1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

1

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

* * * * *

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

REGIONAL HAZE SIP 

PUBLIC COMMENT HEARING

HELD ON DECEMBER 16, 2009, AT 10:00 A.M.

IN OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

* * * * *

MYERS REPORTING SERVICE

Christy Myers, CSR

P.O. Box 721532

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73172-1532

(405) 721-2882

c_myers@cox.net

christymyerscourtreporter.com
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

2

PRESENT

(SEE ATTACHED SIGN-IN SHEET)

MR. JOE KORDZI

MR. PAUL RENFROW

MR. KIMBER SHOOP

MR. DON SHANDY

MR. BUD SCOTT

MR. DARRYL SMETTE

DEQ STAFF PRESENT

MR. EDDIE TERRILL

MS. BEVERLY BOTCHLET-SMITH

MR. ROBERT SINGLETARY

MS. CHERYL BRADLEY

MS. DIANA HINSON

MS. HEATHER LERCH

MS. LEE WARDEN

MR. BROOKS KIRLIN

MR. SCOTT THOMAS

MR. DAWSON LASSETER

MS. PAT SULLIVAN

MR. PHILLIP FIELDER

MS. KENDAL STEGMANN

MR. JACOB PETRE
12345678910111213141516171819202122

3

MR. BRAXTON EDWARDS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

4

PUBLIC COMMENT HEARING

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Okay. Before we get started I just 

wanted to remind everybody if you would please turn off your cell phones or 

put them on silent. We are recording today's proceedings and that will help 

us out a lot. Occasionally phones interfere with the microphones. So we would 

appreciate that.

Good morning. I'm Beverly Botchlet-Smith. I'm the Assistant 

Director of the Air Quality Division and I'm going to serve as Protocol Officer 

for today's hearing.

The hearing will be convened by the Department of Environmental 

Quality in compliance with Title 40 of the code of Federal Regulations Part 

51 as well as the authority of Title 27A of the Oklahoma statutes, Sections 

2-5-101 through 2-5-118. Notices for this hearing were published in the Lawton 

Constitution, the Oklahoman, and the Tulsa World newspapers on November 13, 

2009. Notice was also provided through a posting on the DEQ website. This 

hearing is being conducted for the purpose of receiving comments pertaining 

to the proposed Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. This revision as 

provided in 40 CFR Section 51-102 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

regulations. The proposed plan revision has been available for inspection by 

the public since October 5th of 2009.

If you wish to make a statement today it's very important that you 

complete a form at the registration table. You'll be called upon at the 

appropriate time. And audience members please come to the podium before making 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

5

your statement and state your name and affiliation. 

Today it will be necessary to limit the length of oral comments 

to no more than 10 minutes to allow all of those who wish to provide a comment 

the opportunity to do so. 

Your comments will be made part of the hearing record and considered 

in developing the Agency's submission to EPA. DEQ Staff will not be providing 

responses to comments during the hearing. However, all comments and any Agency 

responses will be included in our SIP document. All meeting inquiries will 

be addressed at the conclusion of the hearing. And at this time we will proceed 

with the hearing. 

Mr. Robert Singletary, who is a supervising attorney in the Air 

Legal Department, will give our presentation. 

MR. SINGLETARY: As a general introduction, we've got federal 

regulations out there that require the states including Oklahoma to develop 

SIPs that require certain older facilities to -- older facilities that negatively 

impact visibility in Class I federal areas to install and operate the Best 

Available Retrofit Technology, what we refer to as BART, in order to limit the 

visibility impairing emissions that come from those sources. 

Class I Federal areas include National Parks and Wilderness Areas. 

In Oklahoma we have one federal Class I area and that's the Wichita Mountains 

Wilderness Area located down in Comanche County. However, we do have several 

sources in Oklahoma that have the potential to contribute to visibility 

impairment at Class I Federal areas located in other states including the 

Hercules Glades in Missouri and the Upper Buffalo and Caney Creek in Arkansas. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

6

Since DEQ is a State Agency that is responsible for implementation 

of the Federal Clean Air Act here in Oklahoma, the Agency has developed this 

Regional Haze SIP. After considering all timely public comments that are 

received, the Agency will have the opportunity -- or the State of Oklahoma will 

have the opportunity to submit this proposed SIP to EPA for its consideration.

