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 

ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTATION

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 R307-110-28 ......................................................................................................................P – 1 

Text of SIP Section XX, Regional Haze........................................................................................................P – 2 

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

Public Hearing/Comments

Hearing Statement ..................................................................................................................... H – 1 

Hearing Roster ..................................................................................................................... H – 4 

Affidavit of newspaper notice ..................................................................................................................... H – 5 

Summary of comments and responses .......................................................................................................... H – 6 

Effective Rule 

Final Text of R307-110-28 ......................................................................................................................E – 1 

Final Text of SIP Section XX, Regional Haze...............................................................................................E – 2 

 DAR Bulletin (May 1, 2011) Effective Date Notice..................................................................................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 statewide program. ................................................................................................................................2 

19-2-102. Definitions...................................................................................................................................................2 

19-2-103. Members of board -- Appointment -- Terms -- Organization -- Per 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 authority 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 adoption -- Orders of executive secretary -- Adoption of emission 

control requirements......................................................................................................................................................7 

19-2-109.1. Operating permit required -- Emissions fee -- Implementation. ..............................................................7 

19-2-109.2. Small business assistance program. .........................................................................................................9 

19-2-109.3. Public access to information. ...................................................................................................................9 

19-2-109.5. Private sector air quality permitting professionals certification program.................................................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 emergency -- 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 violation of chapter or rules............................................................................................11 

19-2-115. Violations -- Penalties -- Reimbursement for expenses. ...........................................................................11 

19-2-116. Injunction or other remedies to prevent 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 injunction 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 political subdivisions authorized........................................................................................13 

19-2-122. Cooperative agreements between political subdivisions and department. ................................................13 

19-2-123. Tax relief to encourage investment in facilities -- Sales and use tax exemption.......................................13 

19-2-124. Application for certification of pollution control facility -- Refunds -- Interest. ......................................13 

19-2-125. Action on application for certification. .....................................................................................................14 

19-2-126. Revocation of certification -- Grounds -- Procedure.................................................................................14 

19-2-127. Rules for administering certification for tax relief....................................................................................15 

C – 1
Title 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 health 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 consideration 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 contaminants 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 the 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 presence or location, or to 

assess the condition of, asbestos-containing material or 

suspected asbestos-containing material, 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 Standard for Asbestos, that 

hand pressure can crumble, pulverize, 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 installed 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 elimination 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, elimination, or reduction of or 

redesign to eliminate or reduce 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, septic tanks, or other facilities 

for human waste, nor any property installed, constructed, or 

used for the moving of sewage to the collection facilities of 

a public or quasi-public sewerage system. 

C – 2
 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 director 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, adjust 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 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 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 salary, 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 reports 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 and maintenance program for 

diesel-powered motor vehicles; 

 (f) implementing an operating 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 maintenance programs after 

obtaining agreement from the counties that would be 

affected by the requirements; 

C – 3
 (h) with the approval of the governor, 

implementing in air quality nonattainment areas employerbased trip reduction programs applicable to businesses 

having more than 100 employees 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 the 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, Subchapter 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, enforce 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 operational 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 causes, 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 parts 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, contract, 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 federal 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 source 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 practice, certification, and 

clearance air sampling requirements for persons who: 

 (i) contract for hire to conduct demolition, 

renovation, salvage, encapsulation 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 Hazard 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, abatement project designers, 

C – 4
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 certification 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 certification 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 installed or is operating monitoring 

equipment that is equivalent to equipment 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 identified 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 Conservation Act, determines 

annually on or before July 1 is at least as effective 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 include motor vehicles that 

are: 

 (i) held for lease or rental 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 emergency 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 demonstrating 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 the national ambient 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). 

C – 5
 (3) (a) After evaluation of reasonably available 

pollution control strategies, and as part of a state 

implementation plan demonstrating 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 provisions of this section; 

 (b) definitions of fleet owners or operators; 

 (c) definitions of vehicles exempted from this 

section by rule; 

 (d) certification requirements 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 Clean Air Act may be more 

stringent than the corresponding 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 environmental 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 the 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 existing air pollution resources of 

the state; 

 (b) advise, consult, and cooperate with other 

agencies of the state, the federal 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, participate in, or conduct studies, 

investigations, research, and demonstrations 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 inventories 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, extension, 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, specifications, 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 construction, 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 

C – 6
 (k) represent the state with the specific 

concurrence of the executive director in all matters 

pertaining to interstate air pollution, 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 reasonably 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 discharged, 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 construction, modification, installation, 

or establishment of the air contaminant source or indirect source, 

the submission of plans, specifications, and other information as he 

finds necessary to determine whether the proposed construction, 

modification, installation, or establishment 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 secretary 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 after the receipt of plans, 

specifications, or other information required under this subsection, 

the executive secretary determines that the proposed construction, 

installation, or establishment or any part of it will not be in accord 

with the requirements of this chapter 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 information, he shall issue an order 

prohibiting the construction, installation, 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 law judge as provided by Section 

19-1-301. Following the hearing and 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, shall 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 least twice in any newspaper 

of general circulation in the area affected; and 

 (B) published, in accordance 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. 

C – 7
 (d) "Program" means the air pollution operating 

permit program established under 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 secretary under procedures the 

board establishes by rule. 

 (b) A person is not required to submit an 

operating permit application 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 the 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 conditions of issued operating 

permits to incorporate applicable 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 required to obtain a permit. The 

emissions fee established under this 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 Section 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 pay 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, plus interest on the fee computed 

at 12% annually; or 

 (b) revoke the operating permit. 

 (8) The owner or operator 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, Administrative 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 section 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 and administering the program 

and the small business assistance 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 the 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. 

C – 8
 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 conforms 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 members expire, the department 

shall appoint each new member or reappointed member to a 

four-year term. 

 (b) Notwithstanding the requirements of 

Subsection (a), the department shall, at the time of 

appointment or reappointment, adjust the length of terms to 

ensure that the terms of panel members are staggered so 

that approximately half of the 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 and 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, including consultants and employees 

of companies that may seek air quality permits from the 

division. Any program established under this section shall 

include: 

 (a) a training program established and operated 

by the department, which describes 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 a 

C – 9
notice of intent or operating permit application under this 

chapter. 

 (4) Any program under this section shall provide 

for revocation of any certification 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 with department application 

requirements; or 

 (c) prepared any air quality 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 the 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 emission 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 board for a variance from its 

rules. 

 (b) The board may grant the requested variance 

following an announced public meeting, if it finds, after 

considering the endangerment to human health and safety 

and other relevant factors, that compliance with the rules 

from which variance is sought would produce serious 

hardship without equal or greater benefits to the public. 

 (2) A variance may not be granted under this 

section until the board has considered 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 requirements of Subsection (1) and 

for time periods and under conditions 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, abatement, 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 required 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 expeditious 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. 

C – 10
 (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 receipt of an application 

for renewal, the board shall give public notice of the 

application as required 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 heating 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 States 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 violates 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 for violations described in 

15 U.S.C.A. 2647, Toxic Substances Control Act, 

Subchapter II - Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response, 

may not exceed the amounts specified 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 violates 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, established or organized for any 

purpose, and includes a corporation, company, association, 

firm, partnership, joint stock company, foundation, 

C – 11
institution, trust, society, union, or any other association of 

persons. 

 (iii) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury 

which involves a substantial risk 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 with criminal negligence: 

 (A) releases into the ambient air any hazardous 

air pollutant; and 

 (B) places another person 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 that the person is placing 

another person in imminent danger of death or serious 

bodily injury. 

 (d) If a person is an organization, it shall, upon 

conviction of violating Subsection (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 acted 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 attributed 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 affirmative 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 defense 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 federal 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 making 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 any 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 welfare, 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 represented 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 executive 

C – 12
secretary, 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 chapter is prima facie evidence 

of contempt which is punishable 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, riot, or other 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 other 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 taxes 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, constructed, 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 in 

C – 13
Subsections 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 certified 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 prescribed 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 reduction served or to be served by 

the facility. 

 (b) The board may require any further 

information it finds necessary 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, control, 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 notice 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 date notice of revocation was 

received by the holder. 

 (3) As soon as a revocation under this section is 

final, the board shall notify the State Tax Commission of 

the revocation. 

C – 14
 (4) (a) If the certification of a pollution control 

facility is revoked, all prior tax 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 all other matters pertaining to 

the board in administering certification for tax relief on 

pollution control facilities. 

C – 15
Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act 

Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 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 Rulemaking - 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 Rules created -- Appointment of director. ........................................................ 5

63G-3-402. Division of Administrative Rules -- Duties generally. ................................................................................. 6

63G-3-403. Repeal and reenactment of Utah Administrative Code. ............................................................................... 6

Part 5. Legislative Oversight. ............................................................................................................................................... 7

63G-3-501. Administrative Rules Review Committee. ................................................................................................... 7

63G-3-502. Legislative reauthorization of agency 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 official compilation of rules -- 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 Chapter 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, change 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 licenses, grant or withhold relief 

from legal obligations, or perform 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 the division and entitled "Utah 

Administrative Code." 

(6) "Director" means the director of the Division of 

Administrative Rules. 

C – 16
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" means 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, governmental 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 including 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 management 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 adjudicative 

proceedings, 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 Chapter 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 facility, 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 administrative 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 all 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 provided 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; 

C – 17
3 

(ii) state agency implementation plans 

mandated by the federal 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, and are available 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 Chapter 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 federal mandates; and 

(d) rules made by the division to implement this 

chapter. 

(3) Subject to the requirements 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 file 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 consider 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 consider, 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 performance 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; 

C – 18
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 public 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 may 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 made 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 presented at public hearings 

conducted by the agency within the time period under 

Subsection (11)(a). 

(12) (a) Except as provided 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 days of publication. 

 (13) (a) As used in this 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 provision 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 rulemaking 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 rule, or repeal of a rule if: 

(a) a public hearing is required 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 Chapter 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 containing 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 last change in proposed rule. 

(e) A changed proposed rule and its associated 

proposed rule lapse if a notice of effective date or 

another change to a proposed rule is not filed with the 

division within 120 days of publication 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 procedures specified in Section 63G-3-

301. 

C – 19
5 

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 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 Chapter 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, amend, 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 statements, 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 prior 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 division 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 review, described in 

Subsection (3); or 

(ii) an extension described in Subsection (6). 

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 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 Division of Administrative Rules, 

to be administered by a director. 

C – 20
6 

(2) The director of administrative rules shall be 

appointed by the executive director with the approval of the 

governor. 

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 

General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-9.5) 

63G-3-402. Division of Administrative Rules -- Duties 

generally. 

(1) The Division of Administrative 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 rules, 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 determines necessary to 

implement this chapter; 

(i) distribute without charge the bulletin and 

administrative code to state-designated repositories, the 

Administrative Rules Review Committee, the Office of 

Legislative Research and General 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 publications 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 uniform 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 publication 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 Chapter 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 obsolete or redundant words; 

(e) correcting obvious errors 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; 

C – 21
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 publication 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 designated 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 Chapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 

General 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 speaker 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 chairmen of the appropriation 

subcommittee that have jurisdiction over the agency 

whose existing rules are being reviewed to participate as 

nonvoting, ex officio members 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 principles 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 chairs of the Appropriation 

Subcommittee that have jurisdiction over the agency 

whose rules are the subject of the findings. 

C – 22
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 recommendations 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 Chapter 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 should 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 legislative 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 governor 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 may 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 Chapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 

General 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 section, "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, amendment, 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 its 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 rulemaking 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 challenge 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. 

C – 23
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 district 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 legal 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 constitutional 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 rulemaking 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 not the plaintiff has requested 

the agency review under Section 63G-3-601. 

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 

General 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 procedural 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 substantial 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 rule shall be commenced within 

two years of the date the change was made. 

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 

General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-14) 

Part 7. Official Compilation 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. All courts shall take judicial 

notice of the code and its provisions. 

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 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; and 

C – 24
Utah Administrative Rulemaking 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 Chapter 382, Laws of Utah 2008 

General Session, effective May 5, 2008 (formerly Section 63-46a-9.6) 

NOTE: Source http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE63G/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. 

C – 25
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 of 

C – 26
Administrative 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 part 

C – 27
Administrative 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 the 

C – 28
Administrative Services 

August 1, 2009 Utah Administrative Code - 4 - 

rule, including relevant 

affiliation, if any; 

 (d) include a statement 

as 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 time 

frame provided by Section 63G3-601. 

 (2) The petitioned 

agency may, within the time 

frame 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 be 

C – 29
Administrative 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 law

C – 30
Administrative 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 Sections 

63G-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 review 

required 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) and 

C – 31
Administrative 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 notice 

C – 32
Administrative 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 for 

C – 33
Administrative 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 the 

procedures 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.

C – 34
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. 

C – 35
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 to 

Subsections 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, 

C – 36
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 reasoned 

narrative 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 Implemented 

or 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-

C – 37
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 as 

required 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 a 

C – 38
Administrative 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 agency 

and 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

C – 39

Proposed Rule

R307-110-28 December 8, 2010 Page 1 of 1 

1 R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality.

2 R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan.

3 R307-110-28. Regional Haze.

4 The Utah State Implementation Plan, Section XX, Regional 

5 Haze, as most recently amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on 

6 [September 3, 2008]April 6, 2011, pursuant to Section 19-2-104, is 

7 hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of these rules. 

8 KEY: air pollution, PM10, PM2.5, ozone

9 Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [November 10, 

10 2008]2011

11 Notice of Continuation: March 15, 2007

12 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-104(3)(e)

 13 

 14 

P - 1
 

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, 20082011

P - 2
Section 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 Visibility Impairment SIP......................................... 4 

5. 1990 Clean Air Act ........................................................................................... 4 

6. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission ............................................. 5 

7. Western Regional Air Partnership .................................................................... 6 

8. Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in 2003 SIP................................ 7 

C. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR THE 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 outside the clean-air corridor occurs................... 14

D. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR STATIONARY SOURCES...................... 15

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

2. Achievement of a 13% or Greater Reduction 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 Met 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 Attributable Visibility Impairment under the 

Regional Haze Rule................................................................... 19

5. Report on Assessment of NOx/PM Strategies................................................. 19 

a. Assessment of Need for NOx and PM milestones.................................................. 19

6. Best Available Control Technology (BART) Assessment for NOx and PM.. 20 

a. Regional Haze Rule BART 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 ......................................................................................................... 28

P - 3
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iii

1. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger........................................ 28 

a. Regional Sulfur Dioxide Milestones...................................................................... 28

b. Regional Program Administration ......................................................................... 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. SO2 Emission Inventory......................................................................................... 38

b. Development of Emission Tracking System.......................................................... 39

c. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking Database ................................. 39

3. WEB Trading Program Requirements ............................................................ 40 

a. Initial Allocation of SO2 Allowances .................................................................... 40

b. Distribution of Allowances for 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 Tracking System (WEB EATS)......................... 51

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

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

i. Monitoring/Recordkeeping.................................................................................... 56

j. Compliance, Excess Emissions, 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 decline in mobile source emissions. ...................... 65

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

Federal standards are 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........................................................ 70 

P - 4
Section 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 Unpaved 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 Generation 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 SO2 Trading Program Early Reduction Credits. ...................... 85

b. Western Backstop SO2 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 Renewable Energy Resources........................................................... 96

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

1. Regulatory History and Requirements.......................................................... 105 

2. Other State of Utah Long-term Strategy Components.................................. 105 

P - 5
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page v

a. Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

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

b. Implementation of Additional 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 for 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 Demonstrating 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 ................................................................................. 122 

P - 6
Section 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 Transport 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 Renewable 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 ............................................................. 119

P - 7
Section 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 NOx Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and 

Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations. ......................................... 91

Figure 9. Potential CO2 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. ........................ 117

P - 8
Section 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 Activities 

P - 9
Section 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 NOx 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. 

P - 10
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 SO2 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.

P - 11
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 by 

particulate 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. 

P - 12
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 impairment 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 blight, 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: Washington, D.C. December 2, 1980. 

4

 IMPROVE Home Page. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve (accessed April 2003). 

P - 13
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 provide 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. 

P - 14
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. 

P - 15
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 Utah, 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. 

P - 16
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 8 

Figure 1. 16 GCVTC Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309 

P - 17
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 9

Figure 2. Utah Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309. 

