Summary of Public Comm ent and Agency Responses

Wyoming Regional Haze Implementation P lan

Prepared by: Dan Olson Date: December 15, 2003

Comm ent Perio d: The public notice soliciting comment on the proposed implementation plan was published

on Octobe

r 16 and 1 7, 2003 in n ewspape rs throug hout the st

ate. Publi c comment was accepted until the close of the public hear ing at 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2003. The hea ring wa s conduc ted beg inning a t 10:06 a.m . at the De

partmen t of Envir onmental Quality Caspe r Field Office at 303 0 Ener gy Lane, Caspe r, Wyomi ng.

Summary: A total of seven individuals attended the public hearing. No ora l testimony was provided and the hearing was c losed at 10:30 a.m.. During the public comment period, written comments were received from thre e different entities. Responses to those official comments are given below. Note that some comments reque st a clarifying change be made to the language of the proposal. I n many case s the Department agrees in principle with the r equested chang e and doe s not view a ny o f the re quests as

a substan tial modif ication to the propo sal, however, we elect not to make those lang uage changes a

t this time. The Department expects that some modif

ication o f the pro

posal is lik

ely during t he EPA co mpletene ss revie w and com

mits to incorporate clarify

ing language a

t that time.

SPECIF IC COMMEN TS

William K. Lawso n, PacifiC orp

1. Projection of Visibility Improvement - PacifiCorp notes that Wyoming has done considerable work in conducting modeling to identify the benef

its that the SO2 program will provide to the Class I areas in Wy oming as well as those sixteen on the Colorado Plateau. PacifiCorp recommends that for purposes of the SO2 progr am the state include the modeling results for these additional Class I are as and explicitly state that this progra m is meeting the visibility improvement requirements for these Class I areas, as we ll as those on the Colorado Plateau.

Response: The initial SIP pursuant to Section 309 focuses on implementing the

GCVTC recommendations for the Sixteen Class I area s on the Colorado Plateau. The State of Wy oming ha s made a d

eclara tion in this s

ubmittal th at it inten

ds to address other Class I are as pursuant to Section 309(g) of the Rule in a SI P revision no later than December 31, 2008. I n part, that decision was informed by the modeling work con

ducted by the WRAP to ve

rify the Anne x analy sis, in whic h it was shown that in addition to the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Platea u, the regional SO2 mile stones re sulted in visibility improveme

nts in Wy oming’s Class IPage 2

areas as well. This demonstration can be found in Section 4.1.2 of the WRAP Techni cal Su pport Docum ent. In ac cordan ce wit h Sect ion 3 09(g), altho ugh additiona l strateg ies may be requi red to show reaso nable pr ogress for othe r Class I areas, no further demonstration or SO2 strateg ies will be required for Wy oming’s stationary source s that are already included in the 309 regional SO2 milestone
progra m.

2. Clean Air Corridors - PacifiCorp agrees with the Department' s characterization of the cl ean air

corrido r requir

ements. Although i

t is unlikel

y th at the emi ssions increase threshold will be triggered, we urg e the State to consider that emission increases may not necessarily

influence all Class I are as on the Colorado Plateau on the least-impaired day s. Efforts should be taken to further refine the under lying meteor

ology a nd modeling for demonstrating impacts on the least impaired day s.

Response : The State

agree s that ana

lys is of impac

t should ad

dress ea ch Class I area individually, a

nd that refinements are needed in meteorological and monitoring

data for demonstr

ating imp acts of e

missions co ming fr

om the cle an air corridor. The WRAP’S periodic "Causes of Haze" re ports will provide more robust understanding of clean air corr idors in the future.

