze rule was finalized, EPA established new standards for on-road vehicle emission and fuel standards (65 FR 6698) as well as standards for diesel vehicles and diesel fuel (66 FR 5002). As a result, current mobile source emission projections developed by WRAP for the GCVTC Transport Region indicate overall mobile source emissions will decline continuously from 2003 through the end of the SIP planning period in 2018, which is more than the level of emission reductions that EPA approved to meet reasonable progress by holding mobile source emissions constant from their 2005 level. In addition, new standards for off-road vehicles were proposed by EPA on April 15, 2003, and are expected to be finalized, which will further reduce overall mobile

source emissions.

At the April 2003 WRAP Board meeting, the WRAP approved a recommendation for EPA to modify the regional haze rule eliminating the current requirements related to mobile source emission significance determination and budgets for urban areas (40 CFR 309(d)(5)), and replacing those requirements with a new requirement focused on tracking mobile source emission reductions resulting from national standards to assure reasonableprogress. This action was based on the finding that emissions of all pollutants from onroad and off-road mobile sources are expected to decline significantly through 2018 except for sulfur dioxide from non-road sources. If EPA adopts new low-sulfur standards

for off-road mobile sources then off-road mobile source sulfur dioxide emissions will also decline continuously through 2018. The WRAP Board deliberations did not defineSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 60 criteria for mobile source significance, leaving the determination of significance under the current rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii)) to the states and tribes.

On July 3, 2003, EPA proposed a direct final rule (68 FR 39842) to amend the mobile sources provision of the Regional Haze Rule consistent with the recommendations of the WRAP. The rule was promulgated on December 22, 2003 (68 FR 71009). The revisions amended 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i) and eliminated the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii) and (iii) for setting mobile sources emissions budgets using the lowest projected level as a planning objective and performance indicator for each area. Instead, the new Section 51.309(d)(5)(i) requires statewide inventories to demonstrate a continuous decline in emissions of each pollutant of concern over the planning period. Should mobile source emission not decline as expected, the State of Utah will review control options for mobile sources and determine if additional controls are needed, consistent with the criteria for reasonable progress. If the State of Utah determines that additional controls are needed, Utah will prepare a revision to the implementation plan.

In addition to the revisions to Section 51.309(d)(5)(i) and the elimination of Sections 51.309(d)(5)(ii) and (iii), a backstop provision as outlined by the WRAP was added. Thenew Section 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B) requires the State of Utah to assess the need for any longterm strategies to address SO 2 from non-road mobile sources by no later than December 31, 2008. States may determine if a SIP revision is necessary to address SO 2 from mobile sources by considering whether the emission reductions anticipated or achieved by any Federal standards in place addressing fuel sulfur content for non-road engines are sufficient to meet reasonable progress. The direct final rule also renumbered the requirement to review other GCVTC mobile source strategies from (d)(5)(iv) to (d)(5)(ii).



### 2. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile

Sources

a. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from

Mobile Sources.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the State of Utah, in collaboration with the WRAP, assembled a comprehensive statewide inventory of mobile source emissions. This emission inventory showed the year with the lowest level of emissions will be at the end of the SIP planning period in 2018 instead of 2005 as anticipated by the GCVTC. The substantial reduction of projected mobile source emissions from 2003 to 2018 is due to the adoption of new on-road vehicle emission and fuel standards by EPA.

The values shown in Table 9 cannot be used for conformity determinations under 40 CFR 51 and 40 CFR 93, Subpart A. Subsection 40 CFR 93.102 states that conformity applies to nonattainment and maintenance areas. The visibility provisions of 40 CFR 51.301 - 309 are not health-based standards resulting in nonattainment designations.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 61 Table 9. Mobile Source Inventory for 2003 and 2018

Utah Emissions by Source Category Sulfur

Dioxide (SOx) Nitroge

n Oxide (NOx) Organic

Carbon

<2.5

Microns (OC) Elemental

Carbon

<2.5

Microns (EC) Other

Fine Mtrls

<2.5

Microns (Soils etc) (OFM) Course

Material (Soils, dust)

>2.5 & <10

Microns (CM) Volatile Organic

Carbon

Gases (VOC)

1996 1.4 79.6 0.6 0.3 1.4 0.1 63.0

2018 w/309 0.1 22.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 - 19.7 Mobile

SourcesOn-Road % Change -93% -72% -83% -67% -79% - -69%

1996 10.2 52.3 1.2 0.6 2.0 0.2 27.4

2018 w/309 17.1 38.8 1.0 0.6 1.8 0.2 20.0 Mobile

SourcesNon-Road % Change 68% -26% -17% -25% -10% 0% -27%

1996 11.6 131.9 1.8 1.1 3.4 0.3 90.4

2018 w/309 17.2 61.0 1.1 0.7 2.1 0.2 39.7 TOTAL

MOBILE

EMISSIONS

IN UTAH % Change 48% -54% -39% -24% -38% -33% -56%



### b. Program to assure continuous decline in mobile source

emissions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the State of Utah commits to monitoring the

emissions from mobile sources to assure a continuous decline in emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(6). If Utah determines that a continuous decline in emissions is not being achieved, additional control measures will be reviewed to determine if they are needed to make reasonable progress. If Utah determines such measures are needed, Utah will submit an implementation plan revision to address the identified control measures.



### c. Backstop provision to address potential increase in nonroad emissions in the event Federal standards are not

finalized.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the State of Utah commits to provide for a SIP revision no later than December 31, 2008, containing long-term strategies necessary to

reduce emission of SO 2 from non-road mobile sources consistent with the goal of reasonable progress. The need for a SIP revision will be determined by a consideration of the emission reductions achieved or anticipated to be achieved by Federal standards should those standards addressing fuel sulfur content for non-raid engines not be in place.



### 3. Other GCVTC Strategies for Mobile Sources

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), the State of Utah has reviewed the other mobile source recommendations contained in the GCVTC report. The results of that review are included in Part J of this implementation plan that addresses all recommendation of the GCVTC report, including mobile source recommendations.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 62 

## G. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR FIRE PROGRAMS

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

In its 1996 final report, the GCVTC recognized that past land management practices, including decades of fire suppression, have led to an increase of accumulated forest fuels. Thus, wildfires are becoming larger in size, unnaturally destructive, and more dangerous and costly to control. Fire is a component of most natural ecosystems in the West and must be a component of processes to meet land management, human health and visibility objectives. The GCVTC recognized that prescrib ed fire and wildfire levels are projected to increase significantly for decades to come, and that programs to minimize emissions and visibility impacts and educate the public should be implemented.

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)) requires documentation that all federal, state and private prescribed fire programs in the state evaluate and address the degree of visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application; that a statewide inventory and emissions tracking system be established for volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, elemental and organic carbon, and fine particle emissions from fire; that any administrative barriers to the use of alternatives to burning be identified and removed where possible; that enhanced smoke management programs considering visibility as well as health and nuisance objectives be included and that they be based on specific criteria; and that annual emission goals for fire be established in cooperation with states, tribes, federal land managers and private entities to minimize emissions increases from

fire to the maximum extent feasible.

The WRAP's effort to document and understand the incidence of fire and its effect on visibility in Class I areas has been extensive and productive. WRAP modeling shows that prescribed fire will continue to affect visibility. See the WRAP TSD Chapter 6 for

details.



### 2. Prescribed Fire Program Evaluation

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the State of Utah has evaluated all federal, state, and private prescribed fire programs in the state, based on the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, and how visibility protection from smoke is addressed in planning and operation. The State of Utah relied upon the WRAP report Assessing Status of Incorporating Smoke Effects into Fire Planning and Operation 35 as a guide for making this evaluation. The State of Utah has also evaluated whether these prescribed fire programs contain the following elements: actions to minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program

35 All WRAP documents cited in Part G are available in the Utah TSD Supplement.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 63 evaluation. A description of the evaluation that was made in accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i) follows.



### a. Wildlands Fire

The Utah Smoke Management Plan (SMP), revised March 23, 2000, provides operating procedures for federal and state agencies that use prescribed fire, wildfire, and wildland fire on federal, state and private wildlands in Utah. The SMP includes the program elements listed in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), with the exception of alternatives to fire. In a letter dated November 8, 1999, the EPA certified the Utah SMP under EPA’s April 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (Policy) . EPA’s Policy also includes the elements that are listed in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i).

In 2001, the Utah SMP requirements were codified through rulemaking and comprise R307-204 of the Utah Administrative Code. R307-204 applies to all persons using prescribed fire or wildland fire on land they own or manage, including federal, state, and private wildlands. The Utah TSD Supplement includes copies of the Utah SMP.

Under R307-204, Land Managers are required to submit pre-burn information including the location of any Class I areas within 15 miles of the burn, a map depicting the potential impact of the smoke from the burn on any Class I areas, a description of fuels and acres to be burned, emission reduction techniques to be applied, and monitoring of smoke effects to be conducted. In addition, Land Managers are required to submit a more detailed burn plan that includes, at a minimum, information on the fire prescription or conditions under which a prescribed fire may be ignited.

Under R307-204, prescribed fires requiring a burn plan cannot be ignited and wildland fire used for resource benefits cannot be managed before the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board (AQB) approves or conditionally approves the burn request. The burn approval requirement provides for the scheduling of burns to reduce impacts on visibility

in Class I areas.

After the burn is completed, the Land Manager is required to submit post-burn information to evaluate the effectiveness of the burn and provide a record of acres treated by the burn. The procedures listed above serve as an evaluation of the degree of visibility impairment from smoke from prescribed fires that are conducted on federal, state, and private wildlands.

Information on the types of management alternatives to fire considered by Land Managers are included in programmatic or long-term management plans. These programmatic plans are developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and are reviewed by the Divisi on of Air Quality (UDAQ) on an individual basis. Typically, the Land Manager does not evaluate alternatives to fire once the decision has been made to use fire and the subsequent burn plan developed.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 64 

### b. Agricultural Fire

The WRAP inventory and a survey 36 conducted by Utah State University (USU) Extension indicate that agricultural burning is a very small portion of total emissions in Utah, and also of agricultural burning in the West. See Table 10 below. The USU survey results are included in the Utah TSD Supplement.

Table 10. Agricultural Burning Emissions Comparison

Agricultural Burning Emissions Comparison

Numbers were obtained from the Emission Inventories Spreadsheets in the

Technical Support Document provided by the WRAP for Section 309 SIPs.

These spreadsheets are available at www.wrapair.org

. (tons per year)

PMC PM 2.5 SO

x NO

x VOC CO

Utah Agricultural Burning 12 212 10 101 216 2,327

Total Ag Burning in WRAP region 1,125 20,901 1,352 10,094 20,310 216,732

*Total Utah emissions from all sources 63,718 85,347 66,796 269,557 172,231 1,685,503

Utah Ag burning as a % of WRAP Ag Total 1.03% 1. 01% 0.77% 1.00% 1.06% 1.07%

Utah Ag burning as a %

of Utah Total Emissions 0.02% 0.25% 0.02% 0.04% 0.13% 0.14%

*Total Utah emissions were obtained from WRAP spreadsheets by summing Utah's county emissions and then adding total emissi ons due to Wild Fire, Ag Burning and Rx

Fire.

Emissions from agricultural burning are less than 0.25% of total Utah emissions and therefore do not result in significant impacts on visibility in the 16 Class I areas or on regional haze in general. Since agricultural burning emissions are minimal and half of them occur far from the Colorado Plateau, agricultural land managers are currently not subject to the Utah Enhanced Smoke Management Plan.

(1) Decline in Agricultural Burning Since 1996. The USU survey makes clear the decline in agricultural burning--a reduction of 48% statewide--between 1996 and 2002, and documents the reasons for the change. Only 31,999 acres were burned in 2002 out of a total of 8.7 million acres harvested. Of the total acres harvested, only about one million acres is cultivated; the majority of land is rangeland. The survey documents three reasons for the decline in agricultural burning: stubble or residue was sold rather than burned, the stubble or residue was mowed or chopped and worked back into the soil, and livestock were used to graze the stubble or residue. One reason for the change in practices is that the drought that began in 1999 has reduced the available forage for

36 Utah State University Extension, in collaboration with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. Agricultural Burning in Utah and the Regional Haze Rule. Logan, Utah. July 2003.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 65 livestock that normally graze native vegetation, thus making straw more valuable as a feed crop. However, the survey concludes that more stubble and residue was being grazed by livestock or tilled into the soil or baled and sold in 2002 than in 1996.

(2) Emission Reduction Techniques. Of Utah's 29 counties, there are seven in which no burning occurred in 1996 or 2002 and two more in which there was no burning in 2002. The USU survey documents count y-by-county the specific Emission Reduction Techniques commonly in use. Emission reduction techniques are common practice in

seventeen of the counties.

(3) Local Government Control Measures. Finally, more than half (16,600) of the acres burned are in Box Elder County in the northwestern corner of Utah, nearly 100 miles from any Class I area. Box Elder County has an ordinance in place to regulate when, where and how much burning can take place. A copy of the ordinance is in the Utah TSD Supplement.

(4) Program Evaluation. The State of Utah has determined that the appropriate local government controls and voluntary em ission reduction techniques are in place and these efforts meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i).



### 3. Emission Inventory and Tracking System

a. Wildlands Inventory

Under R307-204, Land Managers are required to submit an emissions inventory for particulate matter. A tracking system has been established to record the required inventory information. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii) and R307-204, the emissions inventory and tracking system for fire sources has been revised within the State of Utah to include volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, elemental and organic carbon, and fine particulate.

For consistency, the State of Utah will use the emissions tracking system developed by the WRAP as defined by the WRAP Fire Tracking System Policy

. 37 This policy identifies a process for gathering the essential post-burn activity information necessary to consistently calculate emissions for both man-made or anthropogenic and natural sources of fire and uniformly assess fire impact on regional haze. This policy is the basis for creating a fire emissions inventory for visibility purposes within the State of Utah, using an emission calculation mechanism developed by the WRAP. In addition, fire emission inventory updates will be provided in future progress reports as part of the reasonable progress demonstration specified in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). See the Utah SMP in the Utah TSD Supplement for copies of the tracking forms and further information on the emissions inventory and tracking system in the State of Utah.

37 All WRAP documents cited in Part G are available in the Utah TSD Supplement.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 66 

### b. Agricultural Lands Inventory

To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), the State of Utah will work collaboratively with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation and Utah State University Extension to develop and implement an inventory and emissions tracking system for agricultural burning. The survey conducted in 2003 by the Utah State University Extension, in collaboration with the Utah Farm Bureau Federation, will be used as a baseline for future emissions tracking activities. Since agricultural burning has been documented in Subsection 2.b above to be a very small proportion of total emissions in Utah and a very small proportion of agricultural burning in the West, the emission tracking activities will be conducted on a periodic basis to determine if any significant changes have been made since the 2003 survey. Results from the periodic emission tracking activities will be provided in future progress reports to EPA, as part of the reasonable progress demonstration specified in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i).



### 4. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers

During the annual meeting for establishing the Annual Emissions Goal, the UDAQ staffand Land Managers for fire will assess whether administrative barriers to the use of nonburning alternatives exist. If a specific administrative barrier is identified during this annual meeting, UDAQ will investigate how this barrier may be removed, if feasible, and will work collaboratively with the Land Managers to remove the barrier as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii).

An evaluation of the administrative barriers to the use of the non-burning alternatives, if any, will be included in the formal progress report to EPA every five years as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii).

In addition, the State of Utah will use two documents prepared by the WRAP for this effort: (1) Nonburning Alternatives for Vegetation and Fuel Management , and (2) Burning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United States

.



### 5. Enhanced Smoke Management Program

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), all smoke management programs that operate

within Utah are consistent with the WRAP Enhanced Smoke Management Programs for Visibility Policy . This policy calls for programs to be based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impacts. The Enhanced Smoke Management Plan (ESMP) is found in the Utah TSD Supplement.