P - 18
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 that Influence Clean Air on the Colorado Plateau. 

Western Governors' Association: Denver, CO, July 1995. 

12 64 FR 35751, July 1, 1999. 

P - 19
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. 

P - 20
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). 

P - 21
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 technical 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 analysis, 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. 

P - 22
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 significant emissions growth is identified, the 

State of Utah, in coordination with other transport 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). 

P - 23
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 stationary 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 Canyon 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. 

P - 24
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 greater reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions between the years of 1990 and 2000. As shown in Table 2, regional SO2

emission totals show that there was a 25% reduction in these emissions from 1990 to 

2000.20 There was a 2933% decrease in SO2 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 Transport 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 

(SO2) 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. for the Western Governors’ Association. Year 2000 Point Source SO2 

Emissions Analysis - 9 State Western Region Report. Denver, CO, May 2002. 

P - 25
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 SO2

milestones, emissions tracking requirements, and, if the Western Backstop SO2

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 Dioxide Trading Program, contains the 

requirements that will apply to major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide as a 

backstop regulatory program if the SO2 milestones are exceeded. The rule may 

never be implemented if the goal to meet the regional SO2 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 SO2 to submit an annual emissions 

inventory in the pre-trigger phase of the program to measure compliance with the 

regional SO2 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 234,624141,849 tons represents an emission reduction of 

approximately 235,000216,515 tons of SO2 from the 1990 baseline emissions of 

469,534358,364 tons for the fourthree 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 progress21 than would be achieved by 

application of best available retrofit technology (BART) for SO2, 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 

91,80048,737 tons of SO2 by 2018.

In modeling work conducted by the WRAP to verify the Annex analysis, it was 

determined that, in addition to the 16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau, the regional 

SO2 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 BART 

P - 26
Section 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 SO2 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, 82,500 tons of SO2 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. 

P - 27
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 different 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 NOx/PM Strategies 

a. Assessment of Need for NOx and PM milestones. 

The State of Utah has evaluated the need for NOx 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 

NOx 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 NOx 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 the WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of 

Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts. Denver, CO. Presented to the WRAP Board October 

15, 2003. 

P - 28
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 20 

• Stationary source NOx emissions are projected to increase by 4% between 1996 

and 2018. Stationary source NOx 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 NOx 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 NOx

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 

NOx 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 NOx 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 NOx and PM 

under the case-by-case provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). BART for SO2 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. 

P - 29
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 21

The determination of NOx 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 

(MWn) 

BART 

CATEGORY COAL TYPE 

BOILER 

TYPE 

Hunter 1 1978 488430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential 

Hunter 2 1980 488430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential 

Huntington 1 1977 498430 Fossil fuel fired Bituminous Tangential 

Huntington 2 1974 446430 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 Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 FR 

39158) 

P - 30
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 22 

was performed according to the RMC modeling protocols24. 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 BART CALMET/CALPUFF modeling protocols 

are as follows: 

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

• Visibility impacts due to emissions of SO2, NOx 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 deceiviews 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 deceiviews 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 #65 January 9April 21, 2007 

P - 31
Section 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 2.145 1.892 1.643 0.543 0.458 0.585 0.599 0.532

Hunter 2 1.905 1.663 1.446 0.463 0.414 0.515 0.528 0.464

Huntington 1 1.909 1.646 1.453 0.465 0.43 0.535 0.552 0.477

Huntington 2 2.534 2.343 1.996 0.906 0.789 1.004 1.15 0.914 Formatted Ta

P - 32
Section 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-NOx burners with Alstom TSF 

2000TM low-NOx firing system and installation of two elevations of separated 

overfire air. 

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

Ssulfur 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-NOx burners with Alstom TSF 

2000TM low-NOx 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% 

Ssulfur dioxide removal at Unit 1. 

P - 33
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 

SO2 

PreControl 

NOx 

PreControl 

PM10

PostControl 

SO2

PostControl 

NOx

PostControl 

PM10

Delta 

SO2

Delta 

NOx

Delta 

PM10

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 Huntington 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 2010Spring 

2011

Huntington 1 April 2008 Fall 2008 (est.)August 

2009

Spring Fall 2010 

Huntington 2 October 2004 April 2005 April 2007Dec 

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 Rates27 Presumptive BART Limits28

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 0.28 

P - 34
Section 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 SO2 and NOx 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 SO2 and NOx 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 EGU31. 

• NOx and SO2 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 plantsUnits 1 and 2. The technical analysis conducted by 

EPA to determine presumptive BART limits for SO2 and NOx 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-2002-0076-0369 

P - 35
Section 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 presumptive 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 protocols34. 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

Canyonland

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 Significant 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, 2007 

P - 36
Section 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 (SO2) milestones for the years 20038 through 2018 are 

provided in Table 87. 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 SO2 emissions for these years 

will determine whether emissions are greater 

than or less than the milestone 

200335 420,637 tons SO2 2003

2004 420,637 tons SO2 Average of 2003 and 2004

2005 420,637 tons SO2 Average of 2003, 2004 and 2005

2006 420,637 tons SO2 Average of 2004, 2005 and 2006

2007 420,637 tons SO2 Average of 2005, 2006 and 2007

200836 378,398269,083 tons 

SO2

Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008 

2009 336,160234,903 tons 

SO2

Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009 

2010 293,921200,722 tons 

SO2

Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010 

2011 293,921200,722 tons 

SO2

Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011 

2012 293,921200,722 tons 

SO2

Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012 

2013 278,985185,795 tons 

SO2

Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013 

2014 264,050170,868 tons 

SO2

Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014 

2015 249,114155,940 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 adjustment methodology in the 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 include only the three states that are part of the regional backstop trading 

program using the adjustment methodology in the 2003 Regional Haze SIP

P - 37
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 29

 

For the year the regional sulfur 

dioxide milestone is 

and the annual SO2 emissions for these years 

will determine whether emissions are greater 

than or less than the milestone 

SO2

2016 249,114155,940 tons 

SO2

Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016 

2017 249,114155,940 tons 

SO2

Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017 

2018 234,624141,849 tons 

SO2

Year 2018 only 

2019 forward, 

until replaced 

by an 

approved SIP 

234,624141,849 tons 

SO2

Annual; no multiyear averaging 

(2)Smelter Specific Set-Aside.

Since 1990 the existing copper smelters in the west have made significant SO2 emission 

reductions. In addition, 3 of the 6 smelters 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. Representative 

emission estimates were developed 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 smelters 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 XX.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 and emissions from an individual copper smelter 

is above the 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 

Allocation

Smelter-specific 

Set-aside

Asarco Hayden 235,000 tons 23,000 tons SO2 3,000 tons SO2

Kennecott Utah Copper 

Corporation, Smelter 

and Refinery

340,269 tons 1,000 tons SO2 100 tons SO2

TOTAL 575,269 tons 24,000 tons SO2 3,100 tons SO2

Formatted: Bu

P - 38
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 30 

Note: The smelter baseline has decreased from 86,000 tons SO2 in the 2003 SIP to the current value of 

24,000 tons SO2 due the permanent closure of the BHP San Manuel, Phelps Dodge Chino, and Phelps 

Dodge Hidalgo smelters. The Phelps Dodge Miami smelter is not included in this table because the 

smelter is currently operating at its permitted limit and therefore does not have a smelter-specific setaside. Smelter emissions were 148,510 tons SO2 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 87

were developed for a 43-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 87. 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 SO2 emissions. 

The executive secretary will work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are 

participating in the SO2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program to ensure that an 

emission tracking system for the regional SO2 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 SO2 emission inventories that were used during the development 

of the Annex and subsequent SIP revisions, and the WRAP continues to refine and 

Formatted: Bu

P - 39
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 31

improve 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 contract 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: 

P - 40
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 

inventories 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 calculated 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 

inventory for the 2003-2007 emissions reports is 1999 for utilities and 1998 for 

P - 41
Section 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 SO2

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 dioxide 

P - 42
Section 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 SO2 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; 

P - 43
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 setaside; 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 circulation 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 Environmental 

P - 44
Section 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 SO2 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 

SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 inventory projections for the year 2018, and estimate the 

effect of known future sources on SO2 emissions. Projected 2018 emissions will 

P - 45
Section 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 SO2

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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

P - 46
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. SO2 Emission Inventory 

40 CFR 51.309 sets forth emissions inventory requirements for tracking compliance with 

the SO2 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 

SO2 in the year 2000, or in any subsequent year, to submit an annual inventory of SO2

emissions, beginning with the 2003 emission inventory. A source that meets these criteria 

and then emits less than 100 tons per year in a later year must continue to submit an SO2

inventory for tracking compliance with the regional SO2 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 SO2 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. 

P - 47
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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, and 

P - 48
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 40 

making the annual determination of whether the WEB Trading Program has been 

triggered. 

(4) Changes to the SO2 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 SO2 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. 

P - 49
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 41

(i) For non-utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor allocation will be as 

established 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 reductions 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. 

P - 50
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 SO2. 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 SO2 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 SO2 annual emissions for the WEB source, or SO2 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 SO2. 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. 

P - 51
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 SO2 emissions data for all Category 1 sources for the purposes of 

calculating the reducible allocation. 

(i) For utilities, annual SO2 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 SO2 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 categories 

P - 52
Section 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 108 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 milestone for a particular year is adjusted due to the smelterspecific 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 allocated to that 

smelter, and will be in addition 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 27

Tribal SetAside New Source 

Set-aside 

Remaining 

Allocation 

Utility 

Portion 

Non-utility 

portion 

2008 269,083 

378,398 tons 

82,500 tons 6,143 

17,000 tons 

260,444 

352,898 tons 

210,480 

276,263 tons 

76,635 tons 

2009 234,903 

336,160 tons 

82,500 tons 6,143 

17,000 tons 

226,260 

310,660 tons 

176,299 

234,025 tons 

76,635 tons 

2010 200,722 

293,921 tons 

82,500 tons 6,143 

17,000 tons 

192,079 

268,421 tons 

142,119 

191,786 tons 

76,635 tons 

2011 200,722 

293,921 tons 

82,500 tons 6,143 

17,000 tons 

192,079 

268,421 tons 

142,119 

191,786 tons 

76,635 tons 

2012 200,722 

293,921 tons 

82,500 tons 6,143 

17,000 tons 

192,079 

268,421 tons 

142,119 

191,786 tons 

76,635 tons 

2013 185,795 

278,985 tons 

82,500 tons 12,286 

34,000 tons 

171,009 

236,485 tons 

121,048 

159,850 tons 

76,635 tons 

2014 170,868 

264,050 tons 

82,500 tons 12,286 

34,000 tons 

156,082 

221,550 tons 

106,121 

144,915 tons 

76,635 tons 

2015 155,940 

249,114 tons 

82,500 tons 12,286 

34,000 tons 

141,154

206,614 tons 

91,194 

129,979 tons 

76,635 tons 

2016 155,940 

249,114 tons 

82,500 tons 12,286 

34,000 tons 

141,154

206,614 tons 

91,194 

129,979 tons 

76,635 tons 

2017 155,940 

249,114 tons 

82,500 tons 12,286 

34,000 tons 

141,154

206,614 tons 

91,194 

129,979 tons 

76,635 tons 

2018 141,849 

234,624 tons 

82,500 tons 12,286 

34,000 tons 

127,063

192,124 tons 

80,402 

116,189 tons 

75,935 tons 

P - 53
Section 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

17,000 

12,286 

34,000 

12,286 

34,000 

12,286 

34,000 

12,286 

34,000 

Floor for Category 2 

Sources 

-600 -600 -600 -600 -600 

Remaining New Source 

Set-aside 

5,543 

16,400 

11,686 

33,400 

11,686 

33,400 

11,686 

33,400 

11,686 

33,400 

 

(c) The remaining allocation shown in Table 118 is available for distribution to 

category 1 sources. The final two columns in Table 118 split this remaining 

allocation into a utility allocation and a non-utility allocation. 

P - 54
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 energy facilities reported by the participating states and tribes, 

and then multiply this number by 2.5. 

P - 55
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 paragraph (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 regional 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 SO2 emissions in 

accordance with paragraph E.3.a(1)(ed) of this plan for all Category 1 

non-utility sources in the region to determine an historic emission total. 

Determine a percent contribution of SO2 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.] 

P - 56
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 availability 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 for 

changes due to the new monitoring method. However, allocations during the next fiveP - 57
Section 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 

P - 58
Section 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 meet 

the 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 108 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. 

P - 59
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 51

d. Regional Tribal Set-aside 

(1) Each year after the program is triggered for which allowances are allocated, 

82,500 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

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 

P - 60
Section 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 SO2 at amounts equal to or greater than 

100 tons per year. The emissions tracking database, which was used to track and measure 

SO2 emissions against the milestones, will still exist once the WEB Trading Program is 

triggered; however, it will become incorporated into the SO2 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 of 

security 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 

P - 61
Section 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. 

P - 62
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. 

P - 63
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 SO2 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 control 

ratio. 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 

SO2 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 SO2 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 = 4030,000 

2010 milestone = 293,921200,722

Percent of milestone = 13.6114.94 % 

P - 64
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 293,921200,722 ÷ 430,000 = 0.703

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 0.703 to determine 

the number of prior year allowances that could be used without restriction, at a one-toone ratio. This would equal 42038. The remaining prior year allowances would then be 

used at a 2:1 ratio. 284360 allowances would be needed to cover the remaining 142180

tons of SO2 emissions. The TSA would therefore deduct a total of 1,780722 allowances 

(1,000 + 438420 + 284360) to cover 1,580 tons of SO2 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 

P - 65
Section 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. 

P - 66
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 SO2 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 violation of any other provision of the market 

trading program. 

(2)Smelter Specific Set-aside. 

Each year, Kennecott Utah Copper (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 setaside. 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: Bu

Formatted: Bu

P - 67
Section 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 SO2 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 notice 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, 

P - 68
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 37

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. 

P - 69
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 five-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. 

P - 70
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 SO2 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. 

P - 71
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 vehicle 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 reasonable 

progress. 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 define 

P - 72
Section 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. The 

new Section 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B) requires the State of Utah to assess the need for any longterm strategies to address SO2 from non-road mobile sources by no later than December 

31, 2008. States may determine if a SIP revision is necessary to address SO2 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 119 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. 

P - 73
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 SO2 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 Ta

P - 74
Section 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 prescribed 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 Operation37 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. 

P - 75
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 Division 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. 

P - 76
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 68 

b. Agricultural Fire 

The WRAP inventory and a survey38 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 1210 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 PM2.5 SOx NOx 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 emissions 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.

P - 77
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 county-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 emission 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. 

P - 78
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 staff 

and 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 of 

P - 79
Section 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. 

P - 80
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 quantify 

the 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. 

P - 81
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. 

P - 82
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. 

P - 83
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 with 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 

1311 summarizes the information requirements contained in Section 51.309(d)(8). 

 

41 Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas, page 30. 

P - 84
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 production 

in 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. 

P - 85
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.” Stakeholders 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 efficient 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. 

P - 86
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” requirement for States “to 

assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVTC 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 Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, page 35754, July 1, 1999. Regional Haze 

Regulations Final Rule.

P - 87
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 certified 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 1412, prepared by the Utah 

Energy Office, summarizes renewable energy generation capacity installed within Utah 

by 2002. 

P - 88
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 low-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute 

(LIHI). 

 

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"; FERC "Hydroelectric Projects Under Commission License" and 

"Hydroelectric Projects Exempted from Licensing Requirements," NREL REPiS; Utah Energy Office Small and Large 

Renewable Plant Surveys. 

Table 1513, 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. 

P - 89
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 low-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute 

 (LIHI) 

 

Sources: EIA, Form EIA-759, "Monthly Power Plant Report"; 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 1614, prepared by the Utah Energy Office, summarizes the 

installed generation capacity in Utah. 

P - 90
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"; and 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 1715, prepared by the 

Utah Energy Office, summarizes electric energy 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 Power Plant Data" and "Monthly Nonutility Power Plant 

Data"; and Utah Energy Office Small and Medium Renewable Plant Surveys. 

 Updated: 04/10/03 

P - 91
Section 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 1816 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 Renewable 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 region 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-state 

P - 92
Section 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 planning 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 1715 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. 

