Response to Comments for Air Quality Division Rulemakings Before the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) on October 5, 2012



### I. Basin Electric Power Cooperative, dated and received September 17, 2012 Comment Summary: Basin Electric supports the changes to the rule. Response: The Air QualityDivision (AQD) appreciates the support. 2. WyomingMiningAssociation (WMA), dated and received September 17, 2012 Comment Summary: WMA supports the proposed rules in general. WMA recommends thatthe EQC adoptthe rules as written. WMA provided an explanation ofthe State stakeholderprocess thatprovides current authority. Response: TheAQD appreciates the support. Comment Summary: WMA also has concerns with a future administration imposingfees on greenhouse gases and would like to incorporate wording in the StatementofPrincipal Reasons thatputs in writing thatthe Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) has no plans to collect fees for greenhouse gases. Response: John Carra, DEQ Director, has indicated publicallythat there are no plans to collect fees for greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the legislation thathas enabled the DEQ to go through the rulemaking process to allow for permittingofgreenhouse gases restricts the Department from creatingrules that are more stringentthan federal rules on greenhouse gas permitting. Since the federal rules do not require fee collection for greenhouse gas permitting, the State would not be allowed to collect fees for these emissions either. The proposed rules are silent on the topic offee collection, butthe Department believes that the underlying legislation will prevent any fee collection in the foreseeable future. IfEPA decides to collect fees at a future date, it will take time for EPA to run through that public process, at which time DEQ and stakeholders will have an opportunityto discuss the issue further along with any budgeting concerns oftheDivision. 3. Petroleum Association ofWyoming (PAW), dated and received on September 17, 2012 Comment Summary: PAW supports the rule changes, particularlythose pertainingto greenhouse gases and nonattainment area regulations. Response: The AQD appreciates the support. Comment Summary: PAWalso commentsthat it does not want the DEQto collect fees for greenhouse gas emissions. Response: Please see response to WMA above on the subject offees.Response to Comments Beforethe EQC October 5, 2012 Page2

Comment Summary: PAW supports the Division's changes to Chapter 8 to align State General ConformityRules with the federal General Conformity Rules. In particular, PAWis very supportive ofthe changes in Section 3(k)(i)(C) and Section 3(n). Response: The AQD appreciatesthe support. Comment Summary: PAW suggests a wording change in Chapter 8, Section 3(o)(iii)(C), which says that emission credits must be used in the same yeartheyare generated. PAWwould like to change that to "within 12 months ofbeing generated and approved bythe state." Response: While the AQD appreciates PAW'sconcern, it is extremelydifficult to change wording in a federal rule and get it approved into the SIP. Ratherthan make a changeto the rule language that couldjeopardizethe approval oftherule, the AQD could address this issue of timingthrough guidance at a later date when this feature ofthe rule mightbe used. Furthermore, this rule will applyto all future nonattainment areas in the state, notjustthe Upper Green, so it is difficult to assess whether fighting for such a change would be in the State's best interest in the long run. Finally, while the AQD agrees that there is a lot ofmerit to an emission credit system to deal with emissions in nonattainment areas, trying to create such a system within the context ofgeneral conformity might be problematic since a Federal agency, not the AQD, would be the lead agency. 4. Black Hills Corporation, dated September 19, 2012, received September 20, 2012 Comment Summary: BlackHills Corporation supports the proposed greenhouse gas regulations because it would preferpermitting actions take place through the State agency since dual permitting is a complicated and longerprocess without any kind oflocal appeals process. Black Hills also cited project operations and cost control for customers as importantreasons for Wyoming getting primacy for permittingback. Response: The AQD appreciates the support. 5. USDA- Forest Service, dated September27, 2012, received by internet unsigned September 27,2012 Comment Summary: The Forest Service supports changesto Chapter 8, Section 3 on General Conformityto help streamline conformity decisions thatthe Forest Service is required to make. Response: The AQD appreciates the support. 

# l I i 

# ! ! 

# I I l r ! 

## t ! 

# I