Before opening it up to public comment this morning, I'm going to 

briefly describe two things. I'm going to go through the regulatory 

developments that got us here today and then I am going to look at the general 

requirements of EPA's Regional Haze Rule and compare that to the general contents 

of Oklahoma's draft Regional Haze SIP. 

In regard to the regulatory developments that got us here, back 

in 1977 the US Congress used Section 169A of the Federal Clean Air Act to establish 

a national goal of returning all Class I Federal areas to their natural visibility 

conditions. The Federal Clean Air Act mandates that states require certain 

large sources that emit pollutants causing or contributing to visibility 

impairment in Federal Class I areas to install and operate BART. 

And it also requires states to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward achieving the national goal. 

On July 1st of 1999, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule. This 

is a federal rule that requires states to submit State Implementation Plans 

or SIPs that address regional haze for each Class I area that is affected by 

emissions from sources within the State. And that even includes Class I areas 

that are located outside of the State's boundaries. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

7

On May 24, 2002, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated certain portions 

of the Regional Haze Rule. 

So as a result of that decision, EPA promulgated on June 15th of 

'05, amended Regional Haze Rules which included "Guidelines for BART 

Determinations Under the Rule."

These guidelines are the guidelines that the states have to use 

in order to determine what facilities are going to be subject to BART and what 

the control technologies are going to be required.

The Federal Rule also required each state to submit these Regional 

Haze SIPs to EPA for consideration by December 17, 2007.

Unfortunately, as a result of several uncertainties which included 

some successful legal challenges to associated EPA regulations, the vast 

majority of states did not submit their SIP submittals for the -- Regional Haze 

SIP submittals by the deadline.

As a consequence of that, a group called Earthjustice filed a lawsuit 

against EPA on October 21st of 2008 to force EPA to enforce those SIP deadline 

submittal requirements. 

As a result of that lawsuit on January 9th of this last year, EPA 

made a Finding of Failure to Submit regarding the failure of 37 states to submit 

Regional Haze SIPs by the deadline. Oklahoma was one of those states. 

This is a significant finding because by making this finding, EPA 

triggered what is called a FIP clock. It's a two year clock by which time within 

two years EPA has to either approve a State Implementation Plan or it has to 

issue its own Federal Implementation Plan. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

8

Since we anticipate that there would be a nation-wide Federal 

Implementation Plan applied to all the states that do not have approved SIPs 

by the two year deadline, if Oklahoma does not have a SIP approved, the state 

could potentially lose control over the implementation of these Federal 

regulations and would also likely lose much of the flexibility that comes with 

a local tailored State Plan. As a result, it is the Agency's goal to have a 

SIP submitted and approved by EPA prior to the deadline.

I also learned just prior to this meeting that there is a separate 

consent to create -- involved from another lawsuit that may actually -- instead 

of, I guess, extend that FIP deadline by May of 2011, I believe is what I was 

told.

As for the General Requirements of EPA's Regional Haze Rule compared 

to the General Contents of Oklahoma's Draft Regional Haze SIP, we have 

essentially four main elements of a Regional Haze SIP.

The first one is a calculation of Baseline and Natural Visibility 

Conditions.

The second is the establishment of Reasonable Progress Goals.

The third is BART Determinations for each subject source.

And the last element is the development of a Long-term Strategies.

In regard to the first element, the establishment of Baseline and 

Natural Visibility Conditions. States are required to use data from 2001 

through 2004 to establish baseline conditions for the least impaired days and 

for the most impaired days at each Class I Federal area. 

In regard to the Wichita Mountains, data collected by the IMPROVE 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

9

network from 2002, in this case, through 2004 showed baseline visibility on 

the most impaired days to be 23.81 deciviews. 

States are also required to determine the natural visibility 

conditions, in other words the conditions that would exist absent any 

human-caused impairment at these Class I areas. 

In the Wichita Mountains, the natural conditions using EPA's 

required

methodology are estimated to be 7.53 deciviews. That means that Oklahoma has 

to work to improve visibility in the Wichita Mountains by 16.28 deciviews over 

a 60 year period.

That takes us to the second of the main elements in a Regional Haze 

SIP, and that's the establishment of Reasonable Progress Goals. 