P - 93
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

P - 94
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 1917 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 

Residential Energy Low-income Weatherization Program 

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 

Technical Assistance Energy Education in Schools Program 

“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 and 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 capital 

costs, 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 generation. A map of Utah’s transmission system 

is shown below. It can be compared to the maps depicting Utah’s renewable energy 

P - 95
Section 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. 

 

P - 96
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 SO2 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 Nevada, 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 be 

P - 97
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 89

representative. Utah has relied on their analysis43 to prepare this section of the Utah 

Regional 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 energy conservation efforts. The first was 

a Business-As-Usual scenario that characterized how the future might unfold with the 

proposed, “backstop,” regional SO2 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 SO2 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 Goals and Energy Efficiency Recommendations. Draft Report of 

October, 2002; 

P - 98
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 Gas

Capacity 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 renewable 

energy 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 Prevention 

Forum as “best practices” to preserve and expand energy conservation can serve as cost31%

0%

37%

4%

8%

14%

6%

29%

0%

4% 26%

7%

14%

6%

14%

Coal

O/G Steam & Turbines

Combined Cycles

Existing Renewables

Cogens

Hydro

Nuclear

New Renewables

P - 99
Section 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 NOx 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 NOx emissions reductions from a scenario in 

which the 10/20 goal is meet, the one marked “EE” represents NOx 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 

NOx 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 NOx Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and 

Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations. 

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Change in NO

2005 2010 2015 2018

x Emission Relative to BAU 

(Thousands Tons of NOX)

10/20 Goals

EE

EE + 10/20 Goals

 

 

P - 100
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 92 

Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and pursuing energy efficiency aggressively 

also leads to reductions in CO2 emissions through the displacement of new fossil fuel 

generation. As illustrated in Figure 9, CO2 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 CO2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE. 

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

Change in CO

2005 2010 2015 2018

2 Emissions 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 SO2 emissions 

because the regional SO2 trading program proposed under the Annex is the controlling 

factor in reducing SO2 emissions. Since the trading program creates a monetary value for 

emissions reductions, any potential for emissions reductions is fully offset by increases in 

SO2 emissions from sources affected by the trading program. In other words, SO2

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 SO2 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 2523 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. 

P - 101
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 costs45 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 Goals

Annual Levelized Production Costs (Billion 2001$)

Accomplishing the10/20 renewable energy goal by itself will increase annual levelized 

production costs modestly. Electricity production 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. 

P - 102
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 Improvements

Annual 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 efficiency 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 gross 

P - 103
Section 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 alone 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 2119 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” requirement for states “to 

assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVTC 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.

P - 104
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 

Government Endorsed Supplemental Environmental Project Program 

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 required 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. 

P - 105
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 factor48, 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 express 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 capacity 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 sources varies throughout the day and from day to day, 

renewable power generators operate at only a portion of their full power production capacity. The 

capacity factors used in this section to convert the potential power production in Utah from each type of 

renewable energy source to an estimate of the potential 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. 

P - 106
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 98 

Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah. 

P - 107
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. 

P - 108
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 Renewable 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. 

P - 109
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 101

Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah. 

P - 110
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 2220.

P - 111
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 103

Table 20. Utah Land-fill Gas Resources 

Project ID # 

Landfill ID # 

LMOP Territory Landfill Name Landfill City 

Landfill County 

Landfill State WIP (tons)

Year Landfill Opened

Landfill Closure Year Landfill Owner Project Status

Project Developer 

Utilization Ty(Direct-Use vs Electricity) 

1619 1542 3 Salt Lake Valley LF Salt Lake Salt Lake UT 6,700,000 1982 2020 

Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council Construction 

DTE Energy Direct 

1604 1527 3 

City of Logan Sanitary Landfill Logan Cache UT 1,400,000 1961 2016 City of Logan Potential Electricity 

1630 1553 3 Beaver County LF Beaver Beaver UT 107,648 1968 2014 Beaver City Unknown Direct 1625 1548 3 Blanding LF Blanding San Juan UT 50,780 1956 1995 Blanding City Unknown Direct 1617 1540 3 

Bountiful City Sanitary LF 

West Bountiful Davis UT 2,171,531 1960 2058 City of Bountiful Unknown Direct 

1598 1521 3 Brigham City LF Brigham Box Elder UT 693,000 1960 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 1606 1529 3 Callao LF Juab UT 1970 Unknown Direct 1621 1544 3 Carbon County LF Price Carbon UT 280,000 1956 1995 Carbon County Unknown Direct 1626 1549 3 City of Monticello LF Monticello San Juan UT 36,000 1960 1995 Max Dalton Unknown Direct 1618 1541 3 

Davis County Solid Waste Management SSD LF Layton Davis UT 1,840,150 1959 2022 

Wasatch Energy Systems Unknown Direct 

1642 1565 3 Duchesne County LF Duchesne Duchesne UT 1984 2044 

Duchesne & Wasatch Counties Unknown Direct 

180128 2074 3 ECDC East Carbon UT Unknown 1622 1545 3 Emery County LF Castledale Emery UT 212,184 1983 2024 Emery County Unknown Direct 1609 1532 3 Eskdale LF Millard UT Unknown Direct 1631 1554 3 

Garfield County/John's Valley LF Garfield Garfield UT 16,200 1992 2044 Garfield County Unknown Direct 

1632 1555 3 

Garfield County/Ticaboo LF Garfield Garfield UT 8,852 1993 2014 Garfield County Unknown Direct 

1610 1533 3 Garrison LF Garrison Millard UT 660 1986 2094 Millard County Unknown Direct 1624 1547 3 Grand County LF Moab Grand UT 76,300 1960 2004 Grand County Unknown Direct 1623 1546 3 Green River LF Green River Emery UT 79,205 1965 1995 Green River City Unknown Direct 1599 1522 3 Grouse Creek LF 

Grouse Creek Box Elder UT 1,760 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 

1633 1556 3 

Iron County/ Armstrong Pit LF Cedar Iron UT 44,962 1993 2014 Iron County Unknown Direct 

1635 1558 3 

Kane County/Glendale LF Glendale Kane UT 6,560 1988 2094 

Western Kane County SSD# 1 Unknown Direct 

1634 1557 3 Kane County/Kanab LF Kanab Kane UT 39,680 1981 2044 

Western Kane County SSD# 1 Unknown Direct 

1641 1564 3 Manila City LF Manila Daggett UT 32,120 1974 1995 

Manila City/Daggett County Unknown Direct 

1611 1534 3 Millard County LF Delta Millard UT 67,650 1986 2034 Millard County Unknown Direct 1607 1530 3 Nephi LF Nephi Juab UT 18,300 1987 2044 Nephi City Unknown Direct 
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 104 

Table 2220. (Continued) Utah Land-fill Gas Resources Project ID # 

Landfill ID # 

LMOP Territory Landfill Name Landfill City 

Landfill County 

Landfill State WIP (tons)

Year Landfill Opened

Landfill Closure Year Landfill Owner 

Project Status 

Project Developer 

Utilization Type (DirectUse vs Electricity) 

1645 1568 3 

North Utah County Special Service District LF Utah UT 1,707,965 1964 1993 Unknown Direct 

1600 1523 3 Park Valley LF Park Valley Box Elder UT 2,400 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 1608 1531 3 Partoun LF Juab UT Unknown Direct 1614 1537 3 Payson City LF Payson Utah UT 616,029 1950 2014 

Payson City Corporation Unknown Direct 

1646 1569 3 Provo LF Provo Utah UT 1,131,000 1963 1991 City of Provo Unknown Direct 1605 1528 3 Rich County LF Laketown Rich UT 40,688 1981 2030 Rich County Unknown Direct 1627 1550 3 

San Juan County/Bluff LF Bluff San Juan UT 1,600 1980 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct 

1628 1551 3 

San Juan County/Halls Crossing LF 

Halls Crossing San Juan UT 9,464 1970 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct 

1629 1552 3 

San Juan County/Mexican Hat LF Mexican Hat San Juan UT 1,600 1980 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct 

1612 1535 3 Sanpete SLF Coop Spring City Sanpete UT 108,396 1989 2066 Sanpete SLF Coop Unknown Direct 1615 1538 3 Santaquin County LF Santaquin Utah UT 262,080 1900 1995 Santaquin City Unknown Direct 1613 1536 3 

Sevier County/Sage Flat LF Glenwood Sevier UT 70,200 1993 2024 Sevier County Unknown Direct 

1601 1524 3 Snowville LF Snowville Box Elder UT 8,100 1970 Snowville Town Unknown Direct 1616 1539 3 

South Utah County SSD/Bayview LF Utah Utah UT 1,100,000 1991 2094 

South Utah Valley Solid Waste District Unknown Direct 

1637 1560 3 

Summit County/Three Mile Canyon LF Wanship Summit UT 358,896 1986 2026 Summit County Unknown Direct 

1638 1561 3 

Tooele Army Depot LF #1 Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct 

1639 1562 3 

Tooele Army Depot LF #2 Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct 

1620 1543 3 Transjordan LF South Jordan Salt Lake UT 8,622,936 1955 2021 Trans-Jordan Cities Unknown Direct 1602 1525 3 Tremonton LF Tremonton Box Elder UT 184,600 1970 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 1643 1566 3 

Uintah County/Vernal City LF Vernal Uintah UT 2,773,000 1950 2008 

Uintah County and Vernal City Unknown Direct 

1636 1559 3 

Washington County Solid Waste SSD #1 LF Washington Washington UT 1,292,000 1978 2067 Washington County Unknown Direct 

1644 1567 3 Weber County LF Ogden Weber UT 3,500,000 1966 1996 Weber County Unknown Direct 1640 1563 3 Wendover City LF Wendover Tooele UT 118,260 1970 1996 Wendover City Unknown Direct 1603 1526 3 Yost LF Yost Box Elder UT 800 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 
105

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. 

P - 114
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 (NOX); 

• Carbon Monoxide (CO); 

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2); 

• Particulate Matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10); 

• Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5); and 

• Ammonia (NH3). 

P - 115
107

For visibility modeling, the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 species 

are organic carbon particles (OC), elemental carbon particles (EC), and other fine 

particles such as soils and dusts. The factors used to allocate PM2.5 into its components 

are based on source specific speciation factors. In addition, the coarse material (CM) 

fraction of PM10 (i.e., PM10 minus PM2.5) 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) developed 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 for 

P - 116
108

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 inventory 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 inventories were adequate for regional 

haze modeling given the uncertainties in any 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 2321. 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 4860% 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 (PM2.5) 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 

NOx and PM2.5 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 

P - 117
109

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) 

 NOx SO2 PM2.5* 

1996 172 270 67 85 64 

2002 186 227 54 53 98 

2018 233 172 45 53 110 

% Change 

(1996-

2018) 

 -36% -33% -38% 

*PM2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts. 

Table 2422 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 NOx 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 NOx SO2 PM2.5* 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% 

*PM2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts. 

P - 118
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% worst 

P - 119
111

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.

P - 120
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 SO2 emissions by 

Formatted: Ke

Formatted: Ca

P - 121
113

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.

P - 122
114

P - 123
115

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: Ke

Formatted: Ca

P - 124
116

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 SIP51. 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 under 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: In

P - 125
117

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 2523 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 deceviews52 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 SO2 and NOx controls for all BART sources have been adopted in the WRAP 

region, and the §309 states re-adopt the SO2 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 indicate better visibility, while 

higher numbers indicate more impaired visibility. 

Formatted: Ke

Formatted: Ca

Formatted: In

P - 126
118

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, 3/23/2007

P - 127
119

Table 23. Projected Visibility Improvement 

Visibility Impairment in Deciviews* 

20% Worst Visibility Days 20% Best Visi

Projected Visibility 

(Monthly Average Method) 

Proj

(Month

Colorado Plateau 

Class I areas 

under §309(d)(2) 

State 

2000-04 

Regional 

Haze Rule 

Baseline 

Monitoring 

Data

2018

Base 

Case

(Base18b)

2018

Preliminary 

Reasonable 

Progress Case

(PRP18)

2018

Final 

Reasonable 

Progress Case

(FRP18)

2000-04 

Regional 

Haze Rule 

Baseline 

Monitoring 

Data

2018

Base 

Case

(Base18b)

Pre

Rea

Prog

(P

Grand Canyon National Park AZ 11.7 11.4 11.3 2.2 2.2 Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ 11.9 11.5 11.4 3.0 2.9 Petrified Forest National Park AZ 13.2 12.9 12.9 5.0 4.9 Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ 15.3 15.1 15.1 5.6 5.6 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Wilderness

CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 

Flat Tops Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 Maroon Bells Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 Mesa Verde National Park CO 13.0 12.8 12.6 4.3 4.1 Weminuche Wilderness CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 West Elk Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM 10.2 10.0 9.8 1.5 1.3 Arches National Park UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 Bryce Canyon National Park UT 11.6 11.3 11.2 2.8 2.7 Canyonlands National Park UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 Capitol Reef National Park UT 10.9 10.6 10.5 4.1 4.0 Zion National Park UT 13.2 13.0 13.0 5.0 4.7 

* Data are from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx --> Modeling --> Visibility Projections
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 120

 

L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS 

1. Periodic Progress Reports for 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 areas within Utah, and Class I areas outside 

Utah that are affected by emissions from Utah. 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 additional 

P - 129
121

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. 

P - 130
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 Regional 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 Forum 

P - 131
123

• 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 

(SO2), and particulate matter (PM2.5) 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 SO2 for 

stationary sources are described in Part E. Emission reductions of NOx and PM2.5 are due 

to the implementation of new federal engine standards and fuel standards described in 

Part F and BART controls for NOx and PM2.5 described in Part D. 

P - 132
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

P - 133
P - 134
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........................................................................... 45

Definitions for the Western Emission Backstop Trading Program ........................ 5 

B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS........................................ 9

C. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT...................................... 1918

A. Modeling Scenarios .................................................................................. 1918

Visibility Measurements over the Years........................................................... 2019

D. WRAP INTERSTATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES........ 2322

P - 135
Section 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 useful 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 1ne (bext/10 Mm-1). 

Where bext = 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, 

P - 136
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 the 

Federal 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 binding 

P - 137
Section 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. 

P - 138
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. 

P - 139
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 Emission 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 owners 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.

P - 140
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 6 

Actual Emissions means total annual SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

 

P - 141
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 results 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 hydropower 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). 

P - 142
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 82,500-ton SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

P - 143
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 9 

B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS 

Protocol WEB-1: SO2 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 H2S) 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 H2S. 

P - 144
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 SO2 emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion 

devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated using the 

following equation: 

Et = (CS)(Qt)(K) 

where: Et = Total SO2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable 

fuel gas combustion devices 

CS = Sulfur content of the fuel gas as H2S(ppmv) 

Qt = 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 SO2 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 SO2 emission rate (lb SO2/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 SO2, flow, and (if applicable) moisture, shall 

comply with the operating requirements, performance 

specifications, and quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part 

75. 

P - 145
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 SO2 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: 

Et = (Em)(Qt)/(Qm) 

where: Et = Total SO2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable 

fuel gas combustion devices 

Em = SO2 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 

Qt = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel 

gas combustion devices 

Qm = 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 SO2 - 

diluent CEMS at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is 

representative of the SO2 emission rate (lb SO2/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 SO2-diluent CEMS shall comply with the applicable 

provisions for SO2 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 SO2 emission rate (lb/mmBtu) by substituting 

the term SO2 for NOx in that section, and using a K factor of 

1.660 x 10-7 (lb/scf)/ppmv instead of the NOx 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 SO2 hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion 

devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated by using the 

following equation: 

P - 146
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 12 

Et = (Em) (Qt)(GCV)/106

where: 

Et = Total hourly SO2 mass emissions in lb/hr from the 

applicable fuel gas combustion devices 

Em = SO2 emission rate in lb/mmBtu from the CEMS - 

monitored fuel gas combustion device 

Qt = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel 

gas combustion devices 

GCV = Fuel Gross Calorific Value (Btu/scf) 

 106 = Conversion from Btu to 

million Btu 

(d) Calculate total SO2 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 SO2 and flow or each SO2-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 SO2-diluent 

CEMS shall meet the relative accuracy requirements for a NOx-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 SO2 and flow or the SO2-diluent CEMS 

in compliance with sections 1, 1.1, and 1.2 of Appendix B to Part 75. 