The following is a list of the elements of the Utah ESMP and the revisions made to the Utah SMP and R307-204 in order to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv).



### a. Actions to Minimize Fire Emissions

Utah’s ESMP focuses on three general approaches that are designed to minimize emissions from prescribed fire and wildland fire use for resource benefits: use ofSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 67 emission reduction techniques, establishing emission goals, and use of existing burn manager qualification programs.



### b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion

Under the Utah ESMP, the Land Managers will focus on improved weather data for more accurate spot weather forecasts, scheduling of prescribed fires by the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board to minimize cumulative effects of smoke from fires on Class I areas, burner qualification and certification programs, use of the latest modeling programs to assist in the evaluation of dispersion conditions, and use of field level data such as maps showing where smoke is likely to settle.



### c. Alternatives to Fire

Under the Utah ESMP, the types of management alternatives used and the acres treated on an annual basis will be tracked using Land Manager databases that are being developed. Land Managers evaluate and will continue to evaluate the use of alternatives to fire in programmatic or long-term management plans, and the ESMP requires Land Managers to provide a summary of the management alternatives that were used in a given

year.



### d. Public Notification of Burning

Under the Utah ESMP, a one-stop information center will be added to the Utah SMP website to provide a list of upcoming projects as a means to notify the public about prescribed fire or wildland fire projects.



### e. Air Quality Monitoring

Under the Utah ESMP, Land Managers will monitor the effects of prescribed fire and wildland fire on visibility in Class I Areas. At a minimum, visual monitoring and documentation of the direction of the smoke plume will be performed. Under R307-204, the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board may direct Land Managers to operate real-time air quality sampling equipment on large fires that are expected to last more than one day, or fires close to Class I areas. Monitoring of smoke impacts on visibility will lead to improved future operations and a better understanding of smoke accumulation problems and solutions. In addition, the Utah ESMP will provide a detailed description of the monitoring equipment that is available and its location within the region.



### f. Surveillance and Enforcement

The Utah ESMP builds upon the relationship that was established between the Land Managers and the UDAQ for the development of the Utah SMP. A good working relationship between the Land Managers and UDAQ can significantly reduce the need for surveillance and enforcement. UDAQ staff conduct site inspections on prescribed fires that are close to Class I areas to verify compliance with the burn plan on an as-needed basis. Reports are generated when site inspections are conducted.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 68 

### g. Program Evaluation

The UDAQ staff and Land Managers will conduct an annual effectiveness review for the Utah ESMP. A formal progress report will be completed every five years as required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii).



### h. Burn Authorization

Under R307-204, since March 2000, Land Managers have been required to submit preburn information including the location of any Class I areas within 15 miles of the burn, a burn plan if requested, a map depicting the potential impact of the smoke from the burn on any Class I areas, and a description of fuels and acres to be burned. Prescribed fire requiring a burn plan cannot be ignited before the executive secretary of the Air Quality Board approves or conditionally approves the burn request. See the Utah SMP in the Utah TSD Supplement for more details on the burn authorization requirements.



### i. Regional Coordination

Coordination of fire projects is imperative to avoid cumulative smoke impacts in Class I areas. The Utah ESMP is designed to provide for information sharing among the Land Managers, UDAQ, and the public within Utah, as well as in neighboring states.



### j. ESMP for Agricultural Burning

The State of Utah has determined that appropriate emission reduction techniques and control measures for agricultural burning are in place in the agricultural community and at the local government level. This satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv).



### 6. Annual Emission Goals

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), efforts will be made within the State of Utah to minimize emission increases in fire, excluding wildfire, to the maximum extent feasible, through the use of annual emission goals, in accordance with the WRAP Annual Emission Goals for Fire Policy . The State of Utah intends to use this policy to quantifythe emission reduction techniques that are being used within the state on a projectspecific basis to reduce the total amount of emissions increases being generated from areas where prescribed fire is being used. The Utah TSD Supplement describes this process in more detail.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 69 

## H. ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS FROM PAVED AND

UNPAVED ROAD DUST

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, in its 1996 report to EPA, 38
believed that dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads are generally near-field transport issues rather than long-range transport issues, especially with respect to larger coarse materials that settle out of the atmosphere before being transported long distances. However, the GCVTC also recommended additional studies would be necessary to verify this assumption since the state of the science the GCVTC relied upon for characterizing the emissions and transport of dusts from roads was limited, and the projected growth of on-road emissions could contribute to regional haze, based on the projected growth of population and vehicle-miles-traveled.

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(7)) requires states to assess the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads on regional haze in the 16 Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau in the first implementation plans due December 2003. The Western Regional Air Partnership analyzed this issue, including efforts to improve methods for estimating road dust emission inventories as applied to regional scale modeling and characterization of the transport and deposition processes. Results of WRAP modeling work have demonstrated road dust is not a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas on the basis of regional transport. Due to this finding, no additional road dust control strategies are needed in the current SIP.



### 2. State of Utah Long-term Strategy for Road Dust Sources

a. Assessment of Paved and Unpaved Road Dust Emissions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), an assessment was made by the WRAP of the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads from transport region states on the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. A complete description of this assessment is provided in Chapter 7 of the WRAP Technical Support Document. The State of Utah, in consultation with the WRAP, will track emissions and perform further assessments of road dust impacts on visibility in the 16 GCVTC Class I areas in the progress updates and status reports, and will submit implementation plan revisions as needed to make reasonable progress in the SIP amendments due in 2008, 2013, and 2018.

38 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page 46.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 70 

### b. Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7) and the results of the assessment of the impact of road dust emissions described above, the State of Utah, in collaboration with other states through the WRAP, determined that road dust emissions are not a significant contributor to regional haze visibility impairment within the Colorado Plateau 16 Class I areas. Based on these findings, no emission management strategies have been identified at this time. The technical and policy foundation for this determination can be found in Chapter

7 of the WRAP TSD.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 71 

## I. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RENEWABLE

ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Public Advisory Committee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recognized the importance of pollution prevention as a way to minimize per capita emissions that contribute to visibility impairment from regional haze. Thus, in 1996, the GCVTC recommended that one of the goals of states in the transport region "should be to achieve annual additions in order that renewable energy will comprise 10% of regional power needs by 2005 and 20% by 2015. Progress towards this goal should be evaluated every five years, in conjunction w ith regular reviews of emissions reductions and progress toward the national visibility goal." 39

Section 51.309 of the Regional Haze Rule outlines the information that must be included in each state’s first Regional Haze Implementation Plan to address visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas covered by the Commission’s Report. By meeting these requirements, Utah can address visibility in all of its Class I areas. Section 51.309(d)(8) of the Regional Haze Rule specifies the air pollution prevention requirements eligible States must meet and outlines the information each State must include in its Regional Haze Implementation Plan to address the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures to reduce the emissions causing regional haze. Table 11 summarizes the information requirements contained in Section 51.309(d)(8).

39 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page 30.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 72 Table 11. Summary of Information Requirement for Pollution Prevention

Citation Information Item Item 1. An initial summary of all air pollution prevention programs currently in place. Item 2. An inventory of all renewable energy capacity and productionin use or planned as of 2002 (expressed in megawatts and megawatthours). Item 3. Total energy generation capacity and production for the state. Item 4. Percent of total energy generation capacity and production that is derived from renewable energy. 309(d)(8)(i)

Item 5. The state’s anticipated contribution toward the 10/20 goals (based on the programs and policies each state relies on to achieve its renewable goals). 309(d)(8)(ii) Item 6. Programs providing incentives to reward efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early compliance with air pollution related requirements. 309(d)(8)(iii) Item 7. Programs to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts. 309(d)(8)(iv) Item 8. An identification of specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to supply power where it is now lacking and where renewable energy is most cost-effective. 309(d)(8)(v) Item 9. Projections of the short- and long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with the renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and air pollution prevention activities. 309(d)(8)(vi) Item 10. A description of the programs relied on to achieve the state’s contribution toward the 10/20 goals and a demonstration of the progress made toward achievement of the renewable energy goals in the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. This description must include documentation of the potential for renewable energy resources, the percentage of renewable energy associated with new power generation projects implemented or planned and the renewable energy generation capacity and production.

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) was established in 1997 as the successor organization to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The WRAP was created by western states and tribes to coordinate and oversee the implementation of recommendations made by the GCVTC and to “identify regional or common air management issues, develop and implement strategies to address these issues, and formulate and advance western regional policy positions on air quality.” The WRAP develops policies, strategies and technical tools through an inclusive stakeholder-based process that includes state air agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), tribes, federal and state land management agencies, local government, industry, utilities, environmental groups, academia and other interested parties.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 73 The Air Pollution Prevention Forum (the Forum) was created in September, 1998 by the WRAP’s Initiatives Oversight Committee (IOC) and charged to “recommend legislative actions, economic incentives and regulatory policies states can adopt to meet the 10/20 renewable energy goal and increase the use of energy efficiency technologies in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport region.” St akeholders and regulators from the State of Utah were actively involved in the work of the Forum.

The objective of the Forum and its 25 members has been to provide the states and tribes in the WRAP region with the policy and analytical framework needed to respond to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8). To accomplish this purpose the Forum’s work plan called for the Forum to:

• Examine barriers restricting the penetration of renewable energy, energy efficient technologies, and adoption of energy effici ent practices in the Transport Region;

• Identify and evaluate economic incentives, legislative actions, and regulatory policies that will increase investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, including actions currently underway in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region; and

• Recommend market-based incentives and public policies that will support increased investment in renewable energy within the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region and improve the efficiency of the region’s energy production

and end-use sectors.

The Forum developed recommendations over a three-year period through a stakeholderbased consensus process supported, in part, by nationally recognized renewable energy and energy efficiency experts, including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The Forum and workgroups held more than 11 meetings and workshops to examine barriers and identify policies that would lead to increased investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region. The Forum also commissioned ICF Consulting Group to analyze the potential emissions reductions, energy cost savings, and secondary environmental and economic benefits of meeting the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission’s 10/20 goal and implementing a suite of cost-effective energy efficiency programs and policies the Forum identified as “best practices” for the region.

Following the findings of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Air Pollution Prevention Forum, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) found that energy efficiency and renewable energy can be effective tools to reduce regional haze and can reduce emissions, improve visibility, reduce energy costs and provide secondary environmental and economic benefits to the region. The WRAP also concluded that implementing both renewable energy and energy efficiency program and policy measures together will yield larger emissions benefits than either energy efficiency or renewable energy measures would alone. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made similar presumptions in promulgating Section 309(d)(8) of the Regional Haze Rule.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 74 The inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the State Implementation Plan and estimated emission reductions and impacts from them does not cause such programs and estimates to become mandatory and/or federally enforceable. These programs are voluntary state and local programs that were never intended to be federally enforceable. 40 The WRAP has explicitly expressed its expectation that these programs will be implemented consistent with local economic, regulatory, and political conditions while protecting cultural resources and values. As such, these programs may be modified, changed, expanded, redirected or eliminated and new programs may be adopted and implemented without seeking approval from the federal government. The projected emission reductions are estimates only. It is expected that these programs and their associated emissions impacts will change over time without requiring a SIP revision. Utah will, as required, report its progress toward meeting the regional 10/20 renewable energy goals in the periodic SIP reviews required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).



### 1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs in Utah

Utah’s pollution prevention programs focus on improving the efficiency of energy usage by end-use consumers and increasing supplies of electrical power generated from renewable sources for Utah customers. Detailed descriptions of them can be found in the Utah TSD Supplement.



### 2. Inventory of Renewable Energy Generation Capacity and

Production in 2002

The State of Utah has based its inventory of existing installed renewable energy generation capacity on publicly available reports published by federal government agencies responsible for gathering energy information and/or licensing power plants. These sources maintain reliable data on larger renewable generating plant capacity and electric energy production. To supplement this information, the Utah Energy Office conducted surveys to estimate the capacity and electric energy production from medium, 25 kW to 10 MW, and small, less than 25 kW, renewable power generation systems installed within Utah that would not have been included in regularly maintained federal energy databases.

The State of Utah generates a substantial amount of power from hydroelectric sources. None of this hydroelectric capacity has been certified to meet the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute criteria that would be necessary for hydroelectric generation to be considered “renewable energy” under the definition endorsed by the Air Pollution

40 The GCVTC goal is 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in 2005 and 20 percent in 2015. With respect to the requirements of Section 309(d)(8), achieving the 10/20 goal is not mandatory or “enforceable.” This section of the rule simply establishes an “enforceable” re quirement for States “to assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVT C with respect to renewa ble energy”. To the extent they are not able meet the goal, States are required to provide an explanation of why the goals

cannot be met. See Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, page 35754, July 1, 1999. Regional Haze Regulations Final Rule.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 75 Prevention Forum of the WRAP. As a consequence no hydroelectric power or capacity has been included in the inventory of existing Utah renewable energy generation. Some existing hydroelectric plants in Utah may be cer tified in the future. If certified, they will be included as contributors toward meeting the regional renewable energy goals in future renewable energy inventories reported in the revisions to the Utah Regional Haze Implementation Plan.

Total renewable power generating capacity in Utah at the end of 2002, excluding all hydroelectric generation, was 42.136 Megawatts. Table12, prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes renewable energy generation capacity installed within Utah by 2002.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 76 Table 12. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Capacity (Megawatts)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002
Utility Hydro 275 275 275 275
Non-Utility Hydro 10.496 10.496 10.496
Hydro Small Survey 0.037 0.046 0.055 0.059
Total Hydroelectric* 285.533 285.542 285.551 285.555
Geo Blundell (EIA) 26.1 26.1 26.1 26.1

Geo Cove Fort 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7

Total Geothermal 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8
Solar/PV Small Survey 0.013 0.016 0.018 0.018
Solar/PV Medium Survey 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.220

Total Solar/PV 0.233 0.236 0.238 0.238
Wind Small Survey 0.134 0.176 0.220 0.240
Wind Medium Survey 0.033 0.258 0.258 0.258

Total Wind 0.167 0.434 0.478 0.498

MSW Landfill Gas 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Wood and Wood Waste na na na na

Other Waste na na na na Total Renewable Capacity 327.333 327.612 327.667 327.691
Total w/o Hydro 41.800 42.070 42.116 42.136
*No Utah hydroelectric sites are currently certified as lo w-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI).

Sources: "Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, a nd 2000"; "Inventory of Nonutility Electric Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, and 2000"; FERC "Hydroelectric Projects U nder Commission License" and "Hydroelectric Projects Exempted from Licensing Requirements," NREL REPiS; Utah Energy Office Small and Large Renewable Plant Surveys.