3. Stationary So urces -

In the introduc tion to this s ection, Pa cifiCorp sugge sts that Wyoming reitera

te EPA’s finding that the emission reduction milestones provide “grea ter

reasona ble prog ress” th an would b e achie ved by the appli cation of

best ava ilable re trofit technology

to eligible sources. For purposes of SO2 emissions from stationary sources, Wyoming should take advantage of the work complete d by the WRAP demonstrating this not only for the 16 mandatory Class I

federal areas on the Colorado Plateau, but for all mandatory Class I

Federal areas i n the wes tern U.S. , includin g the Sta te of Wy oming (s ee: Tec

hnical Sup

port Doc ument, 4.1.2. Stationary Source SO2 Control Scenar io Modeling Results for Western Class I Area s). A significant benefit under the rule, and fr om the modeling work completed by the WRAP, is that no further demonstrations are necessary to show that, for stationary sourc es of SO2 covered by this program, the milestones will satisfy the BART provisions under §169A of the CAA. Affected sources covere d by this progra m must have certainty tha t the SO2 milestones will not be reopened.

Response : Please see response to Comment #1.

4. Changes in Flow

Rate Measu rement Method s - While PacifiCorp understands the intent of this provision as it was negotiated in the Annex (i.e., to avoid so called “paper chang es” in em

issions), w e also ha

ve contin uing co ncerns a

bout how it w

ill be imple

mented in the real world. This section assumes that monitoring emissions is an exact science with discree tPage 3

actions that affect the accurac y of the data. T

his is simply not true. There are many variable s that affec t emissions

and the da

ta that is r eported . In o rder to s tandard ize the re porting of emissio ns, EPA has created a very

detailed program under Title I V of the Clean Air Act. Utilities have complied with EPA’s

require ments for measurin g, cond ucting q uality assuran ce and q uality control a ctivities , and rep orting stack emis sions sinc e 1995. Al l data sup plied to EPA

under Tit le IV of the Clean Air Act is certified to meet these EPA standards. PacifiCorp recommends that the State be very c autious about adjusting the interim milestones using these methods, and recommends that the state rely on the emissions that utilities report to the EPA under Title IV of the acid rain program, rather than getting caught-up in the c reation of additional clumsy a nd burdensome datab ases to a ddress r elativel y min or chang es in the mi lestones

.
Response : The WRAP Market Trading Forum discussed at length the issue of “paper” emission changes due to ne w flow measurement techniques. There wa s concern that these change s would undermine the goals of the Annex because re al emission r

eduction s would not

occur, e ven thoug h the rep orted em

issions wou

ld show a decrease. The SI

P provisions related to flow rate measurement methods were de signed t

o ensure that actu al emissio n reduct

ions take place. T hese measures need to remain in place so that we ca n determine the scope of the “paper chang es” that

have oc curred

since 199 9. The me asures a re also s pecific ally required by

40 CFR 51.309(h)(1)(iv).

5. Year 2013 Assessment - [A4.1 (b)] F ollow

ing t he letter and s pirit of the Anne x, PacifiCorp believes that this process entails two steps: (1) a determination based on the evide nce that The 2018 milestone will not be met; and (2) a consensus decision with the other 309 states that triggering the prog

ram is “necessary

” to ensure the 2018 milestone is met (i.e., consensus that but for an ear

ly tr igge ring of the prog ram, the 2018 miles tone will not be met) . This prop erly pl ac es th e b ur de n o n t ho se as se rt in g t ha t t he pr og ra m s ho ul d b e t ri gge re d e ar ly.

Revise A4.2(b) At the end of this subsection, add the following sentence : “draft report will be posted on the WRAP website for a period of public review and comment for not less than 30 days.”

Revise A4 .3 “Conse

nsus Dec ision” as

follows: “The De partmen t commits to meet with t

he parti cipating

states an d tribes in March 20 14 to discuss any comments rec eived on the 2018 emission projections in the draft report. The participating states and tribes will decide, through a consensus process, whether it can be determined that th e 2018 mile stone will not be met , and whe

ther it is n ecessa

ry to trigger the WEB trading program ear ly in order to meet the SO2 e mission reduction goals in 2018.”