P - 147
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 SO2

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. 

P - 148
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 14 

(b) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an SO2-

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 SO2 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 SO2 emission 

rate from the monitored unit is representative of the rate from nonmonitored units.

P - 149
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 SO2 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. 

P - 150
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: 

P - 151
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. 

P - 152
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 prevention 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. 

P - 153
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. 

P - 154
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 20 

Figure1 Appendix. Contributions to Light 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

Year

Aerosol 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. 

P - 155
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

Year

Aerosol 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. 

P - 156
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 western 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, Idaho, 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. The 

P - 157
Section 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 individuals 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 1 

P - 158
Section 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 and 

P - 159
Section 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 land 

P - 160
Section 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 member 

P - 161
Section 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 SO2 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. 

P - 162
P - 163
P - 164
P - 165

Hearing

H - 1
H - 2
H - 3
H - 4
H - 5
 

195 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 Implementation Plan, Section XX. Regional 

Haze; Amend R307-110-28. Regional Haze. 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

On January 5, 2011, the Air Quality Board proposed for public comment amendments to Utah’s Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate changes to the regional SO2 milestones and Backstop 

Trading Program. A public hearing was held on February 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 needed 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 outside the Colorado Plateau. Consideration of the 

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) four-factor 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 all 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 SO2, NOx, and PM in Utah and the region. NOx emissions decline 36% 

H - 6
DAQ-015-11 

Page 2 

between 1996 and 2018, PM2.5 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 policy 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 process 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 included 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 table 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 SO2 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 inventory 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 Utah assumes any responsibilities assigned to the WRAP in 

the SIP. (National Park Service) 

Response: The SIP outlines Utah’s commitment to operate 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 future changes are needed to the program. 

Comment: The SIP fails to demonstrate that it will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART for 

SO2. Utah’s SIP contains no BART analysis for SO2 and no explicit determination that the SIP’s emission 

H - 7
DAQ-015-11 

Page 3 

milestones and backstop trading program are better than BART for reducing SO2 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 SO2 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 Conservation 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 were 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 technology and associated emission reductions from similar 

types of sources within a source category based 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, although in some cases more stringent estimates 

were used for sources that had already been permitted for other reasons. These estimates were 

used to establish a benchmark to compare with the alternative program. The milestones meet the 

benchmark. However, as explained in the document, 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 SO2

, and most of those sources would not be affected by BART. The program 

ensures that new source growth will not undermine 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 submitted to WRAP on the proposed changes to the 

milestones in October 2010) 

Response: The concept of SO2 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 stationary 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 than 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 strategy. The overall approach was designed to address 

the impact from all stationary source SO2 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 reductions 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 2018, not simply earlier reductions. (Western Resource 

Advocates, National Parks Conservation Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Utah Physicians 

for a Healthy Environment) 

H - 8
DAQ-015-11 

Page 4 

Response: The SO2 milestones were adopted in 2003. Sources in the region began making longterm plans to meet the milestones, and many of the reductions have already 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 allowing 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 provide greater reasonable progress than BART in 

2018. The milestone applies to all SO2 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 BART. Emissions from these 10 sources account for 

62% of SO2 emissions in 2006 and 31% of SO2 emissions in 2018. The milestone is a mass-based 

cap that is based on projected actual emissions rather than a permitted emission rate. In addition, 

the SO2 milestone caps new source growth, a significant control strategy for energy-producing 

states. 

Comment: The better than BART demonstration expresses SO2 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 SO2 pollution at emission rates higher than the average annual rate at the same 

time. (Western Resource Advocates, National Parks Conservation 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% worst days to measure progress. Baseline conditions 

were averaged over 5 years to better represent current conditions. The use of an annual emission 

rate is consistent with the acid rain program and EPA’s proposed Transport Rule. 

Comment: The 309 Program is not enforceable. The program must contain monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting sufficient to ensure compliance, including 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 that 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 explanation as to how the milestones will be assured over time. 

(Western Resource Advocates, National Parks Conservation 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 have 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 will 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 and 

H - 9
DAQ-015-11 

Page 5 

specifies the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the trading program. The 

rule was based on the federal acid rain program regulations. 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 responsibility for enforcing the program is maintained by 

the individual states. Each state is responsible 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. The SIP describes the infrastructure that would be 

needed to run the program and includes all of the enforceable regulations, but implementation will 

not occur unless the program is triggered. If the 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 SIP 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 compliance 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 included 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 SO2, NOx, and PM in Utah and the region. NOx

emissions decline 36% between 1996 and 2018, PM2.5 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 Utah sources. 

Utah has participated in the technical and policy 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 process for those states to address impacts from an 

H - 10
DAQ-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 areas 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 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. 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 developed for the Ute Tribe. The Phase III oil and gas 

inventory shows that 15% of total NOx 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 Wilderness Alliance, Utah Physicians for a Healthy 

Environment) 

Response: Section K of the SIP establishes the projection 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 point 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 emissions within or outside of the state, and to 

assess whether the strategies in the SIP are sufficient. 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 winter, 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 Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land 

Management, the State of Colorado, and local governments 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 under UDAQ’s jurisdiction. All major point sources 

are subject to the SO2 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 that all sources in Utah will operate within permit 

terms and conditions. There is no incentive for a facility subject to BART to operate according to its 

H - 11
DAQ-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 SO2 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 compared to the milestone. There is no distinction 

between unavoidable emissions and excess emissions 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 NOx 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 rationale 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 comments. Staff also recommends that the Board adopt the changes to R307-

110-28 as proposed. 

H - 12
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 amendments to Utah’s Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate changes to the regional SO2 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 January, 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 Unpaved Road Dust; Pollution Prevention and 

Renewable Energy Programs; Periodic Implementation 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 discovered in the post-control BART modeling that is 

summarized in Table 7. This table was included 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 Regional Haze SIP to adopt changes to the regional SO2 

milestones, UDAQ has been working with EPA to address questions about the BART analysis for NOx and 

PM in Part D of the SIP that had been submitted in 2008. EPA had been primarily focused on the regional 

H - 13
DAQ-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 SIP. 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 supplement 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 showed in greater detail how that information was 

used for a compressed BART 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 proposal 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 important to move forward with the changes to the SO2

milestones and backstop trading program because that portion of the SIP needed to be addressed in 

conjunction with the SIPs for Wyoming, 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 NOx

and PM rather than the clean-up changes that had been 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 joint comments from the National Parks Conservation 

Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Western 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 presumptive BART levels that were based on industry 

averages. 

2. The BART emission limits are not enforceable. 

3. Other states have completed BART analyses that required more stringent controls on NOx than 

have been installed at the Hunter and Huntington 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 largely completed in 2006 and 2007 and was based on the 

information that was available at that time. It would not be a trivial matter to redo the BART analysis at 

this point in time because so much has changed in the intervening years. The visibility modeling that was 

originally used to determine the sources that are subject to BART in Utah was based on a model and a 

modeling protocol that are now outdated and would need to be revised. In addition, EPA has published 

additional guidance, and BART determinations by other states have been completed. Changes to the SO2

and NO2 NAAQS as well as expected changes to the ozone NAAQS later this year could potentially 

complicate the issue. It would require substantial time and resources to start over again on BART. 

H - 14
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 address the SIP’s provisions relating to BART for NOx and 

PM during the approval process for Utah’s Regional Haze SIP. We recommend 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. 

H - 15
R307-110-28 March 23, 2011 Page 1 of 1 

1 R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality.

2 R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan.

3 R307-110-28. Regional Haze.

4 The Utah State Implementation Plan, Section XX, Regional 

5 Haze, as most recently amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on 

6 April 6, 2011, pursuant to Section 19-2-104, is hereby 

7 incorporated by reference and made a part of these rules. 

 8 

9 KEY: air pollution, PM10, PM2.5, ozone

10 Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: April 6, 2011

11 Notice of Continuation: March 15, 2007

12 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-104(3)(e)

H - 16
 

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, 2011

H - 17
Section 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 Visibility Impairment SIP......................................... 4 

5. 1990 Clean Air Act ......................................................................................... 54

6. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission ............................................. 5 

7. Western Regional Air Partnership .................................................................. 76

8. Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in 2003 SIP................................ 7 

C. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR THE 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 outside the clean-air corridor occurs................... 14

D. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR STATIONARY SOURCES...................... 15

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

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

2000................................................................................................................. 16 

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

a. 2018 Milestone 17

b. Interim Milestones ............................................................................................. 1718

c. Triggering the Trading Program........................................................................ 1818

d. Certainty that 2018 Milestone Will Be Met 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 ............................................................ 1819

a. Procedure for addressing Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment under the 

Regional Haze Rule................................................................... 19

5. Report on Assessment of NOx/PM Strategies................................................. 19 

a. Assessment of Need for NOx and PM milestones.................................................. 19

6. Best Available Control Technology (BART) Assessment for NOx and PM.. 20 

a. Regional Haze Rule BART Requirements............................................................. 20

b. BART-Eligible Sources. .................................................................................... 2121

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

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

E. SULFUR DIOXIDE MILESTONES AND BACKSTOP TRADING 

PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 2728

H - 18
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iii

1. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger.................................... 2728

a. Regional Sulfur Dioxide Milestones.................................................................. 2728

b. Regional Program Administration ..................................................................... 2830

c. Determination of Program Trigger .................................................................... 2931

d. Year 2013 Assessment....................................................................................... 3336

e. Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone ........................................... 3437

2. Pre-Trigger Emissions Tracking Requirements.......................................... 3538

a. SO2 Emission Inventory..................................................................................... 3538

b. Development of Emission Tracking System...................................................... 3639

c. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking Database ............................. 3639

3. WEB Trading Program Requirements ........................................................ 3740

a. Initial Allocation of SO2 Allowances ................................................................ 3740

b. Distribution of Allowances for Future Control Periods..................................... 4549

c. Distribution of the New Source Allocation ....................................................... 4549

d. Regional Tribal Set-aside................................................................................... 4651

e. Opt-in Sources 4751

f. WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS)..................... 4751

g. Allowance Transfers.......................................................................................... 4953

h. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year.......................................................... 5054

i. Monitoring/Recordkeeping................................................................................ 5256

j. Compliance, Excess Emissions, and Penalties................................................... 5458

k. Periodic Evaluation of the Trading Program ..................................................... 5458

l. Retired Source Exemption ................................................................................. 5661

m. Integration into Permits ..................................................................................... 5761

4. 2013 SIP Revision; Backstop for Beginning of Second Planning Period .. 5762

F. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR MOBILE SOURCES............................ 5963

1. Regulatory History and Requirements........................................................ 5963

2. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile Sources ........ 6064

a. Inventory of Current and Projected Emissions from Mobile Sources. .............. 6064

b. Program to assure continuous decline in mobile source emissions. .................. 6165

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

Federal standards are not finalized........................................ 6165

3. Other GCVTC Strategies for Mobile Sources ............................................ 6165

G. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR FIRE PROGRAMS .............................. 6266

1. Regulatory History and Requirements........................................................ 6266

2. Prescribed Fire Program Evaluation ........................................................... 6266

a. Wildlands Fire 6367

b. Agricultural Fire 6468

3. Emission Inventory and Tracking System .................................................. 6569

a. Wildlands Inventory .......................................................................................... 6569

b. Agricultural Lands Inventory............................................................................. 6670

4. Identification and Removal of Administrative Barriers ............................. 6670

5. Enhanced Smoke Management Program.................................................... 6670

H - 19
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iv 

a. Actions to Minimize Fire Emissions.................................................................. 6670

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion ....................................................................... 6771

c. Alternatives to Fire ............................................................................................ 6771

d. Public Notification of Burning .......................................................................... 6771

e. Air Quality Monitoring...................................................................................... 6771

f. Surveillance and Enforcement ........................................................................... 6771

g. Program Evaluation ........................................................................................... 6872

h. Burn Authorization ............................................................................................ 6872

i. Regional Coordination....................................................................................... 6872

j. ESMP for Agricultural Burning......................................................................... 6872

6. Annual Emission Goals............................................................................... 6872

H. ASSESSMENT OF EMISSIONS FROM PAVED AND UNPAVED ROAD 

DUST................................................................................................................ 6973

1. Regulatory History and Requirements........................................................ 6973

2. State of Utah Long-term Strategy for Road Dust Sources.......................... 6973

a. Assessment of Paved and Unpaved Road Dust Emissions. ............................... 6973

b. Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding.................................................. 7074

I. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

........................................................................................................................... 7175

1. Description of Existing Pollution Prevention Programs in Utah................ 7478

2. Inventory of Renewable Energy Generation Capacity and Production in 2002

..................................................................................................................... 7478

3. Inventory of Total Utah Capacity and Production in 2002......................... 7781

4. Percent of Total Energy Generation Capacity and Production Derived from 

Renewable Energy ...................................................................................... 7882

5. Anticipated Contribution Toward Meeting the 10/20 Renewable Energy Goals

..................................................................................................................... 7983

a. States' Contributions to the Regional Renewable Energy Generation Goal ...... 7983

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

Goals ..................................................................................... 8084

6. State of Utah Programs to Encourage Early Compliance........................... 8185

a. Western Backstop SO2 Trading Program Early Reduction Credits. .................. 8185

b. Western Backstop SO2 Trading Program Renewable Energy Credits............... 8185

7. Summary of Utah Programs to Expand Energy Conservation ................... 8286

8. Areas Where Power Is Lacking and Renewable Sources Can Supply It.... 8286

9. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings 

and Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention and EERE Measures.. 8488

a. Regional Approach to Analyses ........................................................................ 8488

b. Projections of Emissions Reductions, Visibility Improvements, Cost Savings and 

Secondary Benefits from Pollution Prevention and EERE 

Measures ............................................................................... 8589

10. Utah Programs to Meet the Regional Renewable Energy Goals ................ 9195

a. Summary of Utah Programs............................................................................... 9195

b. Potential for Renewable Energy Resources....................................................... 9296

J. OTHER GCVTC RECOMMENDATIONS............................................. 101105

1. Regulatory History and Requirements.................................................... 101105

2. Other State of Utah Long-term Strategy Components............................ 101105

H - 20
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page v

a. Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

Recommendations. ............................................................ 101105

b. Implementation of Additional Recommendations. ........................................ 101105

K. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT ANTICIPATED FROM 

LONG-TERM STRATEGY ...................................................................... 102106

1. Effect on Emissions of Long-term Strategy Components ...................... 102106

a. Inventory Methodology and Scope................................................................ 102106

b. Projected Changes in Emissions for Utah and the GCVTC Region .............. 104108

2. Projected Changes in Visual Air Quality................................................ 114117

a. Applicable Class I Areas................................................................................ 114117

b. Projected Visibility Improvement.................................................................. 114117

L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS......................... 117120

1. Periodic Progress Reports for Demonstrating Reasonable Progress. ..... 117120

2. Actions To Be Taken Concurrent with Periodic Progress Reports. ....... 117120

M. STATE PLANNING/INTERSTATE COORDINATION AND TRIBAL 

IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................ 119122

1. Participation in Regional Planning and Coordination ............................ 119122

2. Applicability to Tribal Lands.................................................................. 119122

3. Interstate Coordination ........................................................................... 119122

H - 21
Section 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 Transport 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 Renewable 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 ............................................................. 116

H - 22
Section 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..................................... 8387

Figure 6. Forecast Renewable Energy Capacity Additions to Meet 10/20 Goals. 8690

Figure 7. Generation Mix in 2018: Business-As-Usual and Meeting 10/20 Goals.

............................................................................................................................... 8690

Figure 8. Potential NOx Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and 

Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations. ..................................... 8791

Figure 9. Potential CO2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE.

............................................................................................................................... 8892

Figure 10. Annual Levelized Production Costs for Business-As-Usual and 

Efficiency. ............................................................................................................ 8993

Figure 11. Annual Levelized Production Costs for BAU and Meeting the 10/20 

Goal. ..................................................................................................................... 9094

Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah. ............................................................. 9498

Figure 13. Geothermal Energy Potential in Utah. .................................................. 9599

Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah. ........................................................... 97101

Figure 15. Biomass Energy Potential in Utah. ...................................................... 98102

Figure 16. Class I Areas in the WRAP Region.................................................... 106110

Figure 17. Class I Areas with Contributions from Northern Utah ................... 109112

Figure 18. Class I Areas with Impacts from Central Utah. ............................... 112115

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. .................. 114117

H - 23
Section 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 Activities 

H - 24
Section 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 NOx 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. 