States are required to set goals, expressed in deciviews, that 

provide reasonable progress in improving from the baseline conditions to the 

estimated natural visibility conditions by 2064. 

For Oklahoma, the process started back in 1999, when DEQ joined 

the Central Regional Air Planning Association, which we refer to as CENRAP, 

along with eight other States located in the Central United States.

CENRAP established five standing committees that addressed 

technical and non-technical issues related to Regional Haze. CENRAP invited 

interested parties and stakeholders to participate in the process. In fact, 

we had several companies from Oklahoma who participated in that process to one 

degree or another. And that included PSO, OG&E, Georgia Pacific, and 

Weyerhaeuser.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

10

Modeling that was conducted for CENRAP considered emissions and 

reductions from all source categories and was used to assist in establishing 

Reasonable Progress Goals. After considering the requirements of the Federal 

Rule and the data that was provided by the CENRAP modeling, the Reasonable 

Progress Goal for the Wichita Mountains for the year 2018 was set at 21.47 

deciviews.

The Federal Rule requires states to set reasonable progress goals 

for 2018, but then to go back every ten years or after to re-evaluate those 

goals. 

So in other words, those 2018 goals is just the first responsible 

progress goal that has to be set. The goal of 21.47 deciviews is just one step 

on the way to achieving Natural Visibility Conditions by 2064. This goal, the 

21.47 goal, is slightly higher than what a uniform rate of progress would be 

if you had equal improvements each year up until 2064 in achieving the National 

Visibility Conditions. The uniform rate of progress would be close to 20.01 

deciviews by 2018. However, the Agency feels that the SIPs stated goal of 21.47 

deciviews is reasonable for the Wichita Mountains.

The third core element of the Regional Haze SIP and what many would 

feels was probably the most significant element is the Implementation of the 

BART Requirements. In order to implement BART, states have to make three 

determinations.

One is, the state has to determine which sources are BART eligible 

sources.

The second is the state has to determine which of those BART eligible 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

11

sources are actually subject to the requirements of BART; and then we have to 

make a BART determination for each subject source.

In order to determine which sources are BART Eligible, there's three 

criteria that have to be met.

The first is that the source has to be listed in one of 26 categories 

that are contained in the Rule. 

The second is the source must have been built after 1962 but in 

operation by 1977. 

And the last is that the source must have the potential to emit 

more than 250 Tons Per Year of SO2, NOx, or PM. 

It was determined that in Oklahoma we have 20 sources that meet 

all three criteria and, therefore, all 20 of those are BART eligible sources. 

The next step in the process is to determine which of those eligible 

sources are actually subject to the requirements of BART. And you do that by 

determining which of these sources actually cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment at a Class I Federal area. 

To do that, we look at the dispersion modeling to see whether or 

not it indicates that a specific source has an impact on a Class I area that's 

greater than .5 deciviews. 

In Oklahoma of those 20 BART eligible sources, the dispersion 

modeling demonstrated that 11 of those sources did not, in fact, cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I Federal area and, therefore, 

those 11 sources were granted waivers and not subject to BART.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

12

In addition, we had three other sources that were BART eligible 

that agreed to take permit limits that will ensure that they don=t have a 

contribution or cause visibility impact to a Class I area, and therefore, they 

are also eligible for waivers. That left us with six sources in Oklahoma that 

are subject to BART.

In order to make BART determinations for those six subject sources, 

the Agency had to apply a five factor analysis that's provided in the federal 

rule. 

Those factors are:

One, the cost of controls;

Two, the impact of controls on energy usage or any non-air quality 

environmental impacts;

Three, the remaining useful life of the equipment that's going to 

be controlled;

Four, the existing pollution controls that are already in place;

And five, the visibility improvement that would result.

In Oklahoma the six sources that are subject to BART include three 

coal-fired power generating facilities and three natural gas fired power 

generating facilities.

After applying this five factor analysis, BART for these sources 

was determined to include low NOx burners for NOx control at both the gas-fired 

and the coal-fired sources; and dry scrubbers for SO2 removal at the coal-fired 

sources. Application of BART to these six sources is expected to reduce SO2 

emissions by between 57,000 and 88,000 Tons Per Year, and reduce NOx emissions 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

13

by between 26,000 and 55,000 Tons Per Year. These reductions would result in 

improved visibility at all of the Class I Federal areas that are covered in 

the SIP.