Table13, prepared by the Utah Energy O ffice, summarizes electric energy production from renewable generation sources in Utah over the past four years. Electric energy production from renewable sources over the last four years averaged 200,995 MWh annually. In 2002, 223,664 MWh of power were generated from renewable sources

located within Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 77 Table 13. Utah Renewable Electric Power Industry Generation (Megawatt-hours)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Utility and Non-Utility Hydro 1,255,142 746,125 500,203 484,357

Hydro Small Survey Generation* 107 133 159 170

Total Hydroelectric** 1,255,249 746,258 500,362 484,527

Total Geothermal 185,926 186,461 185,989 211,565

Solar/PV Small Survey Generation 23 29 32 32

Solar/PV Medium Survey Generation 385 385 385 385

Total Solar/PV 408 414 417 417

Wind Small Survey Generation 235 308 385 420

Wind Medium Survey Generation 58 452 452 452

Total Wind 293 760 837 872

MSW Landfill Gas 8,169 9,110 1,534 10,810

Wood and Wood Waste na na na na

Other Waste na na na na

Total Renewable Generation 1,450,044 943,003 689,139 708,191

Total w/o Hydro 194,796 196,745 188,778 223,664

*All medium survey hydro plants were included in EIA Utility and Non-Utility Data **No Utah hydroelectric sites are currently certified as lo w-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI)

Sources: EIA, Form EIA-759, "Monthly Power Plant Repor t"; Form EIA-867, "Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report"; Form EIA-860B, "Annual Electric Generator Report - Nonutility "; Form EIA-906 Database, "Monthly Utility Power Plant Data" and "Monthly Nonutility Power Plant Data"; and Utah Energy Office Small and Medium Renewable Plant Surveys



### 3. Inventory of Total Utah Capacity and Production in 2002

Total installed generation capacity within Utah in 2002 was 5,485 MW. Nonhydroelectric renewable energy generation capacity represented 0.77 percent of the total installed capacity. Table14, prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes the installed generation capacity in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 78 Table 14. Utah Capacity by Source (Electric Power Annual). (Megawatts)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coal 4,705 4,781 4,781 4,781

Petroleum 54 47 47 47

Natural Gas 320 327 327 327

Petroleum/Natural Gas or Other Gas (Combined) 50 2 2 2
Hydroelectric 286 286 286 286

Other Renewable 42 42 42 42

Total 5,456 5,485 5,485 5,485

% Renewable 5.999% 5.973% 5.974% 5.975%
% Non-Hydro Renewable 0.766% 0.767% 0.768% 0.768%

Sources: "Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, and 2000"; "Inventory of Nonutility Electric Power Plants in the U.S. 1998, 1999, and 2000"; a nd Utah Energy Office Estimates for Hydroelectric and

Other Renewables.



### 4. Percent of Total Energy Generation Capacity and Production Derived from Renewable Energy

Power plants located in Utah produced 36,496,500 MW-h on average over the past four years. In 2002, Utah generators produced 36,640,000 MW-h of electric energy. Renewable power contributed 0.61 percent of this total. Table15, prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes electric energy pr oduction from all generation sources in Utah over the past four years.

Table 15. Utah Net Generation by Source, 1999-2002 (Thousand Megawatt-hours)

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Coal 34,695 34,477 33,678 34,348

Petroleum 31 57 58 31

Natural Gas 668 1,146 1,454 763
Hydroelectric 1,255 746 500 485

Other Renewable 195 197 189 224

Total 36,844 36,623 35,879 36,640

% Renewable 3.94% 2.57% 1.92% 1.93%

% Non-Hydro

Renewable 0.53% 0.54% 0.53% 0.61%

Sources: Form EIA-906 Database, "Monthly Utility Powe r Plant Data" and "Monthly Nonutility Power Plant Data"; and Utah Energy Office Small a nd Medium Renewable Plant Surveys.

Updated: 04/10/03Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 79 

### 5. Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

Utah has relied on the Air Pollution Prevention Forum’s guidance to interpret this provision. The Air Pollution Prevention Forum determined that the proper metric for measuring progress toward the regional goals is the amount of renewable energy Utahns bring on-line through their programs and incentives to serve indigenous loads. The Air Pollution Prevention Forum chose this metric to foster economic efficiency in the development of renewable energy within the region. The choice of this metric allows states to take credit for renewable energy generated anywhere within the interconnected grid so long as that State relies on the renewable energy facility to serve its loads, one of its renewable energy programs supports the development and/or its consumers are paying for the power output. Table 16 prepared by the Utah Energy Office summarizes Utah’s consumption of power from renewable sources compared to all generating sources over the past three years .

Table 16. Utah Consumption of Rene wable Power; 2000-2002 (Gigawatt-hours)

2000 2001 2002 Average

Total Non-Hydro RE Off-Grid/Small-Scale 1.174 1.255 1.290 1.239

Blue Sky 0.673 3.799 7.810 4.094
Other Green Pricing

- - - -

Non-Hydro RE Pcorp 87.533 99.900 112.439 99.957

Non-Hydro RE Non-Pcorp 34.618 33.247 29.681 32.515

Non-Hydro RE Non-Utility 9.110 1.534 10.810 7.151

Total Non-Hydro RE Consumption 133.108 139.734 162.030 144.957

Total Electricty Consumption 23,198.084 23,390.443 23,384.241 23,324.256
% Non-Hydro RE 0.57% 0.60% 0.69% 0.62%

Sources: Utah Small and Medium Renewable Energy Surveys; Form EIA-906 (utility and non-utility) and EIA-826 Databases; Form EIA-759; Form EIA-867; Form EIA- 860B; ScottishPower Environmental Performance Report

2001/2002.



### a. States' Contributions to the Regional Renewable Energy

Generation Goal

Because only five of the nine transport regi on states plan to file state implementation plans under 40 CFR 51.309, it is not possible to allocate shares of the renewable energy generation goals to individual states. Even if an allocation of the goal to individual states were possible, any forecast of program performance would be uncertain. The states submitting implementation plans under Section 309 do not know if the nine-stateSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 80 transport region will achieve the regional goals of 10 percent of electric energy generation from renewable sources by 2003 and 20 percent by 2015.

Although only five states may submit plans under Section 309, efforts by other states in the transport region will contribute to achieving the regional goals. In addition to the efforts expected from the five states pl anning to address regional haze under Section 309, California and Nevada are aggressively pursuing renewable resources.

Nevada has adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring utilities in the state to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2004.

California, representing 48 percent of electricity sales in the nine-state transport region during 2000, recently enacted a more aggressive RPS than its earlier standard. The statutory requirements governing California's expanded RPS are contained in Senate Bill 1078 and Senate Bill 1038, which took effect on January 1, 2003, and are codified in Public Utilities Code (PUC) sections 399.11 through 399.15, and sections 381, 383.5, and

445.

SB 1078 establishes an RPS program that requires retail electricity sellers, such as investor-owned utilities, to increase the renewable content of their electricity deliveries by one percent per year over a baseline level to be determined by the California PUC. Retail sellers must meet a target of 20 percent renewable content in their electricity portfolio by December 31, 2017. SB 1038 revises the structure and funding allocation for the California Energy Commission's Renewable Energy Program, linking payments it makes to new renewable electricity generating facilities to the RPS, with the goal of increasing the amount of renewable generation in California.

The states filing plans under Section 309 will report on regional progress toward the renewable energy goals for the nine-state transport region in their 2008 submittals.



### b. Utah's Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

Utah has relied on the Air Pollution Prevention Forum's guidance to interpret this provision. The Forum determined that the proper metric for measuring progress toward the regional goals is the amount of renewable energy that Utahns bring on line through their programs and incentives to serve indigenous loads. The Forum chose this metric to foster economic efficiency in the development of renewable energy within the region. The choice of this metric allows each state to take credit for renewable energy generated anywhere within the interconnected grid so long as that state relies on the renewable energy facility to serve its loads, one of its renewable energy programs supports the development, and/or its consumers are paying for the power output. Table 15 prepared by the Utah Energy Office summarizes Utah's consumption of power from renewable sources compared to all generating sources over the past three years.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 81 The Forum estimated that approximately 20 GW or 20,000 MW of new renewable energy generating capacity would need to be added to the interconnected grid by 2018 for the region to meet its goals of producing 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2005 and 20% by 2015. Using information from the Energy Information Administration and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), the Utah Energy Office estimates that Utah’s peak summer electricity demand is about 2.8% of the overall WECC peak summer electricity demand. WECC includes all of the states comprising the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region. If Utah consumers were allocated a portion of the 20,000MW required to meet the regional 10/20 goals based on the proportion of peak summer electricity demand they now represent, Utah would need to contribute 560 MW of new renewable generation capacity toward meeting the goals. Utah estimates that it will contribute about 550 MW of new renewable generating capacity through its various programs to meet the regional goals by 2013. At this time, there is not enough information available to reasonably estimate what additional renewable generating capacity Utah will bring on line to serve indigenous loads from 2013 to 2018. The WRAP’s Air Pollution Prevention Forum and Utah both expect wind power production to provide most of the new capacity. In addition to reporting on its progress toward meeting the regional renewable energy goals, Utah will update and revise its current estimate of its contribution to the goals when it makes its 2008

submittal.



### 6. State of Utah Programs to Encourage Early Compliance

a. Western Backstop SO 2 

### Trading Program Early

Reduction Credits.

As further described in Part E.3.a(1)(c) of the stationary source provisions of this plan,

industrial sources of SO 2 subject to the trading program which, upon verification by the State, reduce emissions to levels below their floor amount prior to the program trigger date shall receive additional emission allowances. Such allowances may be used by the source for compliance purposes or may be sold to other parties, hence providing an incentive for sources to go beyond compliance (i.e., their floor) or to achieve early compliance (i.e., reductions prior to the program trigger date).



### b. Western Backstop SO 2 

### Trading Program Renewable Energy Credits.

As further described in Part E.3.a(1)(c) of the stationary source provisions of this plan, allowances shall be provided to the owners of renewable energy facilities installed since October 1, 2000. Such allowances will hold a market value and therefore provide an incentive for power suppliers to invest in renewable energy facilities with zero or very low air pollutant emissions.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 82 

### 7. Summary of Utah Programs to Expand Energy Conservation

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), Table 17 lists programs that are offered in Utah to preserve and expand existing energy conservation efforts. Detailed information about these programs is provided in the Utah TSD Supplement.

Table 17. Programs to Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts

PROGRAM TYPE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS PacifiCorp Integrated Resource Planning – Demand Side Management Utility Integrated Resource Planning UAMPS Integrated Resource Planning – Demand Side Management Low-income Weatherization Program Residential Energy Efficiency Residential Energy Efficiency Program Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Demonstration Program Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Industries of the Future Program

State Buildings Energy Efficiency Program Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency Program Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan Program Schools and Public Buildings Energy Efficiency

Salt Lake Airport Electricity Conservation Program Energy Education in Schools Program Technical Assistance “PowerForward” Program



### 8. Areas Where Power Is Lacking and Renewable Sources Can Supply It

Supplying power from renewable sources where it is now lacking is linked fundamentally to whether or not line extensions are affordable compared to off-grid renewable power applications. Most populated areas of Utah a nd their associated electrical loads are being served from the interconnected transmission and distribution system. There are very limited opportunities to supply power from renewable sources to areas without existing service. Where off-grid power production is appropriate, it probably will be solar generation and will offset on-site diesel genera tion. In areas without electrical service, the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy generation can only be determined within the context of site-specific resource availability, the conversion technology and its capitalcosts, alternative power generation costs, fuel prices and volatility, proximity to gridconnected distribution lines, the cost of line extensions, and other relevant variables. Utilities’ line extension policies may also encourage or dissuade off-grid renewable power development. In general, small loads located more than 3 miles from the transmission and distribution grid have the highest potential for being served cost effectively by on-site renewable power genera tion. A map of Utah’s transmission system is shown below. It can be compared to the maps depicting Utah’s renewable energySection XX - Regional Haze. Page 83 resource distribution (Figures 12 - 15) to get a rudimentary sense for the areas where renewable power might be used to serve loads that do not have power today.

Figure 5. Utah's Transmission and Distribution Network.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 84 

### 9. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention

and EERE Measures

a. Regional Approach to Analyses

The goal of serving 10 percent of “the regional power needs” from renewable generation sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015 is a regional one. The goal was not apportioned to the individual states comprising the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region. Instead, each state has been required to take steps that contribute to achieving an overarching regional outcome. This approach appropriately reflects the nature of the western electricity grid. Load growth in one area of the western electricity system is regularly met by generation additions in another, geographically separated location within the interconnected western system. This fosters economic efficiency and helps to keep electricity rates for retail customers low. While it may be feasible to forecast where load growth is most likely to occur within the western region, it is not realistic to suggest anyone can predict where and when new generation additions from renewable or any other sources might come onto the interconnected system to serve it.

Because they depend largely on how the interconnected electricity system expands and may be developed, the emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with meeting the regional renewable energy goals, preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts and operating pollution prevention programs cannot be rationally tied prospectively to any particular state. Further, these derived benefits are small. The pollution prevention recommendations of the GCVTC were part of an overall strategy for reducing haze causing emissions across the entire geographic region affecting the visibility at Class I areas on the Colorado plateau. All benefits whether environmental or economic were intended to be accrued to the region. Attempting to apportion them to individual states is not reasonable and could be misleading.

The WRAP analyzed the emissions reductions, cost savings, and secondary benefits the Transport Region, all nine states and the tribal lands within them, could expect from implementing the pollution prevention recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The analysis focused on stationary sources, including electricity generation and industrial steam production plants and refineries, smelters and other

facilities that emit SO 2 from processing. The assessment assumed every state would participate to implement the pollution prevention recommendations. Five of the Transport Region states are preparing Regional Haze Implementation Plans under Section 309. Two others, California and Neva da, have adopted aggressive sets of policies including Renewable Portfolio Standards and System Benefits Charges to promote the development of new renewable power plants before 2018. Because these states are all taking steps to achieve the regional 10/20 goal and represent an overwhelming portion of the load within the Transport Region, the assumptions used by WRAP to model emission reductions, cost savings, and secondary benefits should beSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 85 representative. Utah has relied on their analysis 41 to prepare this section of the UtahRegional Haze Implementation Plan. Additional modeling using different or statespecific assumptions seems unlikely to yield any significant, substantive improvement over the projections the WRAP has developed.



### b. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and Secondary Benefits from

Pollution Prevention and EERE Measures

(1) Modeling Method and Assumptions. The Air Pollution Prevention Forum of the WRAP developed a three-phase analytical framework to assess the potential emissions reductions, cost savings and secondary regional economic impacts of implementing the 10/20 goals and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts within the Transport region. These included: (1) assumptions and scenario development, (2) modeling of the electric, steam and process source sectors, and (3) modeling of the secondary regional economic impacts.

The Air Pollution Prevention Forum developed two types of scenarios to examine the emissions reductions, cost savings and secondary regional economic impacts of meeting the 10/20 goals and preserving and expanding en ergy conservation efforts. The first was

a Business-As-Usual scenario that character ized how the future might unfold with the proposed, “backstop,” regional SO 2 trading program but without any policy measures designed to achieve the 10/20 goals or enhance energy efficiency. The second set of scenarios reflected a future with the regional SO 2 trading program and policy drivers designed to meet the 10/20 goals or preserve and expand energy conservation efforts, or both. Assessments of emissions reductions, cost savings and secondary regional economic impacts were estimated by analyzing the differences between the policy scenarios compared to the Business-As-Usual scenario.

(2) Forecast Power Supply Changes. Achieving the 10/20 goals and implementing the Air Pollution Prevention Forum energy efficiency recommendations will stimulate significant renewable energy capacity additions, 20,000 MW by 2018. Figure 6 summarizes the growth in renewable energy capacity spawned by meeting the 10/20 goals. Figure 7 contrasts the generation mix in 2018 between the Business-As-Usual and 10/20 goal policy scenario.

41 Prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership Air Pollution Prevention Forum. Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/20 Goal s and Energy Efficiency Recommendations. Draft Report of October, 2002;Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 86 Figure 6. Forecast Renewable Energy Capacity Additions to Meet 10/20 Goals.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Wind Geothermal Landfill GasCapacity Additions by 2018 (GW)

Figure 7. Generation Mix in 2018: Business-As-Usual and Meeting 10/20 Goals.

Business as Usual Meeting 10/20 Goals

As illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, wind power dominates the growth in new renewableenergy generation capacity and the increased use of renewable energy displaces new gasfired generation. While these results illustrate only the impact from meeting the 10/20 renewable generation goal, similar impacts occur with increased energy efficiency. The key point illustrated by the projected change in the mix of generation capacity from meeting the 10/20 goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts is that new renewable power generation and energy conservation compete against new conventional capacity additions without significantly affecting existing electricity generating sources.