H - 25
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 SO2 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.

H - 26
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 by 

particulate 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. 

H - 27
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 impairment 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: Washington, D.C. December 2, 1980. 

4

 IMPROVE Home Page. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve (accessed April 2003). 

H - 28
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 blight, 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 provide 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. 

H - 29
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. 

H - 30
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 Utah, 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. 

H - 31
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 8 

Figure 1. 16 GCVTC Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309 

H - 32
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 9

Figure 2. Utah Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309. 

H - 33
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 that Influence Clean Air on the Colorado Plateau. 

Western Governors' Association: Denver, CO, July 1995. 

12 64 FR 35751, July 1, 1999. 

H - 34
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. 

H - 35
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). 

H - 36
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 technical 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 analysis, 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. 

H - 37
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 significant emissions growth is identified, the 

State of Utah, in coordination with other transport 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). 

H - 38
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 stationary 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 Canyon 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. 

H - 39
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 greater reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions between the years of 1990 and 2000. As shown in Table 2, regional SO2

emission totals show that there was a 25% reduction in these emissions from 1990 to 

2000.20 There was a 33% decrease in SO2 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 Transport 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 

(SO2) 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. for the Western Governors’ Association. Year 2000 Point Source SO2 

Emissions Analysis - 9 State Western Region Report. Denver, CO, May 2002. 

H - 40
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 SO2

milestones, emissions tracking requirements, and, if the Western Backstop SO2

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 Dioxide Trading Program, contains the 

requirements that will apply to major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide as a 

backstop regulatory program if the SO2 milestones are exceeded. The rule may 

never be implemented if the goal to meet the regional SO2 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 SO2 to submit an annual emissions 

inventory in the pre-trigger phase of the program to measure compliance with the 

regional SO2 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 SO2 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 milestone provides for greater reasonable 

progress

21 than would be achieved by application of best available retrofit technology 

(BART) for SO2, 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 SO2 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. 

 

21October 6, 2010 Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than 

BART 

H - 41
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 18 

c. Triggering the Trading Program 

States and tribes will collect an annual SO2 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 SO2 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 different from regional haze in that it 

H - 42
Section 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 NOx/PM Strategies 

a. Assessment of Need for NOx and PM milestones. 

The State of Utah has evaluated the need for NOx 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 

NOx 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 NOx 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 NOx emissions are projected to increase by 4% between 1996 

and 2018. Stationary source NOx 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 the WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of 

Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts. Denver, CO. Presented to the WRAP Board October 

15, 2003. 

H - 43
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 20 

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

in the winter when NOx 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 NOx

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 

NOx 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 NOx 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 NOx and PM 

under the case-by-case provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). BART for SO2 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 NOx 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 Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 FR 

39158) 

H - 44
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 have 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 protocols24. 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 States 

H - 45
Section 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 BART CALMET/CALPUFF modeling protocols 

are as follows: 

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

• Visibility impacts due to emissions of SO2, NOx 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 within 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, 2007 

H - 46
Section 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 0.91 

H - 47
Section 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-NOx burners with Alstom TSF 

2000TM low-NOx 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-NOx burners with Alstom TSF 

2000TM low-NOx 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. 

H - 48
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 

SO2 

PreControl 

NOx 

PreControl 

PM10

PostControl 

SO2

PostControl 

NOx

PostControl 

PM10

Delta 

SO2

Delta 

NOx

Delta 

PM10

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 Huntington 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 Rates27 Presumptive BART Limits28

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 0.28 

H - 49
Section 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 SO2 and NOx 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 SO2 and NOx 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 EGU31. 

• NOx and SO2 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 SO2 and NOx 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-2002-0076-0369 

H - 50
Section 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 Significant 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 (SO2) 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 SO2 emissions for these years 

will determine whether emissions are greater 

than or less than the milestone 

200834 269,083 tons SO2 Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008 

2009 234,903 tons SO2 Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009 

2010 200,722 tons SO2 Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010 

2011 200,722 tons SO2 Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011 

2012 200,722 tons SO2 Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012 

2013 185,795 tons SO2 Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013 

2014 170,868 tons SO2 Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014 

2015 155,940 tons SO2 Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015 

2016 155,940 tons SO2 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 include only the three states that are part of the regional backstop trading 

program using the adjustment methodology in the 2003 Regional Haze SIP 

H - 51
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 28 

 

For the year the regional sulfur 

dioxide milestone is 

and the annual SO2 emissions for these years 

will determine whether emissions are greater 

than or less than the milestone 

2017 155,940 tons SO2 Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017 

2018 141,849 tons SO2 Year 2018 only 

2019 forward, 

until replaced 

by an 

approved SIP 

141,849 tons SO2 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 SO2 emissions. 

The executive secretary will work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are 

participating in the SO2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program to ensure that an 

emission tracking system for the regional SO2 inventory is developed and maintained. 

H - 52
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 SO2 emission inventories that were used during the development 

of the Annex and subsequent SIP revisions, and the WRAP continues to refine and 

improve 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 contract 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. 

H - 53
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 or 

H - 54
Section 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 SO2 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 

H - 55
Section 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 circulation 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. 

 

H - 56
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 SO2 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 

SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 

H - 57
Section 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 SO2 inventory projections for the year 2018, and estimate the 

effect of known future sources on SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2 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. 

H - 58
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 SO2 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. SO2 Emission Inventory 

40 CFR 51.309 sets forth emissions inventory requirements for tracking compliance with 

the SO2 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 

SO2 in the year 2000, or in any subsequent year, to submit an annual inventory of SO2

emissions, beginning with the 2003 emission inventory. A source that meets these criteria 

and then emits less than 100 tons per year in a later year must continue to submit an SO2

inventory for tracking compliance with the regional SO2 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 SO2 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, 

H - 59
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

H - 60
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 

H - 61
Section 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 as 

established 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. 

H - 62
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 SO2. 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 SO2 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 SO2 annual emissions for the WEB source, or SO2 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 SO2. 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 

H - 63
Section 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 SO2 emissions data for all Category 1 sources for the purposes of 

calculating the reducible allocation. 

(i) For utilities, annual SO2 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 SO2 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-rated 

H - 64
Section 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. 

H - 65
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 bonus 

H - 66
Section 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 SO2 emissions in 

accordance 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 SO2 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.] 

H - 67
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 availability 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 for 

changes 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. 

H - 68
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

H - 69
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 meet 

the 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. 

H - 70
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

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 to 

H - 71
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 48 

track the ongoing emissions of sources emitting SO2 at amounts equal to or greater than 

100 tons per year. The emissions tracking database, which was used to track and measure 

SO2 emissions against the milestones, will still exist once the WEB Trading Program is 

triggered; however, it will become incorporated into the SO2 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 of 

security 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. 

H - 72
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. 

H - 73
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. 

H - 74
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 SO2 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 control 

ratio. 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 

SO2 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 SO2 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 = 0.70 

H - 75
Section 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 determine 

the 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 SO2

emissions. The TSA would therefore deduct a total of 1,780 allowances (1,000 + 420 

+360) to cover 1,580 tons of SO2 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, 

H - 76
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. 

H - 77
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 SO2 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 violation 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 SO2 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, 

H - 78
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 notice 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; 

H - 79
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. 

H - 80
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 five-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 SO2 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 

H - 81
Section 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. 

H - 82
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 vehicle 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 reasonable 

progress. 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 define 

H - 83
Section 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. The 

new Section 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B) requires the State of Utah to assess the need for any longterm strategies to address SO2 from non-road mobile sources by no later than December 

31, 2008. States may determine if a SIP revision is necessary to address SO2 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. 

H - 84
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 SO2 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. 

H - 85
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 prescribed 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 Operation35 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. 

H - 86
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 Division 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. 

H - 87
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 64 

b. Agricultural Fire 

The WRAP inventory and a survey36 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 PM2.5 SOx NOx 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 emissions 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.

H - 88
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 county-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 emission 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. 

H - 89
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 staff 

and 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 of 

H - 90
Section 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. 

H - 91
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 quantify 

the 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. 

H - 92
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. 

H - 93
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. 

H - 94
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 with 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. 

H - 95
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 production 

in 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. 

H - 96
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.” Stakeholders 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 efficient 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. 

H - 97
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” requirement for States “to 

assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVTC 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 Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, page 35754, July 1, 1999. Regional Haze 

Regulations Final Rule.

H - 98
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 certified 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. 

H - 99
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 low-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute 

(LIHI). 

 

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"; FERC "Hydroelectric Projects Under 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 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. 

H - 100
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 low-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute 

 (LIHI) 

 

Sources: EIA, Form EIA-759, "Monthly Power Plant Report"; 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. 

H - 101
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"; and 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 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 Power Plant Data" and "Monthly Nonutility Power Plant 

Data"; and Utah Energy Office Small and Medium Renewable Plant Surveys. 

 Updated: 04/10/03 

H - 102
Section 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 Renewable 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 region 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-state 

H - 103
Section 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 planning 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. 

H - 104
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

H - 105
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 

Residential Energy Low-income Weatherization Program 

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 

Technical Assistance Energy Education in Schools Program 

“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 and 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 capital 

costs, 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 generation. A map of Utah’s transmission system 

is shown below. It can be compared to the maps depicting Utah’s renewable energy 

H - 106
Section 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. 

 

H - 107
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 SO2 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 Nevada, 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 be 

H - 108
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 85

representative. Utah has relied on their analysis41 to prepare this section of the Utah 

Regional 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 energy conservation efforts. The first was 

a Business-As-Usual scenario that characterized how the future might unfold with the 

proposed, “backstop,” regional SO2 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 SO2 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 Goals and Energy Efficiency Recommendations. Draft Report of 

October, 2002; 

H - 109
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 Gas

Capacity 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 renewable 

energy 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 Prevention 

Forum as “best practices” to preserve and expand energy conservation can serve as cost31%

0%

37%

4%

8%

14%

6%

29%

0%

4% 26%

7%

14%

6%

14%

Coal

O/G Steam & Turbines

Combined Cycles

Existing Renewables

Cogens

Hydro

Nuclear

New Renewables

H - 110
Section 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 NOx 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 NOx emissions reductions from a scenario in 

which the 10/20 goal is meet, the one marked “EE” represents NOx 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 

NOx 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 NOx Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and 

Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations. 

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Change in NO

2005 2010 2015 2018

x Emission Relative to BAU 

(Thousands Tons of NOX)

10/20 Goals

EE

EE + 10/20 Goals

 

 

H - 111
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 88 

Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and pursuing energy efficiency aggressively 

also leads to reductions in CO2 emissions through the displacement of new fossil fuel 

generation. As illustrated in Figure 9, CO2 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 CO2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE. 

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

Change in CO

2005 2010 2015 2018

2 Emissions 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 SO2 emissions 

because the regional SO2 trading program proposed under the Annex is the controlling 

factor in reducing SO2 emissions. Since the trading program creates a monetary value for 

emissions reductions, any potential for emissions reductions is fully offset by increases in 

SO2 emissions from sources affected by the trading program. In other words, SO2

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 SO2 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. 

H - 112
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 costs43 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 Goals

Annual Levelized Production Costs (Billion 2001$)

Accomplishing the10/20 renewable energy goal by itself will increase annual levelized 

production costs modestly. Electricity production 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. 

H - 113
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 Improvements

Annual 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 efficiency 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 gross 

H - 114
Section 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 alone 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” requirement for states “to 

assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVTC 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.

H - 115
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 

Government Endorsed Supplemental Environmental Project Program 

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 required 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. 

H - 116
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 factor46, 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 express 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 capacity 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 sources varies throughout the day and from day to day, 

renewable power generators operate at only a portion of their full power production capacity. The 

capacity factors used in this section to convert the potential power production in Utah from each type of 

renewable energy source to an estimate of the potential 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. 

H - 117
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 94 

Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah. 

H - 118
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. 

H - 119
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 Renewable 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. 

H - 120
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 97

Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah. 

H - 121
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.

H - 122
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 99

Table 20. Utah Land-fill Gas Resources 

Project ID # 

Landfill ID # 

LMOP Territory Landfill Name Landfill City 

Landfill County 

Landfill State WIP (tons)

Year Landfill Opened

Landfill Closure Year Landfill Owner Project Status

Project Developer 

Utilization Ty(Direct-Use vs Electricity) 

1619 1542 3 Salt Lake Valley LF Salt Lake Salt Lake UT 6,700,000 1982 2020 

Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council Construction 

DTE Energy Direct 

1604 1527 3 

City of Logan Sanitary Landfill Logan Cache UT 1,400,000 1961 2016 City of Logan Potential Electricity 

1630 1553 3 Beaver County LF Beaver Beaver UT 107,648 1968 2014 Beaver City Unknown Direct 1625 1548 3 Blanding LF Blanding San Juan UT 50,780 1956 1995 Blanding City Unknown Direct 1617 1540 3 

Bountiful City Sanitary LF 

West Bountiful Davis UT 2,171,531 1960 2058 City of Bountiful Unknown Direct 

1598 1521 3 Brigham City LF Brigham Box Elder UT 693,000 1960 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 1606 1529 3 Callao LF Juab UT 1970 Unknown Direct 1621 1544 3 Carbon County LF Price Carbon UT 280,000 1956 1995 Carbon County Unknown Direct 1626 1549 3 City of Monticello LF Monticello San Juan UT 36,000 1960 1995 Max Dalton Unknown Direct 1618 1541 3 

Davis County Solid Waste Management SSD LF Layton Davis UT 1,840,150 1959 2022 

Wasatch Energy Systems Unknown Direct 

1642 1565 3 Duchesne County LF Duchesne Duchesne UT 1984 2044 

Duchesne & Wasatch Counties Unknown Direct 

180128 2074 3 ECDC East Carbon UT Unknown 1622 1545 3 Emery County LF Castledale Emery UT 212,184 1983 2024 Emery County Unknown Direct 1609 1532 3 Eskdale LF Millard UT Unknown Direct 1631 1554 3 

Garfield County/John's Valley LF Garfield Garfield UT 16,200 1992 2044 Garfield County Unknown Direct 

1632 1555 3 

Garfield County/Ticaboo LF Garfield Garfield UT 8,852 1993 2014 Garfield County Unknown Direct 

1610 1533 3 Garrison LF Garrison Millard UT 660 1986 2094 Millard County Unknown Direct 1624 1547 3 Grand County LF Moab Grand UT 76,300 1960 2004 Grand County Unknown Direct 1623 1546 3 Green River LF Green River Emery UT 79,205 1965 1995 Green River City Unknown Direct 1599 1522 3 Grouse Creek LF 

Grouse Creek Box Elder UT 1,760 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 

1633 1556 3 

Iron County/ Armstrong Pit LF Cedar Iron UT 44,962 1993 2014 Iron County Unknown Direct 

1635 1558 3 

Kane County/Glendale LF Glendale Kane UT 6,560 1988 2094 

Western Kane County SSD# 1 Unknown Direct 

1634 1557 3 Kane County/Kanab LF Kanab Kane UT 39,680 1981 2044 

Western Kane County SSD# 1 Unknown Direct 

1641 1564 3 Manila City LF Manila Daggett UT 32,120 1974 1995 

Manila City/Daggett County Unknown Direct 

1611 1534 3 Millard County LF Delta Millard UT 67,650 1986 2034 Millard County Unknown Direct 1607 1530 3 Nephi LF Nephi Juab UT 18,300 1987 2044 Nephi City Unknown Direct 
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 100 

Table 20. (Continued) Utah Land-fill Gas Resources Project ID # 

Landfill ID # 

LMOP Territory Landfill Name Landfill City 

Landfill County 

Landfill State WIP (tons)

Year Landfill Opened

Landfill Closure Year Landfill Owner 

Project Status 

Project Developer 

Utilization Type (DirectUse vs Electricity) 

1645 1568 3 

North Utah County Special Service District LF Utah UT 1,707,965 1964 1993 Unknown Direct 

1600 1523 3 Park Valley LF Park Valley Box Elder UT 2,400 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 1608 1531 3 Partoun LF Juab UT Unknown Direct 1614 1537 3 Payson City LF Payson Utah UT 616,029 1950 2014 