The fourth core element of a Regional Haze SIP is the Long-term 

Strategies. The Federal Rule provides that Long-term Strategies must include 

enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures 

that are necessary to achieve the established reasonable progress goals. 

Oklahoma's draft Regional Haze SIP provides that the Agency will issue air 

quality permits requiring BART-subject sources to either:

One, install BART and achieve the BART associated emission limits 

or;

Two, achieve a greater reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions through an approvable alternative. 

So with this approval alternative approach there is some flexibility 

for BART subject sources to comply with these federal requirements.

Regardless of the choice or the alternative chosen, the alternative 

has to be achieved within seven years from the date of DEQ's Regional Haze SIP 

submission to EPA or within five years from EPA's approval of the SIP.

In addition, the State's Long-term Strategies also include existing 

programs such as our NSR Permitting Program that already reduces emissions of 

the same pollutants that actually cause or contribute to visibility impairment.

We also have numerous State rules that specifically limit emissions 

of the same pollutants for specific source categories. And we also have other 

ongoing pollution control programs such as emission limitations that are 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

14

contained in negotiating Consent Decrees, limitations on open burning, and also 

the continued development of a State Smoke Management Plan in cooperation with 

other State agencies.

That ends my description of the purposed SIP.

In regard to the next step in the SIP Process, DEQ has already 

received formal comments from several Federal Agencies, including the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the National Parks Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and 

Region 6 of the U.S. EPA.

I believe we have copies of all of those comments on the table in the back of 

the room. If anyone would like electronic copies of those comments, you can 

find those on our website as well.

The next step for Oklahoma will be to consider the timely public 

comments that are received. The public comment period does end at the hearing 

this afternoon.

If the draft Regional Haze SIP is substantively modified as a result 

of the public comments that are considered, then a new draft will be provided 

for public comment in the future.

However, if the draft Regional Haze SIP is not substantively 

modified by any comments that are received, then the State of Oklahoma will 

have the opportunity to submit the SIP to EPA for consideration.

That's all I have. Thank you.

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Thank you, Rob. DEQ will now take 

public comments on our Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.

Mr. Joe Kordzi, of Region 6, EPA will go first.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

15

MR. KORDZI: Thank you. My name is Joe Kordzi. I work for 

the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 in Dallas, Texas, where among 

other things, I am the regional haze coordinator. 

Following the submittal of Oklahoma's regional haze state 

implementation plan, I, along with input from others at EPA, will review that 

plan to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's 

regulations for regional haze, which are contained in 40 CFR 51.308. 

EPA's regional haze program is designed to improve the visibility 

at our nation's Class I areas; our 156 national parks and wilderness areas. 

We are fortunate to have a fine example, the Wichita Mountains, located in 

Comanche County. 

Every year millions of people visit these beautiful areas. 

Unfortunately, due to haze caused by air pollution, many visitors aren't able 

to see the spectacular vistas they expect. Much of this haze is not natural 

and is caused by a variety of sources, including large stationary sources, such 

as coal fired power plants; mobile sources, such as cars and trucks; and area 

sources, such as fire. This air pollution is carried by the wind often hundreds 

of miles from where it originated.

The regional haze program has at its core, an ambitious long-term 

goal; the return to natural visibility conditions at these Class I areas by 

2064.

I would like to urge the Air Quality Council and the Environmental 

Quality Board to adopt the Oklahoma Regional Haze Plan. It is the opinion of 

EPA Region 6 that the measures contained within Oklahoma's regional haze plan 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

16

will do much to improve visibility at the Wichita Mountains, with co-benefits 

to DEQ's other air quality programs. 

Furthermore, it is vitally important this plan be submitted to us 

for review as soon as possible. EPA is under a court ordered consent decree 

from Wild Earth Guardians, an environmental organization, to approve either 

a state plan, a federal plan, or some combination of both that satisfies the 

regional haze requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 by November, 2011. If we do not 

receive this plan soon after the beginning of 2010, we will begin the process 

of constructing a federal plan to satisfy these requirements.