Response: A4.2(b) The lang uage w as not add

ed at this t

ime beca use of time
constra ints, howe

ver, in c oordinat

ion with the

other 309 states Wy

oming co mmits to provide the suggested public notification.Page 4

A4.1(b) and A4.3 The sugge sted language has not been a dded to the SIP. The
purpose o f the 2013 review i s to deter mine whet

her we a re head ing into t rouble so that the p articipa

ting sta tes and tr ibes can avoid a ma

jor non-c omplianc e issue in 2018. If the 2018 penalty provisions are triggered, it will be a fa ilure of the expected process, and sources in Wy oming would face significant financ ial penalties. By

triggering the trading

program, the states will use the backstop regula tory progra m to ensur

e that sou rces re main in co mpliance

and that t he goa ls of the program are met. The de cision will be based on the best information availab le, but be cause th e states a nd tribes will be usi

ng emiss ion proje ctions, there will alway s be some uncertainties in the numbers. It c annot be “determined that the milestones will not be met” with absolute certainty , and the proposed langua ge cou ld be inte rprete d to requi

re cer tainty . The mile stones ar e desig ned so that market forces and the incentive of avoiding a regulatory

program will drive emission r

eduction s rather

than a re gulator

y pr ogram. The state s and trib es will not trigger the trading pr

ogram in 2013 unless this incentive process does not
appear to be eff ective. The dec ision will no t be made lightly . Howeve

r, it is impossible to identify all of the factors that must be c onsidered in this decision process at this point in time.

6. Allowance Al

locations -

PacifiCorp included additional comments regarding the princ iples and

equity issues tha

t must be considere d in the al location process that are listed in Section C, Part C1.1(a)2 of the SIP.

Response: Wyom

ing note s and app reciate s PacifiCorp’s ge neral a greement with th e al lo cat io n ap pro ach for ut il it ies ado pt ed b y Wyom in g. T he p rop ose d S IP contains an alloc ation methodology for utiliti es in the e

vent that the prog ram is triggered. As describe d in the SIP, WDEQ is participating in ongoing discussions with the other 309 states to ensure that all of the principles and equity issues that are listed in the SIP have been a ddressed in this methodology. Pac ifiCorp’s perspective on how each of the principles and e quity issues affect the allocation process will be an important part of the ongoing discussions. No c hanges are recommended to the SIP text at this time.

7. Early Reduc

tion Credits

- C1.1(a)3. and (b)5. This provision is under review and subje ct to appr

oval of th e §309 sta

tes and st akeholde rs. Pacif iCorp urg es Wy

oming to finalize all allocation issues affecting utility sources at the same time.

It is not clear

from the p

roposed S IP an

d propose d rule la

nguag e what thr

eshold da te applie s to the contr ols elig ible for t

his cred it. The An

nex langu age str ongly sugge sts that it sh

ould apply

toPage 5

actions that occur

after a state ha s committe d itself to a §309 SI

P. For simp licity , the State should use 1/1/03 as the thr

eshold da te for the installat ion of con

trols elig ible for t his cred it.

Response: Chapter 14, Section 2(f)(v)states that the bonus allocations shall be available for reductions that occur betwee n 2003 and the program trigg er yea r. This is consistent with the 1/1/03 date recommended by PacifiCorp.

8. Renewable

Resource

Credits - C1.1(a)4. and (b)6. This provision is under review by c ertain st

akeholde rs and sub ject to ap proval of the §309 st

ates and stakehol ders. PacifiCorp urges Wy

oming to finalize all allocation issues affecting utilities at the same time.

Response: The proposed SIP contains an allocation methodolog y for utilities, and an allocation methodology for renewable energ

y resourc es. As described in the SIP and in the response to earlier c omments, WDEQ is participating in ongoing discussions to ensure that the allocation process is fair and consistent with the goals of the back stop trad

ing prog ram. The renewa ble ener gy credit a nd the ea rly reduction bonus allocation will be part of these discussions because the alloca tion
pr oc es s i s a se ri es of

in te rl in ke d p ar ts th at ca nn ot be co ns id er ed in di vi du al ly.