Payson City Corporation Unknown Direct 

1646 1569 3 Provo LF Provo Utah UT 1,131,000 1963 1991 City of Provo Unknown Direct 1605 1528 3 Rich County LF Laketown Rich UT 40,688 1981 2030 Rich County Unknown Direct 1627 1550 3 

San Juan County/Bluff LF Bluff San Juan UT 1,600 1980 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct 

1628 1551 3 

San Juan County/Halls Crossing LF 

Halls Crossing San Juan UT 9,464 1970 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct 

1629 1552 3 

San Juan County/Mexican Hat LF Mexican Hat San Juan UT 1,600 1980 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct 

1612 1535 3 Sanpete SLF Coop Spring City Sanpete UT 108,396 1989 2066 Sanpete SLF Coop Unknown Direct 1615 1538 3 Santaquin County LF Santaquin Utah UT 262,080 1900 1995 Santaquin City Unknown Direct 1613 1536 3 

Sevier County/Sage Flat LF Glenwood Sevier UT 70,200 1993 2024 Sevier County Unknown Direct 

1601 1524 3 Snowville LF Snowville Box Elder UT 8,100 1970 Snowville Town Unknown Direct 1616 1539 3 

South Utah County SSD/Bayview LF Utah Utah UT 1,100,000 1991 2094 

South Utah Valley Solid Waste District Unknown Direct 

1637 1560 3 

Summit County/Three Mile Canyon LF Wanship Summit UT 358,896 1986 2026 Summit County Unknown Direct 

1638 1561 3 

Tooele Army Depot LF #1 Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct 

1639 1562 3 

Tooele Army Depot LF #2 Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct 

1620 1543 3 Transjordan LF South Jordan Salt Lake UT 8,622,936 1955 2021 Trans-Jordan Cities Unknown Direct 1602 1525 3 Tremonton LF Tremonton Box Elder UT 184,600 1970 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 1643 1566 3 

Uintah County/Vernal City LF Vernal Uintah UT 2,773,000 1950 2008 

Uintah County and Vernal City Unknown Direct 

1636 1559 3 

Washington County Solid Waste SSD #1 LF Washington Washington UT 1,292,000 1978 2067 Washington County Unknown Direct 

1644 1567 3 Weber County LF Ogden Weber UT 3,500,000 1966 1996 Weber County Unknown Direct 1640 1563 3 Wendover City LF Wendover Tooele UT 118,260 1970 1996 Wendover City Unknown Direct 1603 1526 3 Yost LF Yost Box Elder UT 800 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 
101

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. 

H - 125
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 (NOX); 

• Carbon Monoxide (CO); 

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2); 

• Particulate Matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10); 

• Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5); and 

• Ammonia (NH3). 

H - 126
103

For visibility modeling, the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 species 

are organic carbon particles (OC), elemental carbon particles (EC), and other fine 

particles such as soils and dusts. The factors used to allocate PM2.5 into its components 

are based on source specific speciation factors. In addition, the coarse material (CM) 

fraction of PM10 (i.e., PM10 minus PM2.5) 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) developed 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 for 

H - 127
104

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 inventory 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 inventories were adequate for regional 

haze modeling given the uncertainties in any 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 (PM2.5) 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 

NOx and PM2.5 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. 

H - 128
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 NOx SO2 PM2.5* 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% 

*PM2.5 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 NOx 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 NOx SO2 PM2.5* 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% 

*PM2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts. 

H - 129
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 2002 

H - 130
107

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 SO2 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 SO2 milestones and BART. 

These inventories show a significant decrease in stationary source NOx and SO2

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.

H - 131
108

H - 132
109

Figure 17. Class I Areas with Contributions from Northern Utah

H - 133
110

• 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 SO2 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. 

H - 134
111

H - 135
112

Figure 18. Class I Areas with Impacts from Central Utah. 

H - 136
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 SIP49. 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. 

H - 137
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 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 deceviews50 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. 

When SO2 and NOx controls for all BART sources have been adopted in the WRAP 

region, and the §309 states re-adopt the SO2 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 indicate better visibility, while 

higher numbers indicate more impaired visibility. 

H - 138
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, 3/23/2007

H - 139
116

Table 2423. Projected Visibility Improvement 

Visibility Impairment in Deciviews* 

20% Worst Visibility Days 20% Best Visi

Projected Visibility 

(Monthly Average Method) 

 Proj

(Month

Colorado Plateau 

Class I areas 

under §309(d)(2) 

State 

2000-04 

Regional 

Haze Rule 

Baseline 

Monitoring 

Data

2018

Base 

Case

(Base18b)

2018

Preliminary 

Reasonable 

Progress Case

(PRP18a)

2018

Final 

Reasonable 

Progress Case

(FRP18)

2000-04 

Regional 

Haze Rule 

Baseline 

Monitoring 

Data

2018

Base 

Case

(Base18b)

Pre

Rea

Prog

(P

Grand Canyon National Park AZ 11.7 11.4 11.3 2.2 2.2 Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ 11.9 11.5 11.4 3.0 2.9 Petrified Forest National Park AZ 13.2 12.9 12.9 5.0 4.9 Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ 15.3 15.1 15.1 5.6 5.6 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Wilderness

CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 

Flat Tops Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 Maroon Bells Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 Mesa Verde National Park CO 13.0 12.8 12.6 4.3 4.1 Weminuche Wilderness CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 West Elk Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM 10.2 10.0 9.8 1.5 1.3 Arches National Park UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 Bryce Canyon National Park UT 11.6 11.3 11.2 2.8 2.7 Canyonlands National Park UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 Capitol Reef National Park UT 10.9 10.6 10.5 4.1 4.0 Zion National Park UT 13.2 13.0 13.0 5.0 4.7 

* Data are from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx --> Modeling --> Visibility Projections
117

L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS 

1. Periodic Progress Reports for 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 areas within Utah, and Class I areas outside 

Utah that are affected by emissions from Utah. 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 additional 

H - 141
Section 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. 

H - 142
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 Regional 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 Forum 

H - 143
Section 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 

(SO2), and particulate matter (PM2.5) 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 SO2 for 

stationary sources are described in Part E. Emission reductions of NOx and PM2.5 are due 

to the implementation of new federal engine standards and fuel standards described in 

Part F and BART controls for NOx and PM2.5 described in Part D. 

H - 144
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

H - 145
H - 146
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 Emission 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

H - 147
Section 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 useful 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 1ne (bext/10 Mm-1). 

Where bext = 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, 

H - 148
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 the 

Federal 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 binding 

H - 149
Section 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. 

H - 150
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 of 

H - 151
Section 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 Emission 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 owners 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 SO2 emissions as reported to the executive 

secretary in accordance with the requirements R307-250-9 or R307-150, as applicable. 

H - 152
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

H - 153
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 SO2 WEB allowance allocated to tribes on an 

annual basis. The tribes will decide how to distribute the allowances in the set-aside 

H - 154
Section 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

H - 155
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 9 

B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS 

Protocol WEB-1: SO2 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 H2S) 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 H2S. 

H - 156
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 SO2 emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion 

devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated using the 

following equation: 

Et = (CS)(Qt)(K) 

where: Et = Total SO2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable 

fuel gas combustion devices 

CS = Sulfur content of the fuel gas as H2S(ppmv) 

Qt = 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 SO2 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 SO2 emission rate (lb SO2/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 SO2, flow, and (if applicable) moisture, shall 

comply with the operating requirements, performance 

specifications, and quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part 

75. 

H - 157
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 SO2 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: 

Et = (Em)(Qt)/(Qm) 

where: Et = Total SO2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable 

fuel gas combustion devices 

Em = SO2 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 

Qt = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel 

gas combustion devices 

Qm = 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 SO2 - 

diluent CEMS at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is 

representative of the SO2 emission rate (lb SO2/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 SO2-diluent CEMS shall comply with the applicable 

provisions for SO2 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 SO2 emission rate (lb/mmBtu) by substituting 

the term SO2 for NOx in that section, and using a K factor of 

1.660 x 10-7 (lb/scf)/ppmv instead of the NOx 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 SO2 hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion 

devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated by using the 

following equation: 

H - 158
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 12 

Et = (Em) (Qt)(GCV)/106

where: 

Et = Total hourly SO2 mass emissions in lb/hr from the 

applicable fuel gas combustion devices 

Em = SO2 emission rate in lb/mmBtu from the CEMS - 

monitored fuel gas combustion device 

Qt = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel 

gas combustion devices 

GCV = Fuel Gross Calorific Value (Btu/scf) 

 106 = Conversion from Btu to 

million Btu 

(d) Calculate total SO2 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 SO2 and flow or each SO2-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 SO2-diluent 

CEMS shall meet the relative accuracy requirements for a NOx-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 SO2 and flow or the SO2-diluent CEMS 

in compliance with sections 1, 1.1, and 1.2 of Appendix B to Part 75. 

H - 159
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 SO2

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. 

H - 160
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 14 

(b) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an SO2-

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 SO2 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 SO2 emission 

rate from the monitored unit is representative of the rate from nonmonitored units.

H - 161
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 SO2 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. 

H - 162
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: 

H - 163
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. 

H - 164
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 prevention 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. 

H - 165
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. 

H - 166
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 20 

Figure1 Appendix. Contributions to Light 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

Year

Aerosol 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. 

H - 167
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

Year

Aerosol 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. 

H - 168
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 western 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, Idaho, 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. The 

H - 169
Section 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 individuals 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 1 

H - 170
Section 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 and 

H - 171
Section 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 land 

H - 172
Section 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 member 

H - 173
Section 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 SO2 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. 

H - 174
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 Board adopted a revision to Utah’s Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision addressed Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) requirements for NOx and particulate matter (PM), as required by 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii). The SIP generally relies on EPA’s presumptive BART 

emission rate for NOx as the appropriate benchmark and, because EPA has not 

established a presumptive rate for PM, the SIP 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 NOx as the appropriate 

benchmark, the SIP also includes a BART analysis for NOx, 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 NOx, now codified in 

Appendix Y.1

 In addition, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) evaluated the 

impact of PM, as well as other pollutants. Utah’s BART analysis relies on both of these 

works. 

 

The BART analysis performed by UDAQ was influenced by several important factors. 

1. In the 1990s PacifiCorp installed first generation low NOx burners on the four 

electric generating units (EGUs) that are subject to BART. As can be seen on the 

table below, Utah’s ability to achieve significant NOx reductions that may have 

been available at older uncontrolled plants was limited because of these 

previously installed low NOx burners. Moreover, it is less cost effective to install 

controls on a lower-emitting plant than on an uncontrolled plant. 

 Pre-control 

emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

NOx Controls installed prior to 2004 2004 NOx emission 

rate with first 

generation low NOx

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 NOx Emission Limits for BART-Eligible Coal-Fired 

Units, note 20, says: 

These [presumptive NOx] limits reflect the design and technological assumptions discussed in 

the technical support document for NOx limits for these guidelines. See Technical Support 

Document for BART NOx Limits for Electric Generating Units and Technical Support 

Document for BART NOx Limits for Electric Generating Units Excel Spreadsheet, 

Memorandum to Docket OAR 2002–0076, April 15, 2005. 

H - 175
December 20, 2010 

2

The information in the above table is drawn from the “Technical Support 

Document for BART NOx 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 pollution control projects, including the 

installation of next generation low NOx burners, at the four EGUs that are subject 

to BART. The projects were described 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 guidelines that were finalized in 2005. 

The pollution control projects were designed to achieve overall emission 

reductions not only of NOx but also of SO2, PM, and mercury. The emission 

rates that were ultimately included in the permits for these pollution control 

projects for NOx and PM are shown in Table 5 of Utah’s RH SIP and summarized 

below. 

Utah Permitted Rate (pollution 

control project) in lb/MMBtu 

NOx PM 

Presumptive NOx 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, the pollution control projects at the Hunter 

and Huntington Plants, including installation of low NOx burners, achieve the 

presumptive BART limits for NOx, 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 NOx limits, differentiated by boiler design and type of coal burned. You may 

determine that an alternative level is appropriate based on a careful consideration of the 

statutory factors. Emphasis added. 

Utah’s RH SIP relies on the presumptive BART limit for NOx as the 

appropriate benchmark, and Utah did not choose to follow the voluntary 

path to establish an alternative level. This decision was based on a careful 

review of the supporting documentation that EPA developed to support the 

presumptive NOx limits in Appendix Y. 

4. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission determined that sulfates 

were the primary stationary source pollutant of concern in the sixteen Class I 

areas on the Colorado Plateau. Utah’s RH SIP, based on the Commission’s 

H - 176
December 20, 2010 

3

recommendations, established a regulatory framework that required stationary 

sources to focus their resources on reductions in SO2. The 2003 SIP included a 

regional SO2 milestone with a backstop trading program that locked in substantial 

SO2 emission reductions, and also included allocation provisions to encourage 

early reductions. 

The milestones in the 2003 SIP required substantial SO2 reductions in the region. 

If the milestones were not met, sources in the region would face significant 

financial penalties and the implementation 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-effective manner, as long as 

the regional emission reduction goals were achieved. The milestones could not be 

met unless major sources achieved the assumed emission reductions in the SIP. 

After the 2003 had been finalized, there was a huge growth in applications for 

new power plants in response to the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, 

putting further pressure on existing sources to reduce emissions to meet the 

milestones. The 2003 SIP also contained a commitment to address BART for 

NOx and PM by 2008 with installation of controls within 5 years, as required by 

the regional haze rule. 

PacifiCorp’s pollution control projects were developed within this regulatory 

framework, and achieved the substantial reductions of SO2 that were needed to 

ensure that the SO2 milestones would be met. PacifiCorp’s projects planned 

across their large fleet of plants, were done in an ordered manner and achieved 

cost savings by timing the upgrades to coincide 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 SO2

reductions because SO2 reductions would lead to the greatest improvement in 

regional haze. PacifiCorp’s pollution control project reflected this weighting by 

achieving substantial reductions of SO2 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 SO2 milestones, meets Utah’s unique and dual needs 

of reducing SO2 emissions and achieving NOx emissions below EPA’s 

presumptive emissions rate. 

The Commission’s recommendations to reduce NOx emissions were focused on 

mobile sources that are the most significant source of NOx in the region. The 

WRAP provided further analysis of the need for additional measures to address 

NOx emissions from stationary sources in a document titled Stationary Source 

NOx 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 NOx emissions probably cause 2% - 5% of the visibility 

impairment on the Colorado Plateau. The BART analysis for NOx was developed 

H - 177
December 20, 2010 

4

within the context of the substantial SO2 reductions that had been achieved in the 

2003 SIP. 

5. In 2005, EPA finalized the Clean Air Mercury 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 mercury 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 have also been measured in waterfowl at 

the Great Salt Lake, an internationally important migratory bird resource. The 

State of Utah has identified reduction of mercury emissions 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 visibility can be achieved. Baghouses to 

reduce PM in conjunction with wet scrubbers to reduce SO2 can significantly 

decrease mercury emissions. PacifiCorp’s pollution control project was 

consistent with this multi-pollutant approach 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 determined that it would be appropriate to 

compress the 5-factor BART analysis by focusing on the NOx and PM emission controls 

that had already been achieved at the Hunter and Huntington plants. 

H - 178
December 20, 2010 

5

BART Analysis for NOx

Step 1. The available retrofit control options and Step 2. Eliminate technically 

infeasible options. 

As the EPA had already provided a substantial analysis of potential NOx controls at 

EGUs throughout the nation, UDAQ relied heavily on that analysis to address the first 

two steps in the BART analysis for NOx. 

EPA’s analysis identified three levels of feasible control that are described in Table 1 of 

the Methodology for Developing BART NOx 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 NOx

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 NOx

Rate. 

1d Install SCR, unless unit already has 

SCR installed or the 2004 NOx 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 NOx 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 NOx

Rate. 

If the 2004 NOx 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 NOx 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. 

H - 179
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) 

 

NOx

emission 

rate 

tons 

reduced 

NOx emission 

rate 

tons 

reduced 

NOx 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 are 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 NOx burner technology. This case is the closest to 

Pacificorp’s pollution control project. Case 1d is the installation 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 associated with SCR are much higher that what is 

shown in this table. PacifiCorp estimates that the costs would be $4,500 - $5,500 per ton 

removed. 