On behalf of EPA Region 6, I would like to acknowledge the years 

of hard work the staff at DEQ have invested in the regional haze process. It 

has been a long and difficult road from the passage of the 1999 Regional Haze 

Rule to this draft Regional Haze Plan. The staff at DEQ have overcome many 

challenges in getting this plan to this point. Their leadership within CENRAP, 

the Central Regional Air Planning Association, is commendable and has 

undoubtedly improved the regional haze plans of all of CENRAP's member states. 

It has been a pleasure working with these folks and I hope to continue to 

strengthen our association in the future.

EPA Region 6 has submitted written comments on this plan that we 

request be entered into the record.

Thank you.

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: I might also mention if any of the 

commenters have a printed version of their oral statement, that they are able 

to leave with us, that would be helpful for our court reporter.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

17

Our next commenter, Mr. Paul Renfrow from OG&E.

MR. RENFROW: Good morning. My name is Paul Renfrow. I am 

Vice President of Public Affairs for OGE Energy Corp which is the parent company 

of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, which is better known as OG&E. 

I am here today representing my company expressing our opposition 

to the proposed State Implementation Plan that has been filed here by the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality to be in compliance with the federal Regional 

Haze rules.

We have also filed comments in this case that are a part of the 

public record so my remarks this morning will be very brief. I will be followed 

by Kimber Shoop who is also with OG&E that will have a little more detail on 

our filing.

I must start by saying that we find it very awkward to be in a position 

of opposing a plan filed by the DEQ. We have a close working relationship with 

the Agency and hold the Agency and its staff in high regard.

However, as I said, OG&E must go on the record strongly opposing 

the DEQ State Implementation Plan.

We disagree and oppose the draft proposal for several reasons:

First and most importantly, the proposal will result in the largest 

single rate increase for our customers in the company's 108 year history. This 

cannot be minimized nor is this fact contrived. We hear from our customers 

every single day about the cost of the electricity needed to power their homes 

and businesses. Oklahoma's largest industrial customers are extremely vocal 

about the competitive nature of their businesses and the need to stay competitive 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

18

and remain in Oklahoma.

We also hear from the less fortunate, either directly or through 

social service agencies as they struggle with the cost of staying cool in the 

summer or warm in the winter. This proposal forces us to spend more than one 

billion dollars of customer's money to add pollution control devices, commonly 

called scrubbers, to our aging coal plants. Those coal plants are each between 

25 and 30 -- 35 years old and somewhere in the last half of their planned useful 

lives. This proposal will actually prolong the life of the coal plants when 

it seems everyone in the country wants utilities to quit using coal.

This proposal is also completely contrary to the national direction 

to reduce CO2 emissions. 

So, to comply with the regional haze rule, the proposal requires 

us to reduce our SO2 emissions to reduce haze in national wilderness areas by 

adding extremely costly scrubbers to aging coal plants. But at the very same 

time, the federal government is considering climate change legislation and/or 

regulation that would require us to limit the use of our coal plants and likely 

shut them down at some point; just as we have spent a billion dollars adding 

scrubbers. 

This creates a real quandary for us.

If our customers, in effect, are required to invest a billion dollars or more 

in scrubbers on our aging coal plants then they should have every expectation 

that we will continue to use those plants as long as we can. If we are required 

to stop using the plants due to carbon limitations, then customers would be 

paying for assets we would no longer be allowed to use.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

19

While the Regional Haze rule has the desirable intention of making 

our wilderness areas more beautiful over the next 50 years, this is, frankly, 

an inefficient approach to taking care of it. So OG&E opposes the rule. Where 

does that leave us?

Well, OG&E has filed an alternative plan that benefits Oklahoma, 

costs our customers substantially less money and actually does more for the 

environment than the filed plan. I want to emphasize that OG&E's plan does not 

ask the DEQ to ignore the Regional Haze rules. In fact, our proposal helps 

the state make significant progress in improving visibility.

Under our plan while making steady reductions along the way, no 

later than 2026 we will achieve the same visibility results as the scrubbers, 

all while producing less CO2.

So how are we going to do this?

Simply stated, it is OG&E's plan to begin ramping down the use of our coal plants 

and begin relying more on our natural gas-fired plants and wind power as well.

Then in the 2020s, our plan calls for us to step back and see what's 

happened in technology advancements. Have there been advancements that would 

allow us to use the plants going forward, carbon sequestration for example. 