(3) Emissions Reductions. The analyses completed by the WRAP indicate that meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and implementing the recommendations developed by the Air Pollution PreventionForum as “best practices” to preserve and expand energy conservation can serve as cost31%

0%

37% 4% 8% 14% 6%

29%

0%

26% 4% 7% 14% 6% 14%

Coal

O/G Steam & Turbines

Combined Cycles

Existing Renewables

Cogens

Hydro

Nuclear

New RenewablesSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 87 effective air pollution prevention strategies because they provide emissions reductions at modest costs or with some savings.

The fact that renewable energy capacity additions and energy efficiency are likely to compete against generation from new gas-fired facilities affects the projected emissions reductions from meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and implementing more aggressive energy efficiency programs. As illustrated in Figure 8, the WRAP estimates the potential reduction in NO

x emissions from meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts will likely be between 8,000 tons and 14,000 tons, 1 percent to 2 percent relative to Business-As-Usual. In Figure 8, the bar labeled “10/20 goals” represents NO

x emissions reductions from a scenario in which the 10/20 goal is meet, the one marked “EE” represents NO

x emissions reductions from a scenario in which the Air Pollution Prevention Forum energy efficiency recommendations are implemented and the one labeled “EE + 10/20 goals” represents

NO

x emissions reductions from the policy scenario in which both the 10/20 goal and the energy efficiency recommendations have been fully accomplished.

Figure 8. Potential NO

x Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations.

- 2

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

2005 2010 2015 2018Change in NOxEmission Relative to BAU(Thousands Tons of NOX) 10/20 Goals

EE

EE + 10/20 GoalsSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 88 Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and pursuing energy efficiency aggressively

also leads to reductions in CO 2 emissions through the displacement of new fossil fuel generation. As illustrated in Figure 9, CO 2 emissions reductions in 2018 from meeting the 10/20 goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts have been projected to range between 40 million and 55 million metric tones, 10 percent to 14 percent relative to Business-As-Usual.

Figure 9. Potential CO 2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE.

- 10 20 30 40 50 60

2005 2010 2015 2018Change in CO2Emissions Relative to BAU(Million Metric Tonnes of CO2) 10/20 Goals

EE

EE + 10/20 Goals

The WRAP modeling suggests accomplishing the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts do not reduce SO 2 emissions because the regional SO 2 trading program proposed under the Annex is the controlling factor in reducing SO 2 emissions. Since the trading program creates a monetary value for emissions reductions, any potential for emissions reductions is fully offset by increases in

SO 2 emissions from sources affected by the trading program. In other words, SO 2 emissions in 2013 and 2018 will reflect the emissions caps specified by the Annex. However, meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy

conservation efforts could decrease the cost of the SO 2 trading program by as much as $7 million in 2018, about 10 percent of its projected cost, 42 and could displace 1,200 MW to 1,700 MW of new scrubber capacity by 2018.

(4) Visibility Improvements. Projections of visibility improvements for the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau are provided in Table 23 found in Part K. These projections include the combined effects of all measures in this SIP, including air pollution prevention programs. Although emission reductions and visibility improvements from air pollution prevention programs are expected at some level, they were not explicitly calculated because the resolution of

42 Economic Assessment of Implementing the 10/ 20 Goals and Energy Efficiency Recommendations , page 36.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 89 the regional air quality modeling system is not currently sufficient to show any significant visibility changes resulting from the marginal nitrogen oxide emission reductions described above for air pollution prevention programs.

(5) Cost Savings and Secondary Regional Economic Impacts. Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and implementing the Air Pollution Prevention Forum efficiency recommendations could be done for a modest production cost increase or with some financial savings. In particular, preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts could yield net, levelized annual production costs 43 savings of $750 million to $1 billion, 4 percent to 7 percent relative to Business-As-Use. These net savings reflect the cost of implementing the energy efficiency recommendations, the avoided investment costs for transmission and distribution system upgrades, and the reductions in electricity and steam production costs resulting from lower electricity demand. Figure 10 compares the production costs estimated for Business-As-Usual and those resulting from taking recommended steps to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts across the transport region.

Figure 10. Annual Levelized Production Costs for Business-As-Usual and Efficiency.

$16.4 $16.7 $17.4

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20

BAU EE EE + 10/20 GoalsAnnual Levelized Production Costs (Billion2001$)

Accomplishing the10/20 renewable energy goal by itself will increase annual levelized production costs modestly. Electricity pr oduction costs could rise between $300 million and $900 million, 2 percent to 5 percent compared to Business-As-Usual. This increase is largely driven by the capital investments in new renewable energy generation capacity and is offset by production cost savings from displaced fossil fuel generation. Figure 11 compares the annual levelized production costs associated with Business-As-Usual and meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal with and without cost and performance improvements that may occur over the planning period.

43 Annual levelized production costs reflect the capital, fuel and operation and maintenance expenditures associated with the production of electricity and industrial steam levelized over the years 2005 – 2022. These modeled production costs do not include the sunk costs (capital cost or carrying charges) of existing units.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 90 Figure 11. Annual Levelized Production Costs for BAU and Meeting the 10/20

Goal.

$17.7 $18.3
$17.4

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20

BAU 10/20 Goals 10/20 Goals with No Cost & Performance ImprovementsAnnual Levelized Production Costs (Billion 2001$)

Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts has little or no impact on the regional economy. Most of the estimated regional impacts are less than one half of one percent. Table 18 summarizes the annual average secondary region economic impacts from meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and pursuing energy effi ciency improvements more aggressively.

Table 18. Annual Average (2005-2020) Changes for Key Economic Indicators

Employment Gross Regional Product Personal Disposable Income (Persons) (% Change) (Million 2001$) (% Change) (Million 2001$) (% Change)

10/20 Goals 627 0.00% -312 -0.01% 73 0.00% Energy Efficiency (EE) 8,415 0.02% 450 0.02% 776 0.04%
10/20 Goals + EE 4,097 0.01% -58 0.00% 547 0.03%

The regional economic analysis suggests that meeting the 10/20 renewable energy goal and preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts may, on average, lead to an increase in economic activity. Over time, there may be small increases in regional economic activity in the early years and a small decline in later years from air pollution prevention programs. The impacts from 2005 to 2015 are largely the result of investments made in new renewable energy generation that increase labor demand and have secondary impacts on output and income. Following the investment and construction boom, the region could see some decline in employment, gross regional product and personal disposable income.

In general, accomplishing the 10/20 renewable energy goal probably will lead to small increases in employment and personal income along with a small decline in grossSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 91 regional product. Preserving and expanding energy conservation efforts within the Transport Region results in small increases in employment, personal disposable income and gross regional product. This is sparked by new energy conservation investments.



### 10. Utah Programs to Meet the Regional Renewable Energy Goals

a. Summary of Utah Programs

Following the findings of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Air Pollution Prevention Forum, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) found that energy efficiency and renewable energy can be effective tools to reduce regional haze and can reduce emissions, improve visibility, reduce energy costs and provide secondary environmental and economic benefits to the region. The WRAP also concluded that implementing both renewable energy and energy efficiency program and policy measures together will yield larger emissions benefits than either energy efficiency or renewable energy measures al one would yield. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made similar presumptions in promulgating Section 309(d)(8) of the Regional Haze Rule.

The inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the State Implementation Plan and estimated emission reductions and impacts from them does not cause such programs and estimates to become mandatory and/or federally enforceable. These programs are voluntary state and local programs that were never intended to be federally enforceable. 44 The WRAP has explicitly expressed its expectation that these programs will be implemented consistent with local economic, regulatory, and political conditions while protecting cultural resources and values. These programs may be modified, changed, expanded, redirected or eliminated and new programs may be adopted and implemented without seeking approval from the federal government. The projected emission reductions are estimates only. It is expected that these programs and their associated emissions impacts will change over time without requiring a SIP revision. Utah will, as required, report its progress toward meeting the regional 10/20 renewable energy goals in the periodic SIP reviews required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), Table 19 lists the programs that the State of Utah will employ to make its contribution toward meeting the regional renewable energy goals of supplying 10 percent of its power needs from renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015.

44 The GCVTC goal is 10 percent of generation from renewable resources in 2005 and 20 percent in 2015. With respect to the requirements of Section 309(d)(8), achieving the 10/20 goal is not mandatory or “enforceable.” This section of the rule simply establishes an “enforceable” re quirement for states “to assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVT C with respect to renewable energy.” To the extent they are not able meet the goal, states are required to provide an explanation of why the goals cannot be met. See 64 FR 35754, July 1, 1999. Regional Haze Regulations Final Rule.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 92 Table 19. Utah Renewable Energy Program Descriptions

PROGRAM TYPE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS PacifiCorp Integrated Resource Planning – Renewable

Additions Utility Integrated Resource Planning UAMPS Integrated Resource Planning Net Metering Utah Net Metering Program Green Pricing PacifiCorp Blue Sky Marketing Program Financial Incentives Renewable Energy Systems Tax Credit Program Supplemental Environmental Project Program Government Endorsed

Green Power

Purchases Salt Lake City Climate Action Plan Program

Technical Assistance Million Solar Roofs Partnership Program



### b. Potential for Renewable Energy Resources

(1) Renewable energy potential and areas where renewable energy can supply

power. The renewable energy resource potential in Utah and its geographic distribution across the state have been characterized succinctly in the Renewable Energy Atlas of the West

. 45
The Atlas was assembled using best available renewable energy resource maps and data. Data and map sources have been scrupulously documented. The Atlas was used as a source for preparing this section. The existing data and maps are useful to policymakers as a tool for planning. They serve their intended function within the context of the Utah Regional Haze Implementation Plan.

The potential to generate power from renewable energy sources reported in this section is based on the total estimated availability of each type of renewable energy source within Utah. The power production potential for each type of renewable resource is an estimate of what could be developed, not an estimate of what will be developed during any future period of time. The estimates are presented to document that Utah has sufficient renewable energy resource potential to meet the regional goals of generating 10% of its power from renewable resources by 2005 and 20% by 2015. In fact, Utah has the potential to generate much more than would be required to simply meet the regional goals. During the periodic SIP reviews re quired under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), an update of information required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8) will be incorporated into the Utah Regional Haze Implementation Plan revisions.

45 Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development, and GreenInfo Network with support from the Hewlett Foundation and the Energy Foundation. Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A Guide to the Region’s Resource Potential . Available at www.energyatlas.org

.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 93 (a) Solar energy potential and distribution. The potential to generate power from incident solar radiation in Utah is estimated to be 69,000,000 MWh/yr. Most of this potential is located in the southern and southwestern portions of Utah. Assuming that the systems used to transform Utah's solar energy potential to power operate at a 20 percent capacity factor 46 , there is potential to install approximately 39,400 MW of solar power capacity in Utah. Presently, solar power production costs significantly more than other means for generating power. As a consequence, the vast majority of Utah's solar power potential is not economical to develop for utility system electricity sales at this time. Figure 12 characterizes the distribution and relative potential of the solar energy resource in

Utah.

46 "Capacity factor" is a value used to expre ss the average percentage of full power production capacity achieved or expected over a given period of time. For example, a generating facility that operates at an average of 60% of its normal full cap acity over a measured period has a capacity factor of 0.6 for that period. A capacity factor can apply to an individual generating unit or any collection of generating units. In mathematical terms this can be expressed as:

Installed renewable x capacity factor = renewable power production

capacity for the renewable source

Since the availability of many renewable energy s ources varies throughout the day and from day to day, renewable power generators operate at only a por tion of their full power production capacity. The capacity factors used in this section to convert th e potential power production in Utah from each type of renewable energy source to an estimate of the pot ential installed renewable energy capacity for each type of renewable resource were developed by the Utah Energy Office based on their experience and information reported in professional papers. It was done to permit readers to more easily compare Utah's existing installed capacity and power production with the installed capacity and power production that might be possible in the future from Utah's renewable energy resources.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 94 Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 95 (b) Geothermal energy potential and distribution. Utah is one of the few states to have developed geothermal power plants, 39.8 MW of generation capacity. Utah has substantial, additional, undeveloped geothermal power production potential. The potential to generate power from geothermal sources in Utah is estimated to be 9,000,000 MWh/yr. Assuming that systems used to transform Utah's geothermal energy potential to power operate at a 60 percent capacity factor, there is potential to install approximately 1,700 MW of geothermal generating capacity in Utah. Figure 13 characterizes the distribution and relative potential for producing electricity from geothermal sources in Utah.

Figure 13. Geothermal Energy Potential in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 96 (c) Wind energy potential and distribution. Some areas of Utah have excellent wind energy resources that may be suitable for utility-scale development. The potential to generate power from wind in Utah is estimated to be 23,000,000 MWh/yr. Figure 7 roughly characterizes the distribution and relative potential of the wind energy resource in Utah. The most recent map and estimate of the developable wind resource potential in Utah has been prepared by the Utah Energy Office and the National Renewabl e Energy Laboratory, and is included below as Figure 14. Assuming that systems used to transform Utah's wind energy potential to power operate at a 32 percent capacity factor, there is potential to install approximately 8,200 MW of wind generating capacity in Utah. Most of the wind energy potential in Utah comes from areas with lower power production capability. Wind power developers generally want to build only in the windiest areas to assure their competitiveness in electricity markets. As a consequence, only a fraction of Utah's overall wind potential will be attractive for wind development in the near term.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 97 Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah.Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 98 (d) Biomass energy potential and distribution. The potential to generate power from landfill gas and plant and animal wastes in Utah is estimated to be 1,000,000 MWh/yr. Most of this potential is located in the northern and northwestern portions of Utah. Assuming that systems used to transform Utah's biomass energy potential to power operate at an 80% capacity factor, there is potential to install approximately 140 MW of biomass generating capacity in Utah. Figure 15 characterizes the distribution and relative potential for generating power from

biomass in Utah.

Figure 15. Biomass Energy Potential in Utah.