The cost/ton in Cases 1d and 1e are significantly higher than the $567/ton that is shown 

as the average cost-effectiveness of NOx 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 alternative analysis is required only when a source cannot meet the 

presumptive NOx limits. 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, Section IV.E.5 states, 

Most EGUs can meet these presumptive NOx limits through the use of current combustion 

control technology, i.e. the careful control of combustion air and low-NOx 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 limits supports this reading of Appendix Y. 

It clearly states that the presumptive limits 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. 

H - 180
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 consideration 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 statutory 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 technically feasible and/or cost-effective. For 

example, certain boilers may lack adequate space 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 NOx 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 presumptive 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 NOx 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 regulations in Appendix Y and the discussion in 

the preamble to the BART rule is that the presumptive NOx level is adequate and 

expected for most sources, and only if a source is not able to meet the presumptive BART 

limits is an alternate analysis required. 

H - 181
December 20, 2010 

8

BART Analysis for PM 

EPA did not establish a presumptive BART limit for PM. The pollution control projects 

at the Hunter and Huntington plants upgraded the PM controls from electrostatic 

precipitators to baghouses, which is the current 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 stringent 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 stringent 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 SO2 and NOx. However, when viewed in a broader, multi-pollutant 

approach, the combination of SO2 controls and PM controls are very effective at reducing 

mercury emissions. 

The SIP determined that the emission rate under the pollution control 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 Plants 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 and this determination does not require an 

emission limit. This determination is reasonable 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 permits that are issued under that plan are 

enforceable under State law and become federally enforceable when EPA approves the 

plan and incorporates it into 40 CFR Part 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 Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by EPA 

under Title I of the Act. Section 172, and other provisions 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. 

H - 182
December 20, 2010 

9

Additionally, SIPs contain state air regulations that, for example, allow states to permit the 

construction and operation of stationary sources, establish 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 measures, 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 the 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 Attainment 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 the Clean Air Act, EPA has broad general 

authority to enforce state-issued Title V permits. 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 authority of R307-401 and 

R307-405 to the Hunter and Huntington plants, including provisions to make the 

pollution control projects enforceable, contain enforceable emission limits for NOx and 

PM, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure that the 

emission limits are continuously met. EPA has discretion to federally enforce the 

provisions of these approval orders under authority of the federally approved Utah SIP. 

There is no doubt that such approval orders are federally enforceable, as evidenced by 

lawsuits brought previously by EPA against other sources in Utah. 

The applicable requirements in the approval orders for the Hunter and Huntington plants 

have been incorporated into the operating permits 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. Enforcement 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 and minor sources is part of the federally 

approved SIP. If PacifiCorp seeks to relax or modify the limitations in the approval 

orders for the Hunter or Huntington 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 (R307-401) rules. A modification may 

potentially trigger other requirements, such as PSD review, NSPS standards, GHG 

review, or analysis of impact on new NAAQS. 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 broad air program in Utah to ensure that the 

H - 183
December 20, 2010 

10

emission reductions achieved through the pollution control projects are maintained 

(through state or federal enforcement if necessary) into the future. 

Conclusion 

After reviewing the detailed analysis prepared by EPA in support of Appendix Y, and 

reviewing whether that rate was achievable at the Hunter and Huntington plants, UDAQ 

agreed with EPA’s presumptive BART emission rate for NOx as applied to those Utah 

plants. As the Hunter and Huntington Plants already meet the presumptive NOx emission 

rate in Appendix Y, no additional NOx 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 required at the two plants meet or are better than BART and, 

therefore, no additional PM controls were needed to meet the BART requirement. 

H - 184
Effective Rule

R307. 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)

E - 1
 

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, 2011

E - 2
Section 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 Visibility Impairment SIP......................................... 4 

5. 1990 Clean Air Act ........................................................................................... 5 

6. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission ............................................. 5 

7. Western Regional Air Partnership .................................................................... 7 

8. Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Addressed in 2003 SIP................................ 7 

C. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR THE 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 outside the clean-air corridor occurs................... 14

D. LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR STATIONARY SOURCES...................... 15

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

2. Achievement of a 13% or Greater Reduction 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 Met 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 Attributable Visibility Impairment under the 

Regional Haze Rule................................................................... 19

5. Report on Assessment of NOx/PM Strategies................................................. 19 

a. Assessment of Need for NOx and PM milestones.................................................. 19

6. Best Available Control Technology (BART) Assessment for NOx and PM.. 20 

a. Regional Haze Rule BART 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 ......................................................................................................... 27

E - 3
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page iii

1. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger........................................ 27 

a. Regional Sulfur Dioxide Milestones...................................................................... 27

b. Regional Program Administration ......................................................................... 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. SO2 Emission Inventory......................................................................................... 35

b. Development of Emission Tracking System.......................................................... 36

c. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking Database ................................. 36

3. WEB Trading Program Requirements ............................................................ 37 

a. Initial Allocation of SO2 Allowances .................................................................... 37

b. Distribution of Allowances for 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 Tracking System (WEB EATS)......................... 47

g. Allowance Transfers.............................................................................................. 49

h. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year.............................................................. 50

i. Monitoring/Recordkeeping.................................................................................... 52

j. Compliance, Excess Emissions, 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 decline in mobile source emissions. ...................... 61

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

Federal standards are 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........................................................ 66 

E - 4
Section 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 Unpaved 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 Generation 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 SO2 Trading Program Early Reduction Credits. ...................... 81

b. Western Backstop SO2 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 Renewable Energy Resources........................................................... 92

J. OTHER GCVTC RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 101

1. Regulatory History and Requirements.......................................................... 101 

2. Other State of Utah Long-term Strategy Components.................................. 101 

E - 5
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page v

a. Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

Recommendations. .................................................................. 101

b. Implementation of Additional 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 for 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 Demonstrating 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 ................................................................................. 119 

E - 6
Section 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 Transport 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 Renewable 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 ............................................................. 116

E - 7
Section 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 NOx Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and 

Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations. ......................................... 87

Figure 9. Potential CO2 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. ........................ 114

E - 8
Section 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 Activities 

E - 9
Section 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 NOx 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. 

E - 10
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 SO2 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.

E - 11
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 by 

particulate 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. 

E - 12
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 impairment 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: Washington, D.C. December 2, 1980. 

4

 IMPROVE Home Page. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve (accessed April 2003). 

E - 13
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 blight, 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 provide 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. 

E - 14
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. 

E - 15
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 Utah, 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. 

E - 16
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 8 

Figure 1. 16 GCVTC Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309 

E - 17
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 9

Figure 2. Utah Class I Areas Addressed by 40 CFR 51.309. 

E - 18
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 that Influence Clean Air on the Colorado Plateau. 

Western Governors' Association: Denver, CO, July 1995. 

12 64 FR 35751, July 1, 1999. 

E - 19
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. 

E - 20
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). 

E - 21
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 technical 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 analysis, 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. 

E - 22
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 significant emissions growth is identified, the 

State of Utah, in coordination with other transport 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). 

E - 23
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 stationary 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 Canyon 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. 

E - 24
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 greater reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions between the years of 1990 and 2000. As shown in Table 2, regional SO2

emission totals show that there was a 25% reduction in these emissions from 1990 to 

2000.20 There was a 33% decrease in SO2 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 Transport 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 

(SO2) 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. for the Western Governors’ Association. Year 2000 Point Source SO2 

Emissions Analysis - 9 State Western Region Report. Denver, CO, May 2002. 

E - 25
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 SO2

milestones, emissions tracking requirements, and, if the Western Backstop SO2

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 Dioxide Trading Program, contains the 

requirements that will apply to major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide as a 

backstop regulatory program if the SO2 milestones are exceeded. The rule may 

never be implemented if the goal to meet the regional SO2 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 SO2 to submit an annual emissions 

inventory in the pre-trigger phase of the program to measure compliance with the 

regional SO2 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 SO2 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 milestone provides for greater reasonable 

progress

21 than would be achieved by application of best available retrofit technology 

(BART) for SO2, 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 SO2 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. 

 

21October 6, 2010 Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than 

BART 

E - 26
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 18 

c. Triggering the Trading Program 

States and tribes will collect an annual SO2 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 SO2 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 different from regional haze in that it 

E - 27
Section 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 NOx/PM Strategies 

a. Assessment of Need for NOx and PM milestones. 

The State of Utah has evaluated the need for NOx 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 

NOx 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 NOx 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 NOx emissions are projected to increase by 4% between 1996 

and 2018. Stationary source NOx 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 the WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of 

Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts. Denver, CO. Presented to the WRAP Board October 

15, 2003. 

E - 28
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 20 

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

in the winter when NOx 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 NOx

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 

NOx 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 NOx 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 NOx and PM 

under the case-by-case provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). BART for SO2 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 NOx 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 Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (70 FR 

39158) 

E - 29
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 have 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 protocols24. 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 States 

E - 30
Section 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 BART CALMET/CALPUFF modeling protocols 

are as follows: 

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

• Visibility impacts due to emissions of SO2, NOx 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 within 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, 2007 

E - 31
Section 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 0.91 

E - 32
Section 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-NOx burners with Alstom TSF 

2000TM low-NOx 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-NOx burners with Alstom TSF 

2000TM low-NOx 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. 

E - 33
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 

SO2 

PreControl 

NOx 

PreControl 

PM10

PostControl 

SO2

PostControl 

NOx

PostControl 

PM10

Delta 

SO2

Delta 

NOx

Delta 

PM10

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 Huntington 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 Rates27 Presumptive BART Limits28

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 0.28 

E - 34
Section 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 SO2 and NOx 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 SO2 and NOx 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 EGU31. 

• NOx and SO2 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 SO2 and NOx 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-2002-0076-0369 

E - 35
Section 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 Significant 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 (SO2) 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 SO2 emissions for these years 

will determine whether emissions are greater 

than or less than the milestone 

200834 269,083 tons SO2 Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008 

2009 234,903 tons SO2 Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009 

2010 200,722 tons SO2 Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010 

2011 200,722 tons SO2 Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011 

2012 200,722 tons SO2 Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012 

2013 185,795 tons SO2 Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013 

2014 170,868 tons SO2 Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014 

2015 155,940 tons SO2 Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015 

2016 155,940 tons SO2 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 include only the three states that are part of the regional backstop trading 

program using the adjustment methodology in the 2003 Regional Haze SIP 

E - 36
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 28 

 

For the year the regional sulfur 

dioxide milestone is 

and the annual SO2 emissions for these years 

will determine whether emissions are greater 

than or less than the milestone 

2017 155,940 tons SO2 Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017 

2018 141,849 tons SO2 Year 2018 only 

2019 forward, 

until replaced 

by an 

approved SIP 

141,849 tons SO2 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 SO2 emissions. 

The executive secretary will work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are 

participating in the SO2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program to ensure that an 

emission tracking system for the regional SO2 inventory is developed and maintained. 

E - 37
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 SO2 emission inventories that were used during the development 

of the Annex and subsequent SIP revisions, and the WRAP continues to refine and 

improve 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 contract 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. 

E - 38
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 or 

E - 39
Section 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 SO2 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 

E - 40
Section 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 circulation 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. 

 

E - 41
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 SO2 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 

SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 

E - 42
Section 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 SO2 inventory projections for the year 2018, and estimate the 

effect of known future sources on SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2 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. 

E - 43
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 SO2 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. SO2 Emission Inventory 

40 CFR 51.309 sets forth emissions inventory requirements for tracking compliance with 

the SO2 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 

SO2 in the year 2000, or in any subsequent year, to submit an annual inventory of SO2

emissions, beginning with the 2003 emission inventory. A source that meets these criteria 

and then emits less than 100 tons per year in a later year must continue to submit an SO2

inventory for tracking compliance with the regional SO2 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 SO2 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, 

E - 44
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

E - 45
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 

E - 46
Section 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 as 

established 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. 

E - 47
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 SO2. 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 SO2 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 SO2 annual emissions for the WEB source, or SO2 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 SO2. 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 

E - 48
Section 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 SO2 emissions data for all Category 1 sources for the purposes of 

calculating the reducible allocation. 

(i) For utilities, annual SO2 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 SO2 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-rated 

E - 49
Section 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. 

E - 50
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 bonus 

E - 51
Section 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 SO2 emissions in 

accordance 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 SO2 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.] 

E - 52
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 availability 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 for 

changes 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. 

E - 53
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

E - 54
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 meet 

the 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. 

E - 55
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

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 to 

E - 56
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 48 

track the ongoing emissions of sources emitting SO2 at amounts equal to or greater than 

100 tons per year. The emissions tracking database, which was used to track and measure 

SO2 emissions against the milestones, will still exist once the WEB Trading Program is 

triggered; however, it will become incorporated into the SO2 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 of 

security 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. 

E - 57
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. 

E - 58
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. 

E - 59
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 SO2 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 control 

ratio. 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 

SO2 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 SO2 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 = 0.70 

E - 60
Section 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 determine 

the 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 SO2

emissions. The TSA would therefore deduct a total of 1,780 allowances (1,000 + 420 

+360) to cover 1,580 tons of SO2 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, 

E - 61
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. 

E - 62
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 SO2 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 violation 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 SO2 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, 

E - 63
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 notice 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; 

E - 64
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. 

E - 65
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 five-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 SO2 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 

E - 66
Section 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. 

E - 67
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 vehicle 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 reasonable 

progress. 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 define 

E - 68
Section 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. The 

new Section 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B) requires the State of Utah to assess the need for any longterm strategies to address SO2 from non-road mobile sources by no later than December 

31, 2008. States may determine if a SIP revision is necessary to address SO2 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. 

E - 69
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 SO2 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. 

E - 70
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 prescribed 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 Operation35 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. 

E - 71
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 Division 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. 

E - 72
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 64 

b. Agricultural Fire 

The WRAP inventory and a survey36 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 PM2.5 SOx NOx 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 emissions 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.

E - 73
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 county-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 emission 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. 

E - 74
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 staff 

and 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 of 

E - 75
Section 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. 

E - 76
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 quantify 

the 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. 

E - 77
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. 

E - 78
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. 

E - 79
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 with 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. 

E - 80
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 production 

in 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. 

E - 81
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.” Stakeholders 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 efficient 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. 

E - 82
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” requirement for States “to 

assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVTC 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 Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, page 35754, July 1, 1999. Regional Haze 

Regulations Final Rule.

E - 83
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 certified 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. 

E - 84
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 low-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute 

(LIHI). 

 

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"; FERC "Hydroelectric Projects Under 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 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. 

E - 85
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 low-impact hydro by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute 

 (LIHI) 

 

Sources: EIA, Form EIA-759, "Monthly Power Plant Report"; 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. 

E - 86
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"; and 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 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 Power Plant Data" and "Monthly Nonutility Power Plant 

Data"; and Utah Energy Office Small and Medium Renewable Plant Surveys. 

 Updated: 04/10/03 

E - 87
Section 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 Renewable 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 region 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-state 

E - 88
Section 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 planning 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. 

E - 89
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

E - 90
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 

Residential Energy Low-income Weatherization Program 

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 

Technical Assistance Energy Education in Schools Program 

“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 and 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 capital 

costs, 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 generation. A map of Utah’s transmission system 

is shown below. It can be compared to the maps depicting Utah’s renewable energy 

E - 91
Section 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. 

 

E - 92
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 SO2 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 Nevada, 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 be 

E - 93
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 85

representative. Utah has relied on their analysis41 to prepare this section of the Utah 

Regional 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 energy conservation efforts. The first was 

a Business-As-Usual scenario that characterized how the future might unfold with the 

proposed, “backstop,” regional SO2 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 SO2 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 Goals and Energy Efficiency Recommendations. Draft Report of 

October, 2002; 

E - 94
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 Gas

Capacity 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 renewable 

energy 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 Prevention 

Forum as “best practices” to preserve and expand energy conservation can serve as cost31%

0%

37%

4%

8%

14%

6%

29%

0%

4% 26%

7%

14%

6%

14%

Coal

O/G Steam & Turbines

Combined Cycles

Existing Renewables

Cogens

Hydro

Nuclear

New Renewables

E - 95
Section 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 NOx 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 NOx emissions reductions from a scenario in 

which the 10/20 goal is meet, the one marked “EE” represents NOx 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 

NOx 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 NOx Emissions Reductions from Meeting the 10/20 Goal and 

Implementing Energy Efficiency Recommendations. 