9. Programs to Ac

hieve GCV

TC Renewabl

e Energy G

oal - Following the existing paragraph in this subsection or some other appropriate place in this section, we ask the State to consider adding the following langua ge from the Preamble of EPA’s Fede ral Register Notice of the Final Regional Haze Rule on July 1, 1999: “The g oals thems elves ar e not enf orceab le and Sta

tes are not requi red to me et the re

newable
energ y g oals. . . . R

ather, EPA is settin

g enfo rceabl e requir

ements for the State s to asses s progress toward goals established by the GCVTC with respect to renewable energ y production as a means for reducing depe ndence on more polluting forms of energ y production. States participating in the GCVTC strategy are responsible for explaining why they cannot mee

t the GCVTC go als. The r

equired reportin g by the State s will infor

m the public

of air qu ality improvements that would result from that goal had it been realized. I t is the relationship between renewable energy

production and associated environmental effects (direct and indirect) that is the thrust of the assessment and reporting effort unde r the SIP.” (at 35754-55)

Response: This paragraph has not been adde d. This statement of the intent of 40 CFR 51.309 (d)(8) matches our unde rstandin g but the Preamble

carrie s the same weight whether or not it is included in the SIP and g enerally, w e do not repeat language from the Prea

mble within the SIP.

10. Geographi

c Enhancement

s - PacifiCorp agrees that this approach should be voluntary. We urg e Wyoming and the WRAP to continue working with the federal landPage 6

managers in order to refine the approach that will be used to address RAVI given that regional emissions are being reduced under the haze program. This will inevitably require some resolution of ho w so- call ed “hot spo t” ar eas a re id entif ied a nd ad dres sed in the c onte xt of th e reg

ional haze program. While the work of WESTAR and the WRAP has moved us in that direction, a few significant policy

issues remain unresolved (e.g., data interpr etation methods revealing signific ant emissi on spikes w ithin Class I

areas t hat would qualify them as g enuine “

hot spots” and identifying

a portfolio of remedies if they become necessary

).

Response: Wyom

ing’s c urrent visibility

SIP ad dresses reasona bly attributa ble visibility impairme

nt (RAVI ). Sectio n K of the

SIP ad dresses the rela tionship between the existing RAVI SI P and the new regional haze SI P. This section states, “If the fede

ral land manager certifie s impairment, the State of Wyoming will fulfill its obligations to determine attribution and if necessary determine BART for

the appli cable so

urce or group o f source s in accordance with Wyoming’s SI

P for visibility protection approved by EPA on February

15, 1989 through a notice in the Fe deral Re gister . The Wy oming SI P for rea sonably attributa ble visibil ity b ecame e ffectiv e on Apri l 17, 1989. ” Wyoming is committed to continue working with the federal land manag ers in order to refine the approach that will be used to address RAVI given that regional emissions are being r educed under the haze prog

ram.

11. Reasonable

Progress f

or Additional

Mandatory F

ederal Cla

ss I Areas -

As discusse d earlie

r in these comments ( introduc tory

parag raphs to “ A. Projection of Vis ibility Impr ovement” and “C. Sta

tionary Sources” ), Pacif

iCorp stro ngly

urges t he state to addre ss BART for

regional haze pu

rposes f or the sou rces co vered by

this prog ram in the

2003 SI P.

Response: Please see response to PacifiCorp comments numbers 1 and 3 above.

Stephen P. Martin, National Park Service

1. Assessment of

Nitrogen O

xides (No x) and Part

iculate Ma tter (PM) Emissions Control S trategies - Section D.3 of the proposed plan discusses the role of NOx and PM in regional haze. Lang uage used by

the State indicates that some determination of the need for thes e strate gies ha s alrea dy b een made ; perhap s giving the impre ssion that t

here ma y be little future concern for these pollutants as reg ional haze contributors. The NPS would prefer, based on the incom pletene ss of cur

rent wor k the WRAP is e

ngag ed in on thi s subject , that the State stre ss the ongoing assessment of the visibility impacts of NOx and PM, and the potential control strategies to address those impacts. I t would be appropriate to indicate that determinations of these impacts and strategies will be addressed in futur e revisions of the plan. It would also be most informative of the current status of this requirement to state that until future assessments arePage 7

completed, the State cannot determine what level of control, if a ny, of NOx and PM through a stationary source

milestone program, would be appropriate.