(e) Landfill gas energy potential. The estimated power production potential from landfill gas in Utah that is embedded in the biomass map and energy production projections was derived from the Environmental Protection Agency Landfill Methane Outreach Program database (2001). The detailed landfill gas database for Utah is presented in Table20.Section XX - Regional Haze.Page99Table 20. Utah Land-fill Gas ResourcesProjectID #LandfillID #LMOPTerritoryLandfill NameLandfill CityLandfillCountyLandfillStateWIP (tons)YearLandfillOpenedLandfillClosureYearLandfill OwnerProject StatusProjectDeveloperUtilization Type(Direct-Use vsElectricity)SpecificUtilizationTypeCapacity(MW)LFG Flowto Project(mmscfd)EmissionReductions(MMTCO2E)1619 1542 3 Salt Lake Valley LF Salt Lake Salt Lake UT 6,700,000 1982 2020Salt Lake ValleySolid WasteManagement Council ConstructionDTEEnergy Direct Boiler 0.2421604 1527 3City of Logan SanitaryLandfill Logan Cache UT 1,400,00019612016 City of Logan Potential Electricity1630 1553 3 Beaver County LF Beaver Beaver UT 107,648 1968 2014 Beaver City Unknown Direct1625 1548 3 Blanding LF Blanding San Juan UT 50,780 1956 1995Blanding City Unknown Direct1617 1540 3Bountiful City SanitaryLFWestBountiful Davis UT 2,171,531 1960 2058 City of Bountiful Unknown Direct1598 1521 3 Brigham City LF Brigham Box Elder UT 693,000 19601995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1606 1529 3 Callao LFJuab UT 1970Unknown Direct1621 1544 3 Carbon County LF Price Carbon UT 280,000 1956 1995Carbon County Unknown Direct1626 1549 3 City of Monticello LF Monticello San Juan UT36,000 1960 1995 Max Dalton Unknown Direct1618 1541 3Davis County SolidWaste ManagementSSD LFLayton Davis UT 1,840,150 1959 2022Wasatch EnergySystemsUnknown Direct1642 1565 3 Duchesne County LF Duchesne Duchesne UT 1984 2044Duchesne & WasatchCounties Unknown Direct180128 2074 3 ECDCEast CarbonUTUnknown1622 1545 3 Emery County LF Castledale Emery UT 212,184 19832024 Emery County Unknown Direct1609 1532 3 Eskdale LFMillard UTUnknown Direct1631 1554 3Garfield County/John'sValley LFGarfield Garfield UT 16,200 1992 2044 Garfield County Unknown Direct1632 1555 3GarfieldCounty/Ticaboo LF Garfield Garfield UT 8,852 1993 2014 Garfield County Unknown Direct1610 1533 3 Garrison LF Garrison Millard UT 660 1986 2094 Millard County Unknown Direct1624 1547 3 Grand County LF Moab Grand UT 76,300 1960 2004Grand County Unknown Direct1623 1546 3 Green River LF Green River Emery UT 79,205 1965 1995Green River City Unknown Direct1599 1522 3 Grouse Creek LFGrouseCreek Box Elder UT 1,760 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1633 1556 3Iron County/ ArmstrongPit LFCedar Iron UT 44,962 1993 2014 Iron County Unknown Direct1635 1558 3Kane County/GlendaleLF GlendaleKaneUT6,56019882094Western Kane CountySSD# 1Unknown Direct1634 1557 3 Kane County/Kanab LFKanab Kane UT 39,680 1981 2044Western Kane CountySSD# 1 Unknown Direct1641 1564 3 Manila City LF Manila Daggett UT 32,120 1974 1995Manila City/DaggettCounty Unknown Direct1611 1534 3 Millard County LF Delta Millard UT 67,650 1986 2034 Millard County Unknown Direct1607 1530 3 Nephi LF Nephi Juab UT 18,300 1987 2044 NephiCity Unknown DirectSection XX - Regional Haze.Page100Table 20. (Continued) Utah Land-fill Gas ResourcesProjectID #LandfillID #LMOPTerritoryLandfill NameLandfill CityLandfillCountyLandfillStateWIP (tons)YearLandfillOpenedLandfillClosureYearLandfill OwnerProjectStatusProjectDeveloperUtilizationType (DirectUse vsElectricity)SpecificUtilizationTypeCapacity(MW)LFG Flowto Project(mmscfd)EmissionReductions(MMTCO2E)1645 1568 3North Utah CountySpecial Service DistrictLFUtah UT 1,707,965 1964 1993Unknown Direct1600 1523 3 Park Valley LF Park Valley Box Elder UT 2,400 19801995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1608 1531 3 Partoun LFJuab UTUnknown Direct1614 1537 3 Payson City LF Payson Utah UT 616,029 1950 2014Payson CityCorporation Unknown Direct1646 1569 3 Provo LFProvo Utah UT 1,131,000 1963 1991 City of Provo Unknown Direct1605 1528 3 Rich County LF Laketown Rich UT 40,688 19812030 Rich County Unknown Direct1627 1550 3San Juan County/BluffLFBluff San Juan UT 1,600 1980 1995 San JuanCounty Unknown Direct1628 1551 3San Juan County/HallsCrossing LFHallsCrossing San Juan UT 9,464 1970 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct1629 1552 3San JuanCounty/Mexican Hat LF Mexican Hat San Juan UT 1,600 19801995 San Juan County Unknown Direct1612 1535 3 Sanpete SLF Coop Spring City Sanpete UT 108,396 19892066 Sanpete SLF Coop Unknown Direct1615 1538 3 Santaquin County LFSantaquin Utah UT 262,080 19001995 Santaquin City Unknown Direct1613 1536 3Sevier County/Sage FlatLF GlenwoodSevierUT70,20019932024SevierCounty Unknown Direct1601 1524 3 Snowville LF Snowville Box Elder UT 8,100 1970 Snowville Town Unknown Direct1616 1539 3South Utah CountySSD/Bayview LF Utah Utah UT 1,100,000 1991 2094South Utah ValleySolid Waste District Unknown Direct1637 1560 3Summit County/ThreeMile Canyon LF Wanship Summit UT 358,896 1986 2026 Summit County Unknown Direct1638 1561 3Tooele Army Depot LF#1Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct1639 1562 3Tooele Army Depot LF#2Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct1620 1543 3 Transjordan LF South Jordan Salt Lake UT 8,622,936 1955 2021 Trans-Jordan Cities Unknown Direct1602 1525 3 Tremonton LF Tremonton Box Elder UT 184,600 1970 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct1643 1566 3Uintah County/VernalCity LFVernal Uintah UT 2,773,000 1950 2008Uintah County andVernal City Unknown Direct1636 1559 3Washington CountySolid Waste SSD #1 LF Washington Washington UT 1,292,000 19782067 Washington County Unknown Direct1644 1567 3 Weber County LF Ogden Weber UT 3,500,000 1966 1996Weber County Unknown Direct 0.81640 1563 3 Wendover City LF Wendover Tooele UT 118,260 1970 1996Wendover City Unknown Direct1603 1526 3 Yost LFYost Box Elder UT 800 1980 1995 BoxElder County Unknown Direct101 

## J. OTHER GCVTC RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

The recommendations of the GCVTC are presented throughout the June 1996 final report with varying degrees of specificity. Not all are included in the Regional Haze Rule. However, some of the recommendations were intended as a menu of options, with no expectation that any geographic area would implement all of them. The GCVTC pointed out in its final report that:

“Some of the Commission's recommendations ask the EPA to take specific actions or institute particular programs , in cooperation with the tribes, states and federal agencies as implementing bodies. Other recommendations provide a range of potential policy or strategy options

for consideration by the EPA and implementing entities. As the EPA develops policies and takes actions based on this report, this distinction between "actions" and "options" should be maintained with diligence. That is, recommendations intended as policy options should not become mandated actions or regulatory programs.” [ BOLD emphasis in original.] 47



### 2. Other State of Utah Long-term Strategy Components

a. Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Recommendations.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), Utah has evaluated the “additional” recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to determine if any of these recommendations can be practicably included in this implementation plan. Utah reviewed the GCVTC's 1996 report, Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas , to identify those recommendations that were not incorporated into Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule.



### b. Implementation of Additional Recommendations.

Based on the evaluation made by the State of Utah, no additional measures have been identified as being practicable or necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress. Report to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Public to Satisfy the Requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9) includes a complete list of all additional recommendations and their

status. 48 This report is to be reviewed and updated if necessary in 2008, 2013, and 2018.

47 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page i.

48 Utah Division of Air Quality. Report to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Public to Satisfy the Requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9) . Salt Lake City, Utah. December, 2003.102 

## K. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT

ANTICIPATED FROM LONG-TERM STRATEGY

The Western Regional Air Partnership performed extensive analysis and modeling in order to determine the impact of the regional haze program on visibility at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. This work was performed by several contractors under the direction of various technical and policy forums of the WRAP.

This work began with development of a comprehensive inventory of emissions throughout the region for all categories of sources. In addition, econometric models and new technology profiles were used to project changes in those emissions over time that are expected from implementation of current requirements under the CAA. The WRAP also estimated emission changes resulting from the programs contained in the long-term strategy for regional haze under 40 CFR 51.309.

The emission inventories and projections were used by the WRAP Regional Modeling Center to estimate aerosol concentrations and visibility at each of the 16 Class I areas.WRAP also developed estimates of aerosol concentrations and visibility for the nonGCVTC Class I areas. The WRAP Regional Modeling Center used the Community Multi-scale air Quality (CMAQ) model to estimate aerosol concentrations from the emission inventories and projections.

Emission inventories and modeling results are generated from the technical work conducted by the WRAP, which evaluated the visibility improvements resulting from the application of the regional haze control strategies and programs. The WRAP developed a Technical Support Document (TSD) that contains detailed descriptions of the emissions inventory and projection methods as well as the air quality modeling techniques and results. The following sections contain an overview of the projected changes in emissions and visibility resulting from the implementation of the Regional Haze Rule.



### 1. Effect on Emissions of Long-term Strategy Components

a. Inventory Methodology and Scope

The base WRAP emission inventories used for assessment of visibility included the following pollutants:

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs);

• Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X );

• Carbon Monoxide (CO);

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 );

• Particulate Matter smaller than 10 microns (PM 10 );

• Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ); and

• Ammonia (NH 3 ).103 For visibility modeling, the PM 2.5 emissions inventory was broken into components, or species, representing the key visibility impairing species of interest. This breakdown is necessary since each component has a different effect on visibility. These PM 2.5 species are organic carbon particles (OC), elemental carbon particles (EC), and other fine particles such as soils and dusts. The factors used to allocate PM 2.5 into its components are based on source specific speciation factors. In addition, the coarse material (CM)

fraction of PM 10 (i.e., PM 10 minus PM 2.5 ) was also computed, since coarse particulate matter has a different effect on visibility than fine particulate matter.

The geographic domain for the inventory included the 22 states west of the Mississippi River, and portions of Mexico and Canada. A detailed base year emission inventory was developed for 1996 and included emissions from all of the following categories of

sources:

• Area Sources;

• Stationary Point Sources;

• Mobile Sources (both on-road and non-road);

• Road Dust (from both paved and unpaved road surfaces);

• Fire Emissions (agricultural burning, prescribed fire, and wild fire); and

• Biogenic Sources.

In support of the WRAP Regional Haze air quality modeling efforts after 2003, the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) deve loped annual emissions inventories for the 2002 actual emissions base case, a planning case to represent the 2000-04 regional haze baseline period using averages for key emissions categories, and a 2018 base case of projected emissions determined using factors known at the end of 2005 and 2007 with a final update in 2008. Each of these inventories has undergone a number of revisions throughout the development process with input from UDAQ staff, to arrive at the final versions used for air quality modeling. The WRAP emission inventories developed by the

RMC include:

• The 2002 base case emissions scenario is referred to as “2002 Base Case” or “Base02”. The purpose of the Base02 inventory is to represent the actual conditions in calendar year 2002 with respect to ambient air quality and the associated sources of criteria and particulate matter air pollutants. The Base02 emissions inventories are used to validate the air quality model and associated databases by demonstrating acceptable model performance with respect to replicating observed particulate matter air quality.

• The 2000-04 baseline period planning case emission scenarios are referred to as the “Plan02”series. The purpose of the Plan02 inventories is to represent baseline emission patterns based on average, or “typical”, conditions. This inventory series (cases Plan02 a, b, c) was developed in sequence to diagnose inventory problems and true up the representativeness and accuracy of the emissions for104 planning purposes. This inventory provides a basis for comparison with the future year 2018 projected emissions.

• Three 2018 future-year emission scenarios were developed. These emission inventories are used to represent conditions in 2018 with respect to sources of criteria and particulate matter air pollutants, taking into consideration growth and controls. Modeling results based on this emission inventory are used to define the future year ambient air quality and visibility metrics.

• Base Case (base18b) is a modeling case with estimated emissions growth plus all

controls “on the books” as of December 2004 without BART or the Section 309

SO2 milestone reductions.

• Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case (PRP18) is the modeling case with a refined emissions growth estimate plus all emission controls “on the books” as of May 2007, including presumptive limits or known SO2 BART controls on electric generating units (EGU).

• Final Reasonable Progress Case (FRP18) is a future modeling case with a refined emissions growth estimate plus all emission controls “on the books” as of May 2007, including all BART controls in the WRAP region and limits defined in the Section 309 SO2 milestone “better than BART” program.” The RMC anticipated that FRP 18 modeling will be complete by the third quarter of 2008.

UDAQ staff reviewed the Utah emission i nventory for consistency and provided feedback to WRAP on areas of the inventory that should be improved in the future. UDAQ staff concluded that the 1996 and 2002 i nventories were adequate for regional haze modeling given the uncertainties in a ny emission inventory process. UDAQ staff also reviewed the 2018 emission growth and projection factors used to develop the 2018 inventory and found the projection to be within the range expected from long range economic projections.



### b. Projected Changes in Emissions for Utah and the GCVTC Region

The changes in overall emissions for the State of Utah are summarized in Table21. As shown, emissions of sulfur dioxide are expected to decrease by 33% by 2018 from the 1996 levels. This reduction is due primarily to the long-term strategy for stationary sources of sulfur dioxide described in Part E that will generate a 60% reduction in emissions from stationary sources in the three states that are participating in the Western Regional Milestones and Backstop Trading Program by 2018 from a 1990 baseline. Also, emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) in the state are expected to decline by 36% and 38%, respectively, due to the implementation of new federal engine standards and fuel standards described in Part F and BART controls for

NO

x and PM 2.5 described in Part D. The emission inventories for VOC and coarse particulate matter (CM) are also shown, but it is difficult to compare the 1996 and 2018 inventories for these pollutants due to significant changes in the methodology for estimating emissions from dust, fire, and oil and gas production. Therefore a percent change is not shown for those pollutants.105 Table 21. Summary of the Change in Emissions from 1996-2018 for Utah Sources (Thousands of Tons per Year)(Plan 02d – PRP 18a)

VOC NO

x SO 2 PM 2.5 * CM

1996 172 270 67 85 64

2002 186 227 54 53 98

2018 233 172 45 53 110 % Change (1996- 2018) -36% -33% -38%

*PM 2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts.

Table 22 shows similar emission reductions for the nine-state GCVTC region, except that regionally, sulfur dioxide emissions will be reduced by 53% by 2018 from 1996 levels.

The reason Utah’s reduction of sulfur dioxide is smaller than that in the nine states is that the level of pollution controls on facilities in Utah was generally better than that in

several other states. Emissions of NO

x and PM will decrease in the region by 57% and 31% respectively. The detailed county-level emission inventories for the entire WRAP region are included in the 2003 and 2008 WRAP TSDs.

Table 22. Changes in Emissions from 1996 - 2018 for 9 GCVTC States (Thousands of tons per year)(Plan 02d – PRP 18a)

VOC NO

x SO 2 PM 2.5 * CM
1996 3,325 3,952 1,063 1,197 1,171
2002 2,449 2,241 675 832 1,886
2018 2,760 1,683 503 832 2,104 % Change (1996-2018) -17% -57% -53% -31% 80%

*PM 2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts.106 Figure 16. Class I Areas in the WRAP Region

The emission reductions in Utah occur throughout the state and will therefore benefit all Class I areas outside of Utah that might be impacted by emissions from Utah. Figure 16 shows the Class I areas in the WRAP region. The Class I areas that are not on the Colorado Plateau are indicated by green dots.

Northern Utah. The urban area in northern Utah that may impact Class I areas in Idaho, Nevada and Wyoming will have a significant reduction in NOx emissions from mobile sources as described in Section XX.F of this plan. Mobile (on-road and non-road) NOx emissions in the four main urban counties (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah) are projected to decrease by 42,000 tons/yr or 61% between 2002 and 2018. Mobile sources dominate the NOx emission inventory in Utah’s urban area. Class I areas that have some days when nitrates are a significant contributor to visibility impairment, such as Craters of the Moon National Park, will benefit from the NOx emission reductions during those episodes. As can be seen from the following graphs in Figure 17, the contribution to nitrate on the 20% worst days from sources in Utah decreases substantially between 2002107 and 2018 at Craters of the Moon in Idaho, Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas in Wyoming, and Jarbidge Wilderness Area in Nevada. The contribution to sulfates at the same Class I areas is also shown, but is not significant at any of the sites. Figures 17 through 19 were drawn from the PM Source Apportionment Technique (PSAT) modeling completed by the WRAP in 2006 to attribute the visibility impact at Class I areas to surrounding states. The PSAT modeling was based on the Plan 02c and Base 18b inventories that included growth estimates for all sources, as well as emission reductions that were already in the works such as the Tier 2 emission reductions for vehicles. In the Base 18b inventory, point source emissions for both NOx and SO 2 were projected to increase due to assumptions about growth in Utah.

Later inventories developed by the WRAP (Plan 02d and Prp 18a) include some, but not all, of the stationary source emission reductions due to the SO 2 milestones and BART. These inventories show a significant decrease in stationary source NOx and SO 2 emissions. Table 25 shows the difference between the Plan 02c and 02d inventories, and

the Base 18b and PRP18a inventories.