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Change in NO

2005 2010 2015 2018

x Emission Relative to BAU 

(Thousands Tons of NOX)

10/20 Goals

EE

EE + 10/20 Goals

 

 

E - 96
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 88 

Achieving the 10/20 renewable energy goal and pursuing energy efficiency aggressively 

also leads to reductions in CO2 emissions through the displacement of new fossil fuel 

generation. As illustrated in Figure 9, CO2 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 CO2 Emission Reductions From Meeting the 10/20 Goal and EE. 

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

Change in CO

2005 2010 2015 2018

2 Emissions 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 SO2 emissions 

because the regional SO2 trading program proposed under the Annex is the controlling 

factor in reducing SO2 emissions. Since the trading program creates a monetary value for 

emissions reductions, any potential for emissions reductions is fully offset by increases in 

SO2 emissions from sources affected by the trading program. In other words, SO2

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 SO2 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. 

E - 97
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 costs43 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 Goals

Annual Levelized Production Costs (Billion 2001$)

Accomplishing the10/20 renewable energy goal by itself will increase annual levelized 

production costs modestly. Electricity production 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. 

E - 98
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 Improvements

Annual 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 efficiency 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 gross 

E - 99
Section 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 alone 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” requirement for states “to 

assess progress toward a goal established by the GCVTC 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.

E - 100
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 

Government Endorsed Supplemental Environmental Project Program 

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 required 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. 

E - 101
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 factor46, 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 express 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 capacity 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 sources varies throughout the day and from day to day, 

renewable power generators operate at only a portion of their full power production capacity. The 

capacity factors used in this section to convert the potential power production in Utah from each type of 

renewable energy source to an estimate of the potential 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. 

E - 102
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 94 

Figure 12. Solar Energy Potential in Utah. 

E - 103
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. 

E - 104
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 Renewable 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. 

E - 105
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 97

Figure 14. Wind Energy Potential in Utah. 

E - 106
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.

E - 107
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 99

Table 20. Utah Land-fill Gas Resources 

Project ID # 

Landfill ID # 

LMOP Territory Landfill Name Landfill City 

Landfill County 

Landfill State WIP (tons)

Year Landfill Opened

Landfill Closure Year Landfill Owner Project Status

Project Developer 

Utilization Ty(Direct-Use vs Electricity) 

1619 1542 3 Salt Lake Valley LF Salt Lake Salt Lake UT 6,700,000 1982 2020 

Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council Construction 

DTE Energy Direct 

1604 1527 3 

City of Logan Sanitary Landfill Logan Cache UT 1,400,000 1961 2016 City of Logan Potential Electricity 

1630 1553 3 Beaver County LF Beaver Beaver UT 107,648 1968 2014 Beaver City Unknown Direct 1625 1548 3 Blanding LF Blanding San Juan UT 50,780 1956 1995 Blanding City Unknown Direct 1617 1540 3 

Bountiful City Sanitary LF 

West Bountiful Davis UT 2,171,531 1960 2058 City of Bountiful Unknown Direct 

1598 1521 3 Brigham City LF Brigham Box Elder UT 693,000 1960 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 1606 1529 3 Callao LF Juab UT 1970 Unknown Direct 1621 1544 3 Carbon County LF Price Carbon UT 280,000 1956 1995 Carbon County Unknown Direct 1626 1549 3 City of Monticello LF Monticello San Juan UT 36,000 1960 1995 Max Dalton Unknown Direct 1618 1541 3 

Davis County Solid Waste Management SSD LF Layton Davis UT 1,840,150 1959 2022 

Wasatch Energy Systems Unknown Direct 

1642 1565 3 Duchesne County LF Duchesne Duchesne UT 1984 2044 

Duchesne & Wasatch Counties Unknown Direct 

180128 2074 3 ECDC East Carbon UT Unknown 1622 1545 3 Emery County LF Castledale Emery UT 212,184 1983 2024 Emery County Unknown Direct 1609 1532 3 Eskdale LF Millard UT Unknown Direct 1631 1554 3 

Garfield County/John's Valley LF Garfield Garfield UT 16,200 1992 2044 Garfield County Unknown Direct 

1632 1555 3 

Garfield County/Ticaboo LF Garfield Garfield UT 8,852 1993 2014 Garfield County Unknown Direct 

1610 1533 3 Garrison LF Garrison Millard UT 660 1986 2094 Millard County Unknown Direct 1624 1547 3 Grand County LF Moab Grand UT 76,300 1960 2004 Grand County Unknown Direct 1623 1546 3 Green River LF Green River Emery UT 79,205 1965 1995 Green River City Unknown Direct 1599 1522 3 Grouse Creek LF 

Grouse Creek Box Elder UT 1,760 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 

1633 1556 3 

Iron County/ Armstrong Pit LF Cedar Iron UT 44,962 1993 2014 Iron County Unknown Direct 

1635 1558 3 

Kane County/Glendale LF Glendale Kane UT 6,560 1988 2094 

Western Kane County SSD# 1 Unknown Direct 

1634 1557 3 Kane County/Kanab LF Kanab Kane UT 39,680 1981 2044 

Western Kane County SSD# 1 Unknown Direct 

1641 1564 3 Manila City LF Manila Daggett UT 32,120 1974 1995 

Manila City/Daggett County Unknown Direct 

1611 1534 3 Millard County LF Delta Millard UT 67,650 1986 2034 Millard County Unknown Direct 1607 1530 3 Nephi LF Nephi Juab UT 18,300 1987 2044 Nephi City Unknown Direct 
Section XX - Regional Haze. Page 100 

Table 20. (Continued) Utah Land-fill Gas Resources Project ID # 

Landfill ID # 

LMOP Territory Landfill Name Landfill City 

Landfill County 

Landfill State WIP (tons)

Year Landfill Opened

Landfill Closure Year Landfill Owner 

Project Status 

Project Developer 

Utilization Type (DirectUse vs Electricity) 

1645 1568 3 

North Utah County Special Service District LF Utah UT 1,707,965 1964 1993 Unknown Direct 

1600 1523 3 Park Valley LF Park Valley Box Elder UT 2,400 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 1608 1531 3 Partoun LF Juab UT Unknown Direct 1614 1537 3 Payson City LF Payson Utah UT 616,029 1950 2014 

Payson City Corporation Unknown Direct 

1646 1569 3 Provo LF Provo Utah UT 1,131,000 1963 1991 City of Provo Unknown Direct 1605 1528 3 Rich County LF Laketown Rich UT 40,688 1981 2030 Rich County Unknown Direct 1627 1550 3 

San Juan County/Bluff LF Bluff San Juan UT 1,600 1980 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct 

1628 1551 3 

San Juan County/Halls Crossing LF 

Halls Crossing San Juan UT 9,464 1970 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct 

1629 1552 3 

San Juan County/Mexican Hat LF Mexican Hat San Juan UT 1,600 1980 1995 San Juan County Unknown Direct 

1612 1535 3 Sanpete SLF Coop Spring City Sanpete UT 108,396 1989 2066 Sanpete SLF Coop Unknown Direct 1615 1538 3 Santaquin County LF Santaquin Utah UT 262,080 1900 1995 Santaquin City Unknown Direct 1613 1536 3 

Sevier County/Sage Flat LF Glenwood Sevier UT 70,200 1993 2024 Sevier County Unknown Direct 

1601 1524 3 Snowville LF Snowville Box Elder UT 8,100 1970 Snowville Town Unknown Direct 1616 1539 3 

South Utah County SSD/Bayview LF Utah Utah UT 1,100,000 1991 2094 

South Utah Valley Solid Waste District Unknown Direct 

1637 1560 3 

Summit County/Three Mile Canyon LF Wanship Summit UT 358,896 1986 2026 Summit County Unknown Direct 

1638 1561 3 

Tooele Army Depot LF #1 Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct 

1639 1562 3 

Tooele Army Depot LF #2 Tooele Tooele UT 1995 Commander Tead Unknown Direct 

1620 1543 3 Transjordan LF South Jordan Salt Lake UT 8,622,936 1955 2021 Trans-Jordan Cities Unknown Direct 1602 1525 3 Tremonton LF Tremonton Box Elder UT 184,600 1970 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 1643 1566 3 

Uintah County/Vernal City LF Vernal Uintah UT 2,773,000 1950 2008 

Uintah County and Vernal City Unknown Direct 

1636 1559 3 

Washington County Solid Waste SSD #1 LF Washington Washington UT 1,292,000 1978 2067 Washington County Unknown Direct 

1644 1567 3 Weber County LF Ogden Weber UT 3,500,000 1966 1996 Weber County Unknown Direct 1640 1563 3 Wendover City LF Wendover Tooele UT 118,260 1970 1996 Wendover City Unknown Direct 1603 1526 3 Yost LF Yost Box Elder UT 800 1980 1995 Box Elder County Unknown Direct 
101

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. 

E - 110
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 (NOX); 

• Carbon Monoxide (CO); 

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2); 

• Particulate Matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10); 

• Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5); and 

• Ammonia (NH3). 

E - 111
103

For visibility modeling, the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 species 

are organic carbon particles (OC), elemental carbon particles (EC), and other fine 

particles such as soils and dusts. The factors used to allocate PM2.5 into its components 

are based on source specific speciation factors. In addition, the coarse material (CM) 

fraction of PM10 (i.e., PM10 minus PM2.5) 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) developed 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 for 

E - 112
104

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 inventory 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 inventories were adequate for regional 

haze modeling given the uncertainties in any 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 (PM2.5) 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 

NOx and PM2.5 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. 

E - 113
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 NOx SO2 PM2.5* 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% 

*PM2.5 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 NOx 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 NOx SO2 PM2.5* 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% 

*PM2.5 includes organic carbon, elemental carbon, and fine soils/dusts. 

E - 114
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 2002 

E - 115
107

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 SO2 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 SO2 milestones and BART. 

These inventories show a significant decrease in stationary source NOx and SO2

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. 

E - 116
108

E - 117
109

Figure 17. Class I Areas with Contributions from Northern Utah

E - 118
110

• 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 SO2 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. 

E - 119
111

E - 120
112

Figure 18. Class I Areas with Impacts from Central Utah. 

E - 121
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 SIP49. 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. 

E - 122
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 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 deceviews50 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 indicate better visibility, while 

higher numbers indicate more impaired visibility. 

51 WRAP Technical Analysis Forum, Technical Recommendations on Monitoring Metrics for Regional 

Haze Planning, 3/23/2007

E - 123
115

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.

E - 124
116

Table 24. Projected Visibility Improvement * Data are from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx --> Modeling --> Visibility Projections

Visibility Impairment in Deciviews* 

20% Worst Visibility Days 20% Best V

Projected Visibility (Monthly 

Average Method) 

Proj

Colorado Plateau Class I areas 

under §309(d)(2) State 

2000-04 Regional 

Haze Rule Baseline 

Monitoring Data

2018 Base 

Case 

(Base18b)

2018 Preliminary 

Reasonable 

Progress Case 

(PRP18a)

2000-04 

Regional Haze 

Rule Baseline 

Monitoring 

Data

2018 B

Ca

(Base

Grand Canyon National Park AZ 11.7 11.4 11.3 2.2 2.Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ 11.9 11.5 11.4 3 2.Petrified Forest National Park AZ 13.2 12.9 12.9 5 4.Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ 15.3 15.1 15.1 5.6 5.Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Wilderness CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.Flat Tops Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9 0.7 0.Maroon Bells Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9 0.7 0.Mesa Verde National Park CO 13 12.8 12.6 4.3 4.Weminuche Wilderness CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.West Elk Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9 0.7 0.San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM 10.2 10 9.8 1.5 1.Arches National Park UT 11.2 11 10.9 3.8 3.Bryce Canyon National Park UT 11.6 11.3 11.2 2.8 2.7 Canyonlands National Park UT 11.2 11 10.9 3.8 3.Capitol Reef National Park UT 10.9 10.6 10.5 4.1 4 Zion National Park UT 13.2 13 13 5 4.7 
117

L. PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS 

1. Periodic Progress Reports for 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 areas within Utah, and Class I areas outside 

Utah that are affected by emissions from Utah. 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 additional 

E - 126
Section 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. 

E - 127
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 Regional 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 Forum 

E - 128
Section 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 

(SO2), and particulate matter (PM2.5) 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 SO2 for 

stationary sources are described in Part E. Emission reductions of NOx and PM2.5 are due 

to the implementation of new federal engine standards and fuel standards described in 

Part F and BART controls for NOx and PM2.5 described in Part D. 

E - 129
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

E - 130
E - 131
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 Emission 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................................................ 26 

E - 132
Section 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 useful 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 1ne (bext/10 Mm-1). 

Where bext = 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, 

E - 133
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 the 

Federal 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 binding 

E - 134
Section 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. 

E - 135
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 of 

E - 136
Section 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 Emission 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 owners 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 SO2 emissions as reported to the executive 

secretary in accordance with the requirements R307-250-9 or R307-150, as applicable. 

E - 137
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

E - 138
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 SO2 WEB allowance allocated to tribes on an 

annual basis. The tribes will decide how to distribute the allowances in the set-aside 

E - 139
Section 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

E - 140
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 9 

B. WEB MODEL RULE MONITORING PROTOCOLS 

Protocol WEB-1: SO2 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 H2S) 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 H2S. 

E - 141
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 SO2 emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion 

devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated using the 

following equation: 

Et = (CS)(Qt)(K) 

where: Et = Total SO2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable 

fuel gas combustion devices 

CS = Sulfur content of the fuel gas as H2S(ppmv) 

Qt = 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 SO2 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 SO2 emission rate (lb SO2/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 SO2, flow, and (if applicable) moisture, shall 

comply with the operating requirements, performance 

specifications, and quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part 

75. 

E - 142
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 SO2 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: 

Et = (Em)(Qt)/(Qm) 

where: Et = Total SO2 emissions in lb/hr from applicable 

fuel gas combustion devices 

Em = SO2 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 

Qt = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel 

gas combustion devices 

Qm = 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 SO2 - 

diluent CEMS at only one location, if the CEMS monitoring at that location is 

representative of the SO2 emission rate (lb SO2/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 SO2-diluent CEMS shall comply with the applicable 

provisions for SO2 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 SO2 emission rate (lb/mmBtu) by substituting 

the term SO2 for NOx in that section, and using a K factor of 

1.660 x 10-7 (lb/scf)/ppmv instead of the NOx 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 SO2 hourly mass emissions rate for all the fuel gas combustion 

devices monitored by this approach shall be calculated by using the 

following equation: 

E - 143
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 12 

Et = (Em) (Qt)(GCV)/106

where: 

Et = Total hourly SO2 mass emissions in lb/hr from the 

applicable fuel gas combustion devices 

Em = SO2 emission rate in lb/mmBtu from the CEMS - 

monitored fuel gas combustion device 

Qt = Fuel gas flow rate (scf/hr) to the applicable fuel 

gas combustion devices 

GCV = Fuel Gross Calorific Value (Btu/scf) 

 106 = Conversion from Btu to 

million Btu 

(d) Calculate total SO2 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 SO2 and flow or each SO2-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 SO2-diluent 

CEMS shall meet the relative accuracy requirements for a NOx-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 SO2 and flow or the SO2-diluent CEMS 

in compliance with sections 1, 1.1, and 1.2 of Appendix B to Part 75. 

E - 144
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 SO2

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. 

E - 145
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 14 

(b) For any period in which valid data are not being recorded by an SO2-

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 SO2 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 SO2 emission 

rate from the monitored unit is representative of the rate from nonmonitored units.

E - 146
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 SO2 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. 

E - 147
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: 

E - 148
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. 

E - 149
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 prevention 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. 

E - 150
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. 

E - 151
Section XX - Regional Haze - Appendices Page 20 

Figure1 Appendix. Contributions to Light 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

Year

Aerosol 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. 

E - 152
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

Year

Aerosol 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. 

E - 153
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 western 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, Idaho, 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. The 

E - 154
Section 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 individuals 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 1 

E - 155
Section 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 and 

E - 156
Section 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 land 

E - 157
Section 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 member 

E - 158
Section 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 SO2 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. 

E - 159
E - 160
Certification