My best guess today is that in the 2020s we will be shutting our coal plants 

down or converting them to natural gas.

Let me restate that just to be clear. Our plan calls for OG&E to 

use more Oklahoma Natural Gas, more Oklahoma wind and less Wyoming coal, saving 

customers hundreds of millions of dollars at the same time. 

This plan accomplishes the same objective in roughly the same amount 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

20

of time. We would be in compliance with the Regional Haze Rules and by reducing 

the use of our coal plants; we would be better positioned to be in compliance 

with any climate change laws or regulations that come down the pike.

And here is the ultimately irony. OG&E would not make a penny on 

the alternative plan we are proposing but would stand to make a considerable 

amount of money on the scrubber approach that is included in the SIP. 

So why would OG&E oppose a plan that we would stand to make money 

on? Frankly, it is simply the right thing to do and for the reasons I stated 

earlier that the CO2 legislation and things that are coming our way. 

Why would we needlessly expose our customers to hundreds of millions 

of dollars of cost when there is a cheaper, cleaner, better option available?

Now we know people are questioning our math on the cost of these 

scrubbers. We have heard that OG&E must be wrong, the cost of scrubbers can't 

be a billion dollars or more. Well, unfortunately they are. 

We have utilized an international engineering firm recognized for 

their work on such projects, called Sargent-Lundy. They carefully followed 

the EPA required modeling and arrived at a cost of approximately $10,000 per 

ton of emissions or 1.5 billion dollars. That's where the number came from.

We concluded that there must be a better way to be in compliance, 

and that is how we arrived at our alternative plan.

We met with the EPA and the DEQ to review our numbers and alternative proposal. 

At EPA's request we agreed to do site specific modeling based on today's costs, 

instead of the broader, more generic approach required under the EPA's rules.

As expected, primarily because of the significant downturn in the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

21

economy and the drop in such things as steel prices, that number came in lower, 

but is still more than a billion dollars. 

The other thing we have heard is that, OG&E might as well put 

scrubbers on now; they will have to sooner or later anyway. We strongly disagree 

with perspective. That kind of thinking completely discounts innovative, 

creative solutions that are possible like the one we are talking about today.

Let me close by saying this. America is clearly interested in a 

cleaner environment. This situation provides an opportunity for Oklahoma, the 

DEQ and OG&E to step up as leaders by proposing innovative and cost effective 

solutions. 

We all want a cleaner environment but let's do it in a sensible way that doesn't 

financially crush Oklahoma ratepayers. The OG&E plan does exactly that. It's 

a good alternative. 

We strongly recommend that the OG&E alternative plan be adopted 

by the DEQ and included in their final State Implementation plan to be filed 

with the EPA. Thank you. 

I would now like to turn it over if I can, to Kimber Shoop. 

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Yes. That's fine. We'll have Kimber 

Shoop from OG&E present his comments.

MR. SHOOP: My name is Kimber Shoop. I am in-house legal 

counsel for OG&E. As Mr. Renfrow mentioned, we are here to make comments on 

the DEQ's conclusion that OG&E should install scrubbers on four of its coal 

units. I want explain in a little more detail how OG&E arrived at its conclusion 

that scrubbers are not cost-effective and why we developed our alternative 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

22

proposal.

The focus of OG&E's written and oral comments are on the DEQ's 

conclusion that "scrubbers" are the appropriate controls for controlling sulfur 

dioxide at four of OG&E's coal units. 

DEQ proposes that we install scrubbers even though OG&E's analysis 

shows that such scrubbers are not cost effective.

So, how did we arrive at the conclusion that scrubbers are not 

cost-effective?

Well, after we submitted our original BART proposal and it was 

rejected by EPA and DEQ in 2007, OG&E was required to perform a detailed analysis 

to determine what controls are best for the particular units in question under 

the EPA's five factor analysis. 

This five factor analysis is contained in the EPA rule and basically 

contains the basic steps to determine what the appropriate controls are for 

a particular unit. One of these five steps establishes the methods to be used 

in evaluating cost impacts. These methods specifically require a cost 

effectiveness calculation using the EPA methodology.