Table 23. Comparison of WRAP Inventories for Utah.

Scenario Year Point Anthro

Fire Natural Fire Biogenic Area WRAP

Area

O&G OnRoad

Mobile OffRoad

Mobile

Plan02c 2002 91067 321 8942 12597 6147 5316 77381 47100 Nitrogen

Oxides Base18b 2018 97009 229 8942 12597 8462 13456 27364 28426

Plan02d 2002 84237 321 8942 12597 6146 3335 77381 47100 Nitrogen

Oxides Prp18a 2018 79846 229 8942 12597 8462 6297 27364 28426

Plan02c 2002 43373 81 3095 3449 147 0 1893 4919 Sulfur

Oxides Base18b 2018 53587 62 3095 3597 5 0 433 432

Plan02d 2002 42183 81 3095 0 3449 17 1893 4919 Sulfur

Oxides Prp18a 2018 38292 62 3095 0 3597 1 433 432

Because the PSAT modeling does not include all of the stationary source reductions it is

most useful to show the benefits of mobile source reductions and also to show the relative degree of visibility impact at neighboring Class I areas from Utah vs other states.108109 Figure 17. Class I Areas with Contributions from Northern Utah110 • Central and Southern Utah. As described in Section XX.D.6 of this plan, two BART-eligible plants in central Utah are projected to decrease SO 2 emissions by 13,200 tons and NOx emissions by 6,200 tons between 2002 and 2018. Central and Southern Utah are sparsely populated and the inventory is dominated by point sources. The exception is Washington County that is becoming more urban due to the growth of St. George and the inventory is therefore dominated by mobile source emissions. In Washington County, NOx emissions from mobile sources (on-road and non-road) are projected to decrease by 2,300 tons or 57% between

2002 and 2018. These emission reductions will benefit Class I areas in southern Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona that may be affected by emissions from Utah. The nearby Class I areas that would see the greatest benefit are part of the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. As can be seen in Figure 18, Class I areas that are not on the Colorado Plateau show some benefit, but in general the impact from sources in Utah is not significant at La Garita Wilderness Area and Great Sand Dunes National Monument in Colorado, Bandalier National

Monument in New Mexico and Mazatal and Pine Mountain Wilderness Areas in

Arizona.111112 Figure 18. Class I Areas with Impacts from Central Utah.113 • Eastern Utah. Oil and Gas emissions dominate the inventory in eastern Utah and are increasing between 2002 and 2018. Approximately 90% of current emissions from oil and gas development in Uintah and Duchesne Counties in Eastern Utah occur on land that is under the jurisdiction of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Ouray Reservation and is therefore not covered by Utah’s SIP 49 . The Deseret Generation and Transmission, Bonanza Power Plant is also under the jurisdiction of the Ute Indian Tribe. These emissions may affect Class I areas in Northeastern Colorado and the State of Utah expects that this impact will be addressed in the TIP or FIP that is developed for the Ute Tribe.

49 Phase III Oil and Gas Inventory: Final Report, Development of Baseline 2006 Emissions from Oil and Gas Activity in the Uinta Basin , Environ, March 25, 2009, page

39.114 Figure 19. Class I Areas with Impacts from Eastern Utah, including the Ute Indian Reservation that is not covered by Utah’s Regional Haze SIP.



### 2. Projected Changes in Visual Air Quality

a. Applicable Class I Areas

This projection of visibility improvement covers the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(1).



### b. Projected Visibility Improvement

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(2), Table 23 indi cates the projected visibility improvement for each of the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau. The table below compares the monitored 2000-04 baseline visibility conditions in deceviews 50 for the 20% Best and 20% Worst days to the projected visibility improvement resulting from the 2018 Base Case (Base 18b) and 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress (PRP18a) modeling scenarios completed to date.

All 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas show a projected visibility improvement for 2018 using the monthly averages on the 20% Worst average visibility days, and no degradation on the 20% Best average visibility days for each monitoring site. The monthly average method for projecting visibility improvement is an allowed variation of EPA guidance. 51 The monthly averaging method was chosen because it was the shortest averaging period

50 Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. Its method of calculation is defined in 40 CFR 51.301, and is reprinted in Appendix A. Lower deciview numbers indicat e better visibility, while higher numbers indicate more impaired visibility.

51 WRAP Technical Analysis Forum, Technical Recommendations on Monitoring Metrics for Regional Haze Planning, 3/23/2007115 for making the future visibility projections, while avoiding the use of the EPA specific days method that only assesses improvements on the Worst and Best days observed during one year (2002) of the 2000-04 baseline monitoring period.

The visibility improvement observed in the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas is not as significant as might be expected considering the large emission reductions that are projected to occur in the region. This is because the 20% worst days are dominated by wildfire emissions that temporarily overwhelm all other sources in the region. International emissions and dust storms can also be a major factor on the 20% worst days. These emission sources are not controllable and therefore little improvement is seen during these episodes. The metric required by the regional haze rule focuses on the 20% worst days; thus the visibility benefits on those days when fires and other uncontrollable sources are not dominating the inventory are not as apparent. It is perhaps more revealing to focus on the improvements that will occur on the 20% best days when visibility is already excellent. Visibility is expected to improve on the best days at most of the Colorado Plateau Class I areas (including all five Class I areas in Utah). The emission reductions from stationary sources, mobile sources and controllable fire emissions will provide a benefit every day of the year even though that benefit may not be as obvious when fires are burning in the region.116Table 24. Projected Visibility Improvement* Data are from:http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx--> Modeling --> Visibility ProjectionsVisibility Impairment in Deciviews*20% Worst Visibility Days20% Best Visibility DaysProjected Visibility (MonthlyAverage Method)Projected Visibility (MonthlyAverage Method)Colorado Plateau Class I areasunder §309(d)(2)State2000-04 RegionalHaze Rule BaselineMonitoring Data2018 BaseCase(Base18b)2018 PreliminaryReasonableProgress Case(PRP18a)2000-04Regional HazeRule BaselineMonitoringData2018 BaseCase(Base18b)2018 PreliminaryReasonableProgress Case(PRP18a)Grand Canyon National Park AZ11.7 11.4 11.3 2.2 2.2 2.1Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ11.9 11.5 11.4 3 2.9 2.8Petrified Forest National Park AZ13.2 12.9 12.9 5 4.9 4.8Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ15.3 15.1 15.1 5.6 5.6 5.6Black Canyon of the GunnisonNational Park WildernessCO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9Flat Tops WildernessCO9.6 9.2 9 0.7 0.6 0.5Maroon Bells Wilderness CO9.6 9.2 9 0.7 0.6 0.5Mesa Verde National Park CO13 12.8 12.6 4.3 4.1 4Weminuche WildernessCO10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9West Elk WildernessCO9.6 9.2 9 0.7 0.6 0.5San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM10.2 10 9.8 1.5 1.3 1.2Arches National ParkUT11.2 11 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5Bryce Canyon National Park UT11.6 11.3 11.2 2.8 2.7 2.6Canyonlands National Park UT11.2 11 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5Capitol Reef National Park UT10.9 10.6 10.5 4.1 4 3.9Zion National ParkUT13.2 13 13 5 4.7 4.7117 

## L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS

1. Periodic Progress Reports fo r Demonstrating Reasonable Progress.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), the State of Utah shall submit to EPA, as a SIP revision, periodic progress reports for the years 2013 and 2018 for the purpose of demonstrating reasonable progress in Class I ar eas within Utah, and Class I areas outside Utah that are affected by emissions from Ut ah. This demonstration may be conducted by the WRAP, with assistance from Utah, and shall address the elements listed under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) through (G), as summarized below:

• Implementation status of 2003 SIP measures;

• Summary of emissions reductions;

• Assessment of most/least impaired days;

• Analysis of emission reductions by pollutant;

• Significant changes in anthropogenic emissions;

• Assessment of 2003 SIP sufficiency; and

• Assessment of visibility monitoring strategy.



### 2. Actions To Be Taken Concurrent with Periodic Progress Reports.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), the State of Utah shall take one of the following actions based upon information contained in each periodic progress report:

• Provide a negative declaration statement to EPA saying that no implementation plan revision is needed if reasonable progress is being made, in accordance with section L.1 above;

• If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from outside the state, Utah shall notify EPA and the other contributing state(s), and initiate efforts through a regional planning process to address the emissions in question. The State of Utah shall identify in the next progress report the outcome of this regional planning effort, including any additional strategies that were developed to address the plan’s deficiencies;

• If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from another country, Utah shall notify EPA and provide information on the impairment being caused by these emissions; or

• If the state finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from within Utah, Utah shall develop additionalSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 118 strategies to address the plan deficiencies and revise the implementation plan no later than one year from the date that the progress report was due.119 

## M. STATE PLANNING/INTERSTATE COORDINATION

AND TRIBAL IMPLEMENTATION

1. Participation in Regional Planning and Coordination

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the State of Utah has participated in regional planning and coordination with other states in developing its emission reduction strategies under 40 CFR 51.309, related to protecting the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. This participation was through the Western Regi onal Air Partnership (WRAP). Appendix D of this implementation plans illustrates the interstate planning and coordination programs developed by WRAP and the State of Utah’s participation in regional planning and

interstate coordination.



### 2. Applicability to Tribal Lands

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(12), and in accordance with the Tribal Authority Rule, the Tribe whose lands are surrounded by the State of Utah has the option to develop a regional haze TIP for its lands to assure reasonable progress in the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. As such, no provision of this chapter of the implementation plan shall be construed as being applicable to tribal lands.



### 3. Interstate Coordination

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), the State of Utah has participated in regional planning and coordination with other states in developing management strategies for emissions from within the State that would contribute to visibility impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area outside of the State. The 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau are excluded from the consultation provisions of 51.308 given the reasonable progress and visibility improvement requirements under Section 309. Consultation participation was conducted through the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). A more detailed description of the goals, objectives, management, and decision-making structure of the WRAP has been included in Appendix D. The following WRAP forums have provided consultation opportunities between states on emission management strategies:

• Economic Analysis Forum

• Stationary Sources Forum

• Emissions Forum

• Technical Analysis Forum

• Fire Emissions Forum

• Sources In and Near Class I Areas Forum

• Air Pollution Prevention ForumSection XX - Regional Haze. Page 120 • Mobile Sources Forum

• Dust Emissions Forum

Opportunities for consultation on emission strategies provided through the WRAP are documented in more detail in Appendix D.

Changes in visibility impairing emissions from sources in the State of Utah are projected to show significant decreases by 2018 from 1996 levels. Based on WRAP modeling projections and current emission inventories, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) are expected to decrease in Utah 36%, 33% and 38% respectively. These reductions are due primarily to the long-term strategy developed in conjunction with western states through the WRAP. Decreases in SO 2 for stationary sources are described in Part E. Emission reductions of NOx and PM 2.5 are due to the implementation of new federal engine standards and fuel standards described in

Part F and BART controls for NO

x and PM 2.5 described in Part D.

# Utah State Implementation Plan

Section XX

Regional Haze



# APPENDICES

Addressing Regional Haze Visibility Protection for the Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309



## Complete Document Available On-line at http://www.airquality.utah.gov/SIP/Regionalhazesip/ regionalhaze.htm

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................... 1 Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.301, in effect on July 1, 2007................. 1 Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.309, in effect on July 1, 2003................. 4 Definitions for the Fire Program............................................................................. 4

Definitions for the Western Emi ssion Backstop Trading Program ........................ 5

B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS........................................ 9

C. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT.......................................... 18 A. Modeling Scenarios ...................................................................................... 18 Visibility Measurements over the Years............................................................... 19

D. WRAP INTERSTATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES............ 22 A. Overview of Western Regional Air Partnership ........................................... 22

B. WRAP Committees and Forums................................................................... 23 C. Utah’s Participation in the Regional Process................................................ 26Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 1 

## A. DEFINITIONS

Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.301, in effect on July 1, 2007

BART-eligible source means an existing stationary facility as defined in this section.

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant, which is emitted by an existing stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining us eful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.

Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calculated based on the following equation (for the purposes of calculating deciview, the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol measurements):

Deciview haze index = 10 1n

e (b ext /10 Mm -1 ).

Where b ext = the atmospheric light extinction coefficient, expressed in inverse megameters (Mm -1 ).

Existing stationary facility means any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants, including any reconstructed source, which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant. In determining potential to emit, fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, must be counted.

Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers), Kraft pulp mills, Portland cement plants, Primary zinc smelters, Iron and steel mill plants, Primary aluminum ore reduction plants, Primary copper smelters, Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, Petroleum refineries,Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 2 Lime plants, Phosphate rock processing plants, Coke oven batteries, Sulfur recovery plants, Carbon black plants (furnace process), Primary lead smelters, Fuel conversion plants, Sintering plants, Secondary metal production facilities, Chemical process plants, Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels, Taconite ore processing facilities, Glass fiber processing plants, and Charcoal production facilities.

Federal Class I area means any Federal land that is classified or reclassified Class I.

Federal Land Manager means the Secretary of the department with authority over theFederal Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-Campobello International

Park Commission.

Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions which are enforceable by the Administrator under the Clean Air Act including those requirements developed pursuant to parts 60 and 61 of this title, requirements within any applicable State Implementation Plan, and any permit requirements established pursuant to Sec. 52.21 of this chapter or under regulations approved pursuant to part 51, 52, or 60 of this title.

Geographic enhancement for the purpose of §51.308 means a method, procedure, or process to allow a broad regional strategy, such as an emission trading program designed to achieve greater reasonable progress than BART for regional haze, to accommodate BART for reasonably attributable impairment.

Implementation plan means, for the purposes of this part, any State Implementation Plan, Federal Implementation Plan, or Tribal Implementation Plan.

Indian tribe or tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village, which is federally recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians

because of their status as Indians.

In existence means that the owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site construction of the facility or (2) entered into bindingSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 3 agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time.

Least impaired days means the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest amount of visibility impairment.

Major stationary source and major modification mean major stationary source and major modification, respectively, as defined in Sec. 51.166.

Mandatory Class I Federal Area means any area identified in part 81, subpart D of this

title.

Most impaired days means the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amount of visibility impairment.

Natural conditions includes naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration.

Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable. Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary source.

Reasonably attributable means attributable by visual observation or any other technique the State deems appropriate.

Reasonably attributable visibility impairment means visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small number of sources.

Regional haze means visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and

area sources.

State means ``State'' as defined in section 302(d) of the CAA.

Stationary Source means any building, structure, facility, or installation, which emits or may emit any air pollutant.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 4 Visibility impairment means any humanly perceptible change in visibility (light extinction, visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under

natural conditions.



### Applicable Definitions from 40 CFR 51.309, in effect on July 1, 2003

16 Class I areas means the following mandatory Class I Federal areas on the Colorado Plateau: Grand Canyon National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park,

and Zion National Park.

Transport Region State means one of the States that is included within the Transport Region addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming).

Commission Report means the report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission entitled ``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas,'' dated June 10,

1996.

Fire means wildfire, wildland fire (including prescribed natural fire), prescribed fire, and agricultural burning conducted and occurring on Federal, State, and private wildlands and

farmlands.

Milestone means the maximum level of annual regional sulfur dioxide emissions for a given year, assessed annually, through the year 2018, consistent with paragraph (d)(4) of

this section.

Continuous decline in total mobile source emissions means that the projected level of emissions from mobile sources of each listed pollutant in 2008, 2013, and 2018, are less than the projected level of emissions from mobile sources of each listed pollutant for the previous period (i.e., 2008 less than 2003; 2013 less than 2008; and 2018 less than 2013).

Base Year means the year for which data for a source included within the program were used by the WRAP to calculate emissions as a starting point for development of the milstone required by paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section.