Response: Additiona

l langua ge has been inc luded in th

is section to attempt

to clarify, a nd perhaps offset, any

mistaken impression that Wyoming believes ther e is little future concern for NOx and PM as contributors to regional haze. The
statemen ts made in t

he propo sed plan r

eprese nt the cur rent stat e of ana lys es, which we agree is incomplete, and w hich must be reassessed based on more complete and accurate analy ses prior to the 2007/2008 SIP revision. We have added “The State of Wy

oming will continue to work with the WRAP to improve the emission inventories and regional modeling to support future policy decisions
regar ding sta tionary source N Ox and PM emis sions.” to the fina l parag raph of t his section.

2. Geo gra phic Enhance ment Pro gram - The National Park Service notes that the second paragraph under K1 identifies only the National Park Ser vice as the federal land
manager.

Response: We also caught this deficiency and substituted the broader “federal land mana

ger” l angua

ge. Tha nk you for y

our comme

nt.

3. Additional Cla

ss I Areas -

Sec ti on L. 1 of

th e pr opo sed reg io nal haz e SIP discusses reasonable progress for additional mandatory Class I areas not part of the 16 Colorado Plateau areas and lists the 7 mandatory Class I areas in Wy

oming. For purposes of the federa l requirement under Section 309(g), we be lieve the plan should indicate that the 2008 regional haze plan update will need to address out-of-state Class I areas that may

be affected by

transport of emissions from Wyoming in addition to the 7 area s in the State.

Response: Section 309 of the regional haze rule requires tha t the 2003 plan address the 16 Class I are as of the Colorado Plateau. Other Class I a reas do not need to be

address ed until 20 08. 40 CFR 5 1.309(g ) provide s a mecha

nism to apply 309 contr

ol strate gies to o ther Clas s I ar eas withi n states that submit SI

Ps under Section 309. Wyoming is making this declaration in its plan. Other 309 States are declaring within their 309 SI Ps whether they will addre ss the additional Class I areas within their borders by implementing 309 strateg ies, or by following the provisions of Section 308. Wyoming will, of course, w ork with other states within the

WRAP in addr

essing i mpairmen

t in Class I

areas o utside Wy

oming’s borders

.Page 8

Gillian Malo ne, Powde r River Bas

in Resource

Council

1. Paved and

Unpaved R oad Dust -

The Powde

r River B asin Resou

rce Council expressed concern that the WDEQ’s statement that “NOx and PM strategies a re not needed based on current information” does not take into account the extensive amount of road a nd construction dust assoc iated wit

h coalbe d methane

development. The

PRBRC goe s on to state

that it fe els more PM and NOx is necessary throughout the Powder River Basin.

Response: Additiona

l langua ge has been inc luded in th

is section to attempt

to clarify, a nd perhaps offset, any

mistaken impressions that Wyoming believes there is little future concern for NOx and PM as contributors to regional haze. The
statemen ts made in t

he propo sed plan r

eprese nt the cur rent stat e of ana lys es, which we agree is incomplete, and w hich must be reassessed based on more complete and accurate analy ses prior to the 2007/2008 SIP revision. We have added “The State of Wy

oming will continue to work with the WRAP to improve the emission inventories and regional modeling to support future policy decisions
regar ding sta tionary source N Ox and PM emis sions.” to the fina l parag raph of t his section.

Regarding monitoring, the State ag rees that additional monitoring is desirable, particu larly given that curr

ent compu

ter mode ling doe s a poor jo b dealing with fugitiv e PM emissions. Outside of the context of re gional haze, the D EQ is already deploying more

NOx and PM monitors in the Basin and, in addition, has a line item in the budget for the next biennium to support the placement of even more monitoring stations throughout the State, including the Powder River Ba sin.

As a final note, the general positive support of the PRBRC for the State’ s decision to proceed with the 309 option is appreciated.Page 9

Responses To Written Comments Submitte d To The Environmental Quality Coun cil December 1 & 2, 2003

The Wy oming En vironmen tal Quali ty Co uncil on D ecembe

r 1 and 2, 2003 held

a public hearing in the matter of the proposed appr oval of the addition of Section 14, “Emission Trading Progra m Regula tions” to th e Wyoming Air Quality Standard s and Reg

ulations. The Counc il received written comments from two individuals during that hear ing; Paul Seby repr

esenting Terry Ross of The

Center for Energy

and Economic Development - CEED (Respondent #1) and Greg Schaefer re

presenting Arch Coal (Respondent #2).