As Mr. Renfrow said, OG&E hired Sargent & Lundy, an internationally 

recognized engineering firm, to perform this detailed analysis. 

In Spring 2008, Sargent & Lundy's analysis was completed and it 

showed that the capital costs and associated O&M costs on four scrubbers were 

not at the levels presumed by industry and the EPA, but that the actual costs

were much, much higher. The analysis by Sargent & Lundy showed that the capital 

costs for four scrubbers were over $1.5 billion and, on top of that, the O&M 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

23

costs were $150 million a year.

More importantly, as part of the five factor analysis, Sargent & 

Lundy looked at the cost-effectiveness of installing these scrubbers and the 

results were that the scrubbers were nowhere near being cost-effective. Sargent 

& Lundy's analysis showed that it would cost $10,000 for every ton of sulfur 

dioxide removed from our emissions. To put this in perspective, EPA's own 

regulations placed the reasonable average cost effectiveness at around $900 

per ton of sulfur dioxide removed and estimated that the reasonable range for 

cost effectiveness to be somewhere between $400 and $2,000 per ton of sulfur 

dioxide removed. Our number was $10,000.00, five times the upper end of EPA's 

range.

EPA and DEQ have both found that OG&E performed this analysis 

correctly according to EPA's regulations and guidance on how to perform the

five factor analysis. But, OG&E didn't stop there. At EPA's request, OG&E 

performed a second analysis to validate our conclusion that scrubbers are not 

cost-effective. The second analysis went above and beyond what was required 

by the EPA rules and included a more detailed, site-specific analysis under 

today's market conditions. 

The second analysis did validate our conclusion that scrubbers would 

not be cost effective. It showed that it would cost approximately $7,000 per 

ton of SO2 removal. This is more than three times the upper limit of the EPA 

range that we mentioned before.

Why are OG&E's cost-effectiveness numbers so high? Well, there 

are several reasons. First of all, OG&E is unique because it gets a lot less 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

24

bang for one's proverbial buck from installing scrubbers. The cost 

effectiveness analysis for scrubbers basically looks at the costs associated 

with the installation of the scrubber and also at how much sulfur dioxide is 

being removed. The larger the amount of sulfur dioxide removed, the greater 

the cost effectiveness. OG&E in particular gets a lot less bang for its buck 

because it already uses coal with much lower sulfur content as compared to others. 

Also, OG&E's units are not as large as some others putting on such controls 

and OG&E runs its coal units less to ensure compliance with other environmental 

regulations. Those are the reasons why OG&E cost effectiveness numbers are 

so high.

Other entities around the country that are installing scrubbers 

use coal with higher sulfur content, they have larger units that run more, and 

as explained in our written comments, have also been performing the analysis 

incorrectly using the wrong baseline to measure the amount of sulfur dioxide 

that can be removed.

Moreover, other entities that are installing scrubbers are closer 

to Class I areas and have a greater impact on visibility. For OG&E, because 

the Class I areas are relatively distant from our generating units, the cost 

for visibility improvement at each Class I area is $110 million per deciview 

of visibility improvement. This is far above the range of reasonableness. 

The Federal Land Managers overseeing Class I areas wanted us to 

look at the cumulative visibility improvement at all of the Class I areas where 

we modeled. Doing that, the cost for the modeled visibility improvement is 

over $60 million per deciview of visibility improvement at Sooner and $33 million 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

25

per deciview of visibility improvement at Muskogee. These values are multiples 

higher than the range of reasonableness specified by the Federal Land Managers 

in their comments. Their range is between 10 and 15 million dollars per 

deciview.

OG&E strongly urges the State of Oklahoma to instead consider the 

alternative proposal submitted by OG&E on September 23, 2009 to achieve 

compliance with regional haze targets for these four units. OG&E's alternative 

proposal will ultimately achieve the same visibility improvements as set forth 

in the Revised SIP, but in a cost effective manner through the use of more natural 

gas-fired and wind generation to meet the electric needs of our customers.

Thank you very much. 

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Our next commenter is Mr. Don Shandy.

MR. SHANDY: Good morning. My name is Don Shandy and I'm 

here on behalf of Chesapeake Energy. 

I would first of all commend the DEQ in its efforts. I think 

everybody recognizes this is a very difficult effort.