### Definitions for the Fire Program

Agricultural Fuel or Agricultural Burning means any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives (i.e., managed to achieve resource benefits) on agricultural land.

Alternatives to Fire means non-burning techniques that replace fire and that are used to achieve a particular land management objective, including but not limited to reduction ofSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 5 fuel loading, manipulation of fuels, enhan cement of wildlife habitat, and ecosystem restructuring.

Emission Reduction Techniques means techniques for controlling emissions from prescribed fires to minimize the amount of emission output per unit or acre burned.

Fire means wildfire, wildland fire( including prescribed natural fire), prescribed fire, and agricultural burning conducted and occurring on federal, state and private wildlands and

farmlands.

Land Manager means any federal, state, local, or private entity that owns, administers, directs, oversees or controls the use of public or private land, including the application of

fire to the land.

Prescribed fire or prescribed burn means any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives, such as achieving resource benefits.

Wildfire means any unwanted, non-structural fire.

Wildland means an area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for pipelines, power lines, roads, railroads, or other transportation or conveyance facilities.

Wildland Fire means all types of fire occurring in the wildland, except for fire on agricultural land.

Wildland Fire Used for Resource Benefits means naturally ignited wildland fire that is managed to accomplish specific prestated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas.



### Definitions for the Western Emi ssion Backstop Trading Program

Account Certificate of Representation means the completed and signed submission required to designate an Account Representative for a Western Emission Backstop (WEB) source or an Account Representative for a general account.

Account Representative means the individual who is authorized through an Account Certificate of Representation to represent ow ners and operators of the WEB source with regard to matters under the WEB Trading Program or, for a general account, who is authorized through an Account Certificate of Representation to represent the persons having an ownership interest in allowances in the general account with regard to matters concerning the general account.

Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Actual Emissions means total annual SO 2 emissions as reported to the executive secretary in accordance with the requirements R307-250-9 or R307-150, as applicable.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 6 Allocate means to assign allowances to a WEB source in accordance with sections XX.E.3.a. through XX.E.3.e of this plan.

Allowance means the limited authorization under the WEB Trading Program to emit one

ton of SO 2 during a specified control period or any control period thereafter subject to the terms and conditions for use of unused allowances as established by R307-250.

Allowance limitation means the tonnage of SO 2 emissions authorized by the allowances available for compliance deduction for a WEB source for a control period under R307- 250-12(1) on the allowance transfer deadline for that control period.

Allowance Tracking System means the system where allowances under the WEB Trading Program are recorded, held, transferred and deducted.

Allowance Tracking System account means an account in the Allowance Tracking System established for purposes of recording, holding, transferring, and deducting

allowances.

Compliance account means an account established in the Allowance Tracking System under R307-250-8(1) for the purpose of recording allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance limitation.

Control period means the period beginning January 1 of each year and ending on December 31 of the same year, inclusive.

Emissions tracking database means the central database where SO 2 emissions for WEB sources as recorded and reported in accordance with R307-250 are tracked to determine compliance with allowance limitations.

Emission Unit means any part of a stationary source, which emits or has the potential to emit any pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

EPA Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Administrator’s duly authorized representative.

Existing source means a stationary source that commenced operation before the Program Trigger Date.

Floor allocation means the amount of allowances set by the executive secretary in accordance with this Plan that represents the minimum necessary for a source to operate under stringent control assumptions.

General account means an account established in the Allowance Tracking System under R307-250-8 for the purpose of recording allowances held by a person that are not to be used to show compliance with an allowance limitation.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 7 Milestone means the maximum level of stationary source regional sulfur dioxide emissions for each year from 2003 to 2018, established according to the procedures in section XX.E.1 of this plan.

New WEB Source means a WEB source that commenced operation on or after the Program Trigger Date.

New Source Set-aside means a pool of allowances that are available for allocation to new WEB sources and modified WEB sources that have increased capacity in accordance with the provisions of Section E.3.c of this plan.

Opt-in means to choose to participate in the WEB Trading Program by following the procedures in R307-250-4(4) and to comply with the terms and conditions of the R307-

250.

Program Trigger Date means the date that the executive secretary determines that the WEB Trading Program has been triggered in accordance with the provisions of section XX.E.1.b of this plan.

Reducible allocation means the amount of allowances set by the executive secretary in accordance with section XX.E.3.a(2)(i) of this plan that represents, for each source, emissions in excess of the floor allocation that shall be reduced over time as the regional

milestone is decreased.

Retired source means a WEB source that has received a retired source exemption as provided in R307-250-4(5).

Special Reserve Compliance Account means an account established in the allowance tracking system under R307-250-8(1) for the purpose of recording allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance limitation for emission units that are monitored for sulfur dioxide in accordance with 250-9(1)(b).

Stationary source means any building, structure, facility or installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Ton means 2000 pounds and, for any control period, any fraction of a ton equaling 1000 pounds or more shall be treated as one ton and any fraction of a ton equaling less than 1000 pounds shall be treated as zero tons.

Tracking System Administrator means the person designated by the executive secretary as the administrator of the WEB Allowance Tracking System and the emission tracking

database.

Tribal Set-Aside means an 2,500-ton SO 2 WEB allowance allocated to tribes on an

annual basis. The tribes will decide how to distribute the allowances in the set-asideSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 8 among tribes in the region. The set-side is intended to ensure equitable treatment for tribal economies and to prevent barriers to economic development.

Trigger refers to the activation of the WEB Trading Program for SO 2 in accordance with section XX.E.1 of this plan.

WEB source means a stationary source that meets the applicability requirements of

R307-250-4

WEB Trading Program refers to the Western Backstop (WEB) Trading Program Rule, R307-250, that shall be triggered as a backstop in accordance the provisions in section XX.E.1 of this plan to ensure that regional SO 2 emissions are reduced.

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) means the collaborative effort of tribal governments, state governments, and federal agencies to promote and monitor implementation of recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission authorized under Section 169B(f) of the Clean Air Act, and to address other common Western regional air quality issues.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 9 

## B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS

Protocol WEB-1 : SO 2 Monitoring of Fuel Gas Combustion Devices

1. Applicability

(a) The provisions of this protocol are applicable to fuel gas combustion devices at petroleum refineries.

(b) Fuel gas combustion devices include boilers, process heaters, and flares used to burn fuel gas generated at a petroleum refinery.

(c) Fuel gas means any gas which is generated and combusted at a petroleum refinery. Fuel gas does not include(1) natural gas, unless combined with other gases generated at a petroleum refinery, (2) gases generated by a catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator, (3) gases generated by fluid coking burners, (4) gases combusted to produce sulfur or sulfuric acid, or (5) process upset gases generated due to startup, shutdown, or

malfunctions.

2. Monitoring Requirements

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section 2, fuel gas combustion devices shall use a continuous fuel gas monitoring system (CFGMS) to determine the total sulfur content (reported as H 2 S) of the fuel gas mixture prior to combustion, and continuous fuel flow meters to determine the amount of fuel gas burned.

(1) Fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored for sulfur content at one location, if monitoring at that location is representative of the sulfur content of the fuel gas being burned in any fuel gas combustion device.

(2) The CFGMS shall meet the performance requirements in Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60, and the following:

(i) Continuously monitor and record the concentration by volume of total sulfur compounds in the gaseous fuel reported as ppmv H 2 S.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 10 (ii) Have the span value set so that the majority of readings fall between 10 and 95% of the range.

(iii) Record negative values of zero drift.

(iv) Calibration drift shall be  5.0% of the span, for initial certification and daily calibration error tests.

(v) Methods 15A, 16, or approved alternatives for total sulfur, are the reference methods for the relative accuracy test. The relative accuracy test shall include a bias test in accordance with paragraph 4.(c) of this section.

(3) All continuous fuel flow meters shall comply with the provisions of section 2.1.5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

(4) The hourly mass SO 2 emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated using the following equation:

E t = ( C S )( Q t )( K )

where: E t = Total SO 2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable fuel gas combustion devices

C

S = Sulfur content of the fuel gas as H 2 S(ppmv) Q t = Fuel gas flow rate to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices (scf/hr)

K

= 1.660 x 10 -7 (lb/scf)/ppmv

(b) In place of a CFGMS in paragraph (a) of this Section 2, fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored

with an SO 2 CEMS, a flow CEMS, and (if necessary) a moisture monitoring system at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is representative of the SO 2 emission rate (lb SO 2 /scf fuel gas burned) of all applicable fuel gas combustion devices. Continuous fuel flow meters shall be used in accordance with paragraph (a), and the fuel gas combustion device monitored by a CEMS shall have separate fuel metering.

(1) Each CEMS for SO 2 , flow, and (if applicable) moisture, shall comply with the operating requirements, performance specifications, and quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part

75.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 11 (2) All continuous fuel flow meters shall comply with the provisions of section 2.1.5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

(3) The SO 2 hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be determined by the ratio of the amount of fuel gas burned by the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device to the total fuel gas burned by all applicable fuel gas combustion devices using the following equation:

E t

= (E

m ) ( Q t )/( Q

m )

where: E t = Total SO 2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable fuel gas combustion devices

E

m = SO 2 emissions in lb/hr from the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device, calculated using Equation F-1 or (if applicable) F-2 in Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 75 Q t = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices Q

m = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device

(c) In place of a CFGMS in paragraph (a) of this section, fuel gas combustion devices having a common source of fuel gas may be monitored with an SO 2 - diluent CEMS at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is representative of the SO 2 emission rate (lb SO 2 /mmBtu) of all applicable fuel gas combustion devices. If this option is selected, the owner or operator shall conduct fuel gas sampling and analysis for gross calorific value (GCV), and shall use continuous fuel flow metering in accordance with paragraph (a) of this Section 2, with separate fuel metering for the CEMS-monitored fuel gas combustion device.

(1) Each SO 2 -diluent CEMS shall comply with the applicable provisions for SO 2 monitors and diluent monitors in 40 CFR Part 75, and shall use the procedures in section 3 of Appendix F to Part 75 for determining SO 2 emission rate (lb/mmBtu) by substituting

the term SO 2 for NO

x in that section, and using a K factor of

1.660 x 10 -7 (lb/scf)/ppmv instead of the NO

x K factor. (2) All continuous fuel flow meters and fuel gas sampling and analysis for GCV to determine the heat input rate from the fuel gas shall comply with the applicable provisions in sections 2.1.5 and 2.3.4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

(3) The SO 2 hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated by using the following equation:Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 12 E t

= (E

m ) ( Q t ) (GCV) /10 6

where:

E t

= Total hourly SO 2 mass emissions in lb/hr from the applicable fuel gas combustion devices

E

m = SO 2 emission rate in lb/mmBtu from the CEMS - monitored fuel gas combustion device Q t = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel gas combustion devices

GCV = Fuel Gross Calorific Value (Btu/scf)

10 6 = Conversion from Btu to

million Btu

(d) Calculate total SO 2 mass emissions for each calendar quarter and each calendar year based on the emissions in lb/hr and Equations F-3 and F-4 in Appendix F to 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix F.

3. Certification/Recertification Requirements

All monitoring systems are subject to initial certification and recertification testing as follows:

(a) The owner or operator shall comply with the initial testing and calibration requirements in Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 and paragraph 2 (a)(2) of this section for each CFGMS.

(b) Each CEMS for SO 2 and flow or each SO 2 -diluent CEMS shall comply with the testing and calibration requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 75, section 75.20 and Appendices A and B, except that each SO 2 -diluent CEMS shall meet the relative accuracy requirements for a NO

x -diluent CEMS (lb/mmBtu).

(c) A continuous fuel flow meter shall comply with the certification and quality-assurance requirements in sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 to Appendix D

to 40 CFR Part 75. 4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Requirements

(a) A quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan shall be developed and implemented for each CEMS for SO 2 and flow or the SO 2 -diluent CEMS in compliance with sections 1, 1.1, and 1.2 of Appendix B to Part 75.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 13 (b) A QA/QC plan shall be developed and implemented for each continuous fuel flow meter and fuel sampling and analysis in compliance with sections 1, 1.1, and 1.3 of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75.

(c) A QA/QC plan shall be developed and implemented for each CFGMS in compliance with sections 1 and 1.1 of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75, and the following:

(i) Perform a daily calibration error test of each CFGMS at two gas concentrations, one low level and one high level. Calculate the calibration error as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the error is greater than 5.0% of the span value.

(ii) In addition to the daily calibration error test, an additional calibration error test shall be performed whenever a daily calibration error test is failed, whenever a monitoring system is returned to service following repairs or corrective actions that may affect the monitor measurements, or after making manual calibration adjustments.

(iii) Perform a linearity test once every operating quarter. Calculate the linearity as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the linearity error is greater than 5.0 percent of a reference value, and the absolute value of the difference between average monitor response values and a reference value is greater than 5.0 ppm.

(iv) Perform a relative accuracy test audit once every four operating quarters. Calculate the relative accuracy as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the relative accuracy is greater than 20.0% of the mean value of the

reference method measurements.

(v) Using the results of the relative accuracy test audit, conduct a bias test in accordance with Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, and calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor if required.

5. Missing Data Procedures

(a) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an SO 2 CEMS or flow CEMS specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the requirements in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 14 (b) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an SO 2 - diluent CEMS specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data on a rate basis (lb/mmBtu) in accordance with the requirements for SO 2 monitors in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.

(c) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by a continuous fuel flow meter or for fuel gas GCV sampling and analysis specified in this section, missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with missing data requirements in Appendix D to 40 CFR Part

75.

(d) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by the CFGMS specified in this section, hourly missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the missing data requirements for units performing hourly gaseous fuel sulfur sampling in section 2.4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 75.

6. Monitoring Plan and Reporting Requirements

In addition to the general monitoring plan and reporting requirements of Section I of this Rule, the owner or operator shall meet the following additional requirements:

(a) The monitoring plan shall identify each group of units that are monitored by a single monitoring system under this Protocol WEB-1, and the plan shall designate an identifier for the group of units for emissions reporting purposes. For purpose of submitting emissions reports, no apportionment of emissions to the individual units within the group is required.

(b) If the provisions of paragraphs 2.(b) or (c) are used, provide documentation and an explanation to demonstrate that the SO 2 emissionrate from the monitored unit is representative of the rate from nonmonitored units.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 15 

### Protocol WEB-2 : Predictive Flow Monitoring Systems for Kilns with Positive

Pressure Fabric Filter

1. Applicability

The provisions of this protocol are applicable to cement kilns or lime kilns that (1) are controlled by a positive pressure fabric filter, (2) combust only a single fuel, no fuel blends, and (3) have operating conditions upstream of the fabric filter that the WEB source documents would reasonably prevent reliable flow monitor measurements. This protocol does not modify the SO 2 monitoring requirements in

section I of this Rule.

2. Monitoring Requirements

(a) A cement or lime kiln with a positive pressure fabric filter shall use a predictive flow monitoring system (PFMS) to determine the hourly kiln exhaust gas flow.

(b) A PFMS is the total equipment necessary for the determination of exhaust gas flow using process or control device operating parameter measurements and a conversion equation, a graph, or computer program to produce results in cubic feet per hour.

(c) The PFMS shall meet the following performance specifications:

(1) Sensors readings and conversion of sensor data to flow in cubic feet per hour must be automated.

(2) The PFMS must allow for the automatic or manual determination of failed monitors. At a minimum a daily determination must be performed.

(3) The PFMS shall have provisions to check the calibration error of each parameter that is individually measured. The owner or operator shall propose appropriate performance specifications in the initial monitoring plan for all parameters used in the PFMS comparable to the degree of accuracy required for other monitoring systems used to comply with this Rule. The parameters shall be tested at two levels, low: 0 to 20% of full scale, and high: 50 to 100% of full scale. The reference value need not be

certified.