Comments by these individuals were out of c ontext with the purpose of the hearing and were directed to Wy

oming’s decision to submit a State Implementation Plan pursuant to Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule. Since the Council allowed the comments into the public record,

we are respondi ng for t he record as we ll.

Respondent #1

1. It is premature for Wyoming to take any adm inistrative action on the RHR by choosing § 3 08 or § 309 a s an option be

cause of u ncertainty

created by American C

orn Growers Assoc. v EPA, 291 F.3d 1 ( D.C.Cir 200

2) decis ion which inva

lidated RHR e

specially BART provisions.

Response: EPA’s approval of the Annex on June 5, 2003 addressed the impact of the May 24, 2002 Amer

ican Corn Growers Decision (Feder al Register, Vol.68, No. 108, pages 33766-33767). The approval notice states, “The American Corn Grower s court de cision did not addre ss the pro visions in th e regi onal haze rule allowing States to adopt a trading progr am or other alternative measures in place of source specific measures for B ART sources.” The State of Wy oming has developed a SIP under Section 309 of the Re gional Haze Rule based on y ears of work with the Grand Cany on Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) and the Western Re gional A

ir Partne rship (WRAP ) that ide

ntified th e best ap

proach t o address regional haze on the Colorado Plateau. The a pproach is flexible, and address es all of t

he signi ficant so

urces of haze in the

west. The

309 appr oach als o includes provisions allowing States to address other Class I a reas bey ond those on the Co lorad o Pla teau. The Am erican Corn G rowers decis ion d oes no t chan ge these underlying

reasons for implementing the regiona l approach allowed under Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule.Page 10

2. Wyoming should not comm it to a specific regional haze implementation

approach unt

il after EP

A has respond

ed to the c

ourt’s remand

of the RHR be

cause § 30 9 is one of the BART provisions affected by Corn Growers decision

.

Response: See response to #1. Although CEED has filed a challeng e to the Annex - it is valid law until overturned/remanded. Pursuant to § 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA [42 USC 7607(d)(7)(B)], “reconsideration of a rule shall not postpone the effectiveness of the rule. The ef fectiveness of the rule may be stayed by

court order f or up to 3 months.” Th ere is no stay order in effec t for thes e rules.

3. Wyoming Cannot a dopt a RHR § 30 9 SIP that is not consistent

with the Federal Clean Air Act because WS § 35-11-214 requires that “ . . . Any trading program established shall be consistent with the Clean Air A ct and regulations promulgated thereunder, and consistent with ambient air quality standards.” § 309 is a BART provision subject to additional EP

A rulemaking and

trading prog

ram is not consis

tent with CAA as i

t is based on gr

oup BART appr

oach.

Response: The analyse s conducted by the WRAP did not utilize the Regional Haze Rule BART provisions, nor did it consider factors included in a determination of B ART: the Co sts of Compl iance, t he Ener gy & Non-Air Quality Impa cts, the Re

maining Useful L ife of the Source, the Existing

Pollution Con

trols at the sou rce, an d the Deg ree of Visibility

Impr ovement A chieved . The ana lys is considered only a

n “unofficial” list of BART-applicable source s within the region, an evaluation of potential reductions, with a large unc ertainty fa ctor to account for the fact that the list of sources and the effect of actual controls was unknown. This BART approximation exercise did not utilize the BART provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. Therefore, whe n these provisions were remanded to EPA, these invalidated BART provisions had absolutely no relationship to the Annex Milestones and trading program define d in the 309 provisions. Section 169A of the Clean Air Act gave EPA authority to 1) develop regulations to assure reasonable progress toward r eaching the national goal of “ prevention of any

future and the r emedy ing of a ny e xisting, imp airment i

n visibility

in mandat

ory Class I Federal areas which impairment re sults from man-made air pollution.” 2) develop r egulat ions requ iring sta tes to submi

t SIPs c ontaining

emission li

mits, compliance schedules, and other measures to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility g oal [42 USC 7491(b)(2)]. Wyoming’s 309 Regiona l Haze Stat

e Imp lementat

ion Plan an

d propose d rules me et these requirements and is therefore consistent with the CAA.Page 11

4. RHR § 309 Annex is not a ration al or cost e ffectiv e approac

h for improving visual air quality in Wyoming.