(4) The relative accuracy of the PFMS must be < 10.0% of the reference method average value, and include a bias test in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of this section.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 16 3. Certification Requirements

The PFMS is subject to initial certification testing as follows:

(a) Demonstrate the ability of the PFMS to identify automatically or manually a

failed monitor.

(b) Provide evidence of calibration testing of all monitoring equipment. Any tests conducted within the previous 12 months of operation that are consistent with the QA/QC plan for the PFMS are acceptable for initial certification

purposes.

(c) Perform an initial relative accuracy test over the normal range of operating conditions of the kiln. Using the results of the relative accuracy test audit, conduct a bias test in accordance with Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75, and calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor if required.

4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Requirements

A QA/QC plan shall be developed and implemented for each PFMS in compliance with sections 1 and 1.1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 75, and the following:

(a) Perform a daily monitor failure check.

(b) Perform calibration tests of all monitors for each parameter included in the PFMS. At a minimum, calibrations shall be conducted prior to each relative accuracy test audit.

(c) Perform a relative accuracy test audit and accompanying bias test once every four operating quarters. Calculate the relative accuracy (and bias adjustment factor) as described in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75. An out of control period occurs whenever the flow relative accuracy is greater than 10.0% of the mean

value of the reference method.

5. Missing Data

For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by the PFMS specified in this section, hourly missing or invalid data shall be replaced with substitute data in accordance with the flow monitor missing data requirements for non-load based units in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 75.

6. Monitoring Plan Requirements

In addition to the general monitoring plan requirements of Section I of this Rule, the owner or operator shall meet the following additional requirements:Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 17 (a) The monitoring plan shall document the reasons why stack flow measurements upstream of the fabric filter are unlikely to provide reliable flow

measurements over time.

(b) The initial monitoring plan shall explain the relationship of the proposed parameters and stack flow, and discuss other parameters considered and the reasons for not using those parameters in the PFMS. The [state or tribe] may require that the subsequent monitoring plan include additional explanation and documentation for the reasonableness of the proposed PFMS.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 18 

## C. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT

A. Modeling Scenarios

Improvement in visibility for the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas was modeled for two scenarios, the results of which are shown in Tables 22 and 23 in Part K of this

SIP.

Control Strategies

The WRAP modeled two control scenarios for 2018, with and without optimal smoke management. The results are found in the WRAP TSD. Scenario 1 is designed to assess the effect of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recommended control strategies, comparing the 1996 modeled base case to the visibility improvement resulting from the implementation of the following GCVTC strategies: the sulfur dioxide Annex Milestones, the regional pollution prevention program, maintenance of existing base smoke management programs, and accounting for the 2018 base case emissions (known and adopted federal, tribal, state, and local control programs in the contiguous WRAP region). Visibility changes resulting from regional implementation of state pollution prevention programs were modeled by the Regional Modeling Center, as part of the other Section 309 control strategies. Visibility changes resulting from implementation of pollution pr evention programs by individual states or tribes were not modeled. Emissions changes from state or tribal pollution prevention programs, and the resulting visibility changes are small, based on the regional pollution prevention emissions analysis, but are accounted for in the regional modeling.

Scenario 2 is designed to assess the effect of the implementation of enhanced smoke management programs, as reflected in the WRAP Fire Emissions Joint Forum’s 2018 optimal smoke management inventory. Enhanced smoke management programs were recommended by GCVTC and are required in Section 309(d)(6) of the Regional Haze Rule. This scenario uses the emissions inventories from Scenario 1, except the optimal smoke management inventory was substituted for fire emissions. Thus, the results for Scenario 2 are a comparison of visibility changes resulting from emission reductions between the 2018 baseline smoke management and 2018 optimal smoke management fire

inventories.

Modeling results projecting visibility improvement in 2018

Visibility at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau was estimated for the 2018 Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 control strategies. Tables 22 and 23 display the improvements in visibility from the 2018 base case (i.e., without the strategies included in this Plan) to the 2018 controlled case with all the strategies included in this Plan. In all cases, visibility is expected to be better with this Plan than without it.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 19 Visibility estimates for Scenarios 1 and 2 are found in the WRAP Technical Support Document, Chapter 2. A comparison of the visibility estimates for 2018 Scenarios 1 and 2 at the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau for the worst 20% and best 20% days reveals that 2018 Scenario 2 always estimated improved visibility as compared to 2018 Scenario 1. That is, the optimal smoke management programs produces visibility improvements over the base smoke management programs across all 16 Class I areas for both the worst 20% and best 20% days.



### Visibility Measurements over the Years

The National Park Service conducted visibility monitoring at Utah's parks for many years, but the data is not comparable because improvements in equipment have been made. The only modern data available for a lengthy period is from Bryce and Canyonlands since 1988. IMROVE monitors were installed at Zion and Capitol Reef in 2001, though the Zion monitor was moved to a more appropriate site in the spring of 2003. There is too little data available from those monitors to draw any conclusions about trends in visibility or the sources of visibility impairment.

Displayed below are charts summarizing more than a decade of data from IMPROVE monitors at Bryce and Canyonlands National Parks. Projections of visibility for 2018

have been added.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 20 Figure1 Appendix. Contributions to Li ght Extinction at Bryce Canyon

Contributions to Calculated Annual Aerosol Light Extinction Bryce Canyon

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
YearAerosol Light Extinction (1/Mm)

Sulfate Nitrate Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Crustal Material

Sources: 1988-2001 data from IMPROVE Web site.

The only trend apparent in this chart is the small decline in sulfates over the period. Larger amounts of organic and elemental carbon in 1996 and 2001 are probably

attributable to fires.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 21 Figure 2 Appendix. Contributions to Light Extinction at Canyonlands

Contributions to Calculated Annual Aerosol Light Extinction Canyonlands

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

YearAerosol Light Extinction (1/Mm)

Sulfate Nitrate Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Crustal Material

Sources: 1988-2001 data from IMPROVE Web site.

Again, the chart shows a decline in sulfates over the period and a possible small increase

in nitrates.Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 22 

## D. WRAP INTERSTATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING

ACTIVITIES

A. Overview of Western Regional Air Partnership

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is the regional planning organization for the development of regional haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in the west. The following overview was drawn from a fact sheet prepared by the WRAP and can be found at www.wrapair.org.



### What is the Western Regional Air Partnership--the WRAP?

The WRAP is a voluntary organization of wester n states, tribes and federal agencies. It was formed in 1997 as the successor to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, which made over 70 recommendations in June 1996 for improving visibility in 16 national parks and wilderness areas on the Colorado Plateau. The Partnership promotes, supports and monitors the implementation of those recommendations throughout the West. The WRAP is also implementing regional planning processes to improve visibility in all Western Class I areas by providing the technical and policy tools needed by states and tribes to implement the federal regional haze rule. The WRAP is administered jointly by the Western Governors' Association (WGA) and the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC). The WRAP recognizes that residents have the most to gain from improved visibility and that many solutions are best implemented at the local, state, tribal or regional level with public participation.



### Who belongs to the WRAP?

The WRAP is made up of western states, tribes and federal agencies. The states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Ida ho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal board members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. Representatives of other tribes participate on WRAP forums and committees. Participation is encouraged throughout the Western states and tribes. Federal participants are the Department of the Interior (National Park Service and Fish & Wildlife Service,) the Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency.



### How does the WRAP make decisions?

The WRAP’s committees and forums seek consensus among the governmental partners and stakeholders including large and small businesses, academia, environmental groups and other public interest representatives. Scientific findings and policy options are presented to policy makers and the public for appropriate discussion and response. TheSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 23 WRAP is committed to bringing together all those who may contribute to or be affected by poor air quality. Findings and policy options go before the WRAP Board.



### How is the WRAP funded and Who does the work?

The Western Governors’ Association in Denver and the National Tribal Environmental Council in Albuquerque receive funding from the U.S. EPA to administer and support the WRAP and its committees and forums. The majority of the work is done by individuals serving on the WRAP committees and forums, with assistance from staff and outside contractors. Work plans are prepared by the WRAP forums and work products are reviewed by the forums and the co-directors. The WRAP recognizes the great contribution from organizations and indivi duals who contribute often un-reimbursed time

and effort to committee and forum work.



### How can individuals and organizations be involved in the WRAP’s

work and decisions?

The WRAP’s success depends on the participation of concerned and informed participants who devote time and energy to this endeavor. Committees and forums are continuously accepting applications for a number of appointments. See our Web site, www.wrapair.org if you are interested in getting involved.



### B. WRAP Committees and Forums

The following overview of the current WRAP committees and forums was drawn from a fact sheets prepared by the WRAP and can be found at www.wrapair.org

.



### Initiatives Oversight Committee

The Initiatives Oversight Committee is responsible for establishing and overseeing the work of forums that develop policies and programs to improve and protect our air quality.

IOC forums are:

The Air Pollution Prevention Forum (AP2) The Air Pollution Prevention Forum is tasked with developing energy conservation initiatives and programs to expand the use of renewable energy sources. They are working to find, and encourage use of, energy sources that minimize air pollution.

The Economic Analysis Forum (EAF) This Forum assists with studies to evaluate the economic effects of air quality programs being developed by the WRAP to diminish haze throughout the West.

Sources In and Near Class 1 Areas Forum (Class 1) This Forum is looking at pollution sources in and near federally mandated Class 1Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 24 areas to determine their impact on visibility in those areas. The group also will address mitigation and outreach options.

The Mobile Sources Forum (MSF) This Forum addresses the impact of motor vehicles and other mobile sources of pollution. For example, the Forum developed a plan presented to the WRAP, suggesting a revision of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules regarding the production of low-sulfur fuel by small refineries. The Forum also

recommended reforms for off-road emissions and diesel fuel.



### Technical Oversight Committee (TOC)

The Technical Oversight Committee’s tasks are to identify and manage technical issues and to establish and oversee the work of forums and work groups that are developing and analyzing, scientific information related to air quality planning in the West. TOC forums and work groups include:

The Air Quality Modeling Forum (AQMF) This Forum identifies, evaluates the performance of, and applies mathematical air quality models, which can be used to quantify the benefits of various air quality programs for reducing haze in the western United States.

The Ambient Monitoring and Reporting Forum (AMRF) This Forum oversees the collection, use, and reporting of ambient air quality and meteorological monitoring data as needed to further the WRAP’s overall goals.

The Emissions Forum (EF) This Forum is developing the first comprehensive inventory of haze-causing air emissions in the West, including a comprehensive emissions tracking and forecasting system. The forum also monitors trends in actual emissions and forecasts emissions reductions anticipated from current regulations and alternative control strategies.

Attribution of Haze Work Group (AoH) This Work Group is preparing guidance for states and tribes regarding both the types of pollution emitters and the regions in which pollutants contribute to visibility impairment in national parks and other Class 1 wilderness areas. Three state and three tribal representatives form the work group along with all members of the Technical Oversight Committee and one representative each from the Initiatives Oversight Committee, the technical and joint forums and the Tribal Data Development Work Group.

The Tribal Data Development Work Group (TDDWG) This Work Group is identifying gaps in air quality data for tribal lands and working with tribes to collect that data. While some tribes have adequate staff andSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 25 equipment for such an undertaking, many lack the manpower and technical resources to accomplish the work on their own. This Work Group is providing help by both enhancing the tribes’ ability to collect the necessary data and establishing an organized way to standardize and catalogue the information for subsequent analysis.



### Joint Technical and Policy Forums

Joint Forums address both technical issues and policy. Both the TOC and the IOC have oversight.

The Dust Emissions Joint Forum (DEJF) This Forum is seeking first to improve the methods for estimating dust emissions and their inputs in air quality models. The Forum also is examining the extent of dust impacts and strategies to reduce dust emissions.

The Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) The Grand Canyon Commission confirmed that forest fires contribute significantly to visibility problems and that the use of prescribed fire is expected to increase as a forest management tool. The Fire Emissions Joint Forum is developing measures to reduce the effects of prescribed fires and is examining emissions from all kinds of fire, whether ignited naturally or by humans. The Forum is considering public health and nuisance effects as well as visibility impacts. It will develop a tracking system for fire emissions and management techniques to minimize emissions. This Forum is working to coordinate with and gain the full cooperation of federal, tribal, state, and local agencies as well as private landowners, forest managers, and the agriculture community.

The Stationary Sources Joint Forum (SSJF) The Stationary Sources Joint Forum, formerly the Market Trading Forum

, developed the details of an emissions trading program to achieve cost-effective

reductions from industrial sources of sulfur dioxide. The Forum first set emission milestones for sulfur dioxide between now and 2018 and then designed a trading program to be triggered if these emission targets are exceeded. The Forum is now examining other industrial source emissions, such as oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, and is assisting WRAP members in compliance with the stationary source provisions of the regional haze rule.



### Other Committees/Forums

Air Managers’ Committee (AMC) This Committee provides a venue for tribal and state air managers to deal with regulatory issues they face related to the WRAP process. The group, joined by air managers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and federal landSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 26 management agencies, also aids communication linkages between the air managers and the other technical and policy forums.

Communications Committee The Communications Committee facilitates the exchange of information among the WRAP Committees and Forums. The Committee also is charged with developing materials to help the general public understand the WRAP process and participate in its decision-making. A primary means of communication is through

this Web site.

Planning Group This group helps to provide coordination among the IOC, TOC, Air Managers Committee, and Communications Committee, whose co-chairs sit on the group. Among its duties are: administrative oversight and budget coordination as well as coordination to prevent duplication among forums.

*All of the above groups are formally recognized by the WRAP. Additional ad-hoc, taskspecific work groups may be formed within a forum or a committee to work on shorterterm assignments.



### C. Utah’s Participation in the Regional Process

Utah has been an active participant in interstate coordination and planning initiatives to address visibility impairment and regional haze. The following is a brief summary of the committees and forums where Utah was an active member, and in many cases was co-chair of the committee or forum. Further information regarding the hundreds of meetings and conference calls that have occurred over the last 10 years can be found on the WRAP webpage at www.wrapair.org.

1991 – 1996 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission

1997 – 2003 Western Regional Air Partnership, Annex and 2003 SIP Development

1. WRAP Co-Chair 2. Initiatives Oversight Committee Co-Chair 3. Market Trading Forum Co-Chair

4. Pollution Prevention Forum Co-Chair 5. Air Managers Committee member

6. Communications Committee member

7. Dust Emissions Joint Forum member

8. Emissions Forum member

9. Fire Emissions Joint Forum member 10. Air Monitoring and Reporting Forum member 11. Air Quality Modeling Forum memberSection XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 27 12. Utah provided data and reviewed materials prepared by the remaining WRAP forums and workgroups where Utah did not have direct representation and

used those materials in Utah’s 2003 SIP.

2004 – 2008 Western Regional Air Partnership, 2008 SIP Development

1. 309 Coordinating Committee member

2. Air Managers Committee member

3. Implementation Work Group member

4. Stationary Sources Joint Forum member

5. Technical Analysis Forum member

6. Attribution of Haze Work Group member

7. Utah provided data and reviewed materials prepared by the remaining WRAP forums and workgroups where Utah did not have direct representation, and provided significant technical expertise during the development of the Technical Support System and regional modeling.

The State of Utah was a team member in the development of or has used the following WRAP work products in the 2008 update to Utah’s implementation plan:

1. Western Backstop SO 2 trading Program Model Rule 2. Technical Support System Website 3. Regional Modeling Center

4. VIEWS Website

5. Causes of Haze Website 6. IWG work products

7. GIS Landuse Database 8. Ao Phase II Project 9. Enhanced Smoke Management Programs 10. Fire Tracking Systems

11. Oil/Gas Area Source Emissions/Controls

12. EGU NOx Controls 13. Stationary/Area Source Data Pivot Tables 14. Stationary/Area Source Emission Projections

15. General BART Information 16. Identifying BART-Eligible Sources

The extensive collaboration and consultation that has occurred through the WRAP provided a regional view of a regional problem that could not have been addressed by one state independently.

# Certification