Response: CEED asserts that the Annex is "flawed" because 1) it doesn’t achieve humanly percep tible visib ility

improveme

nt, 2) the re was no adequa

te econo mic analysis of the prog

ram costs to western states’ economies, 3) the comparison of natural gas vs. coal costs didn’t accura tely refle ct the volatility of ga s prices, and 4) the Annex would impose economic disincentives for new coal fired powerpl ants. EPA’ s approva l of the An

nex on June 5, 2003 state s, “ The EPA continue s to believ e that the milestone s provide

for ‘g reater reasona ble prog ress than BART’ and for ‘steady and continuing progress’.” (F R Vol.68, No. 108, page 33769) The GCVTC strategie s that are the basis for Wy oming’s proposed SIP are focused on ac

hievable emission reductions from all of the emission sources that contribute to regional haze. 40 CFR 51.309(g ) allows States electing to do so to address additional Class I areas, such a s those in Wyoming, by building on the str

ategie s implemen

ted under 309 and ta

ke full credit for

visibility improvement achieved through those strategies. The economic analy sis for the Annex supported the earlier GCVTC conclusions that an incentive-based mar ket trading program is more cost-ef fective than a traditional command-and-control approach. An incentive-based prog ram allows sources in all of the states to find the most cost-effective strategies to reduc e SO2 emissions that affect regional haze on the Colorado Plateau as well as other Class I areas that were not specific ally

address ed by

the Anne x. The Annex was neg otiated b y us ing the b est informat ion avail able at the time. However, the WRAP inc luded unc ertainty factors in the analy sis to address changes in the underly ing assumptions. More importantly, a reg

ional emission cap allows flexibility to adapt to changing cir cum st anc es w hi le s ti ll ach iev in g th e sa me o r be tt er e nvi ron men tal goa ls . If natural gas prices remain hig h, the cap will create an incentive to over c ontrol existing sources to make room under the cap for new, hig hly-controlled coa

l-fired power plants.

5. Wyoming Cannot mee t the Require

ments of RHR § 30 9 for a compl eted SIP Submittal by 12/31/03.

Response: Wyoming has develope d a SIP in accordance with the requirements of Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule and will submit that document and supportin g mater ials by the requ ired dea dline for submission f

or EPA’s s ix month completeness review.Page 12

Respondent #2

1. Dual SIPs

Response: The respondent alleges that beca use Wyoming’s Class I

areas are not on the Colorado Plateau and that Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule addre sses all Class I areas that Wy

oming will be required to submit a SIP under both Section 308 and 309 of the Regional Haze Rule. 40 CFR 51.309(g) a llows a state electing to submit a SI

P pursuan t to Section

309 to make

a decla ration tha t it will add

ress other Class I areas than those on the Colorado Plateau pursuant to the requirements of Sections 309(g)(2) and 309( g)(3) rather than pursuant to Section 308. Wyoming has elected to do so.

2. Adjacent 308 States

Response: The SO 2 strategies are satisfied for Wy oming sources under the provisions of Section 309(g). Regardless of timing issues a nd the success of Senator Imhofe’s ef

forts, the states represented in the WRAP are committed to a coordinated effort to address NO

x & PM stra tegies . Wyo ming and

all of its neighb oring st

ates ar e partic ipants in th e WRAP.

3. Minority Re

port Conce

rns

Response: The Milestone Curve was a politically def ined shape, and the de ci si on on it s s ha pe wa s s im pl y informed by assumptions such as power pla nt retirem ent, new

source e mission ra

tes, etc . The cur

ve was not "based on" these assumption s. For a

response to the BA

RT relate d conce

rns see t he response to concern #3 to Respondent #1 above.