And particularly the Air Quality Division has had its share of challenges in 

terms of rules and regulations. So I would first again say that we appreciate 

the effort the Agency has put into this process. 

I've also provided a written copy of our comments and -- but there 

are a few points that I would like to make this morning. 

It is clear from DEQ's extensive study of the regional haze issue 

that emissions of sulfur compounds are primarily responsible for the impacts 

to the Wichita Mountain Class I Area. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

26

Specifically, coal-fired generation units account for a bulk of 

this impact. As a result, rather than requiring huge capital investment to 

the Oklahoma coal-fired units that are more than 30 years old, such units should 

either convert to natural gas firing systems or be replaced with new natural 

gas fired generation units.

There is an immediate option available to Oklahoma. A significant 

percentage of base load generation can be supplied by existing underutilized 

natural gas generation facilities. 

For example, the capacity utilization from combined cycle 

generation facilities in Oklahoma is typically less than 50 percent. Increased 

utilization of natural gas fired generation by the owners of the coal-fired 

units would improve visibility at the Class I Area according to the analysis 

that's been done by the DEQ.

Oklahoma must begin to effectively address emissions from 

coal-fired electric generation plants in Texas. There are 17 coal-fired 

electric generation plants operating today in Texas and another 13 are currently 

in the permitting process or under construction. These facilities are culpable 

not only for visibility impacts, but also for contributing pollutants that impair 

Oklahoma's ability to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

And now we have a few specific comments to the Plan itself -- to 

the SIP.

The Plan states "Inside Oklahoma, Texas alone contributes more to 

visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains than Oklahoma does. Considering 

these results, any effective strategy for managing visibility impairment at 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

27

the Wichita Mountains must address outside sources including regional and 

international transports." 

The document further concludes that "sources in Oklahoma contribute 

less than one-seventh of the visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains. 

Emissions from Texas alone account for almost twice the impairment as those 

from Oklahoma". 

And then there are several tables I cite in our written comments 

that DEQ cites. 

And our comment to this is the Plan fails to adequately address 

out-of-state sources that contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita 

Mountains. The DEQ needs to further evaluate these culpable sources in 

conjunction with an applicable state agency in Texas. That would be the TCEQ. 

And these sources need to be evaluated with the same level of scrutiny that 

sources inside Oklahoma are being evaluated.

The Plan also states at Table V-8 -- Table V-8 indicates sulfurous 

emissions clearly, most importantly, impair visibility at the Wichita Mountains. 

The report continues by saying, "Texas sources bear culpability 

for the largest proportion of visibility impairment." In every category except 

course particulate sources in Texas and other states notably contribute more 

than those in Oklahoma do.

Chesapeake's comment is to this element of the Plan or this statement 

in the plan is most sulfurous emissions that impact visibility at the Wichita 

Mountains may be attributed to coal-fired sources in Texas. That's obvious. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

28

The report states that. While the Plan acknowledges impact from out-of-state 

sources and to some extent, attempts to address this matter via consultation 

with Texas, and if we attempt to address this in consultation with Texas and 

we have an agreement, according to the document, to allow Oklahoma the 

opportunity to comment on pending Texas air permits -- permit applications for 

sources within 300 kilometers of our border, we believe this approach is 

inadequate. This is particularly the case given DEQ is requiring again or 

mentioning excessive and expensive sulfur emission controls on coal-fired 

electric generation units located inside the state of Oklahoma. 

The Plan goes on and states, "In her letter dated March 25, 2008, 

Susanna Hildebrand, Director of the Air Quality Division of Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality, requested concurrence of Oklahoma that DEQ did not 

rely on additional reductions from Texas sources in meeting reasonable progress 

goals at the Wichita Mountains. DEQ responded in a letter dated 25 April 2008, 

confirming that DEQ accounted for all expected reductions."

Chesapeake's comment is that in light of overwhelming evidence that 

Texas sources impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains, and given the 

potentially large financial impact on Oklahoma electric generation facilities 

and rate payers, DEQ should have requested additional reduction from Texas 

sources to meet the reasonable progress goal.

I would also note that in the comments that EPA finds, I believe 

today EPA specifically mentions in their comments "We urge Oklahoma to ensure 

that Texas is aware its sources impacts and encourage -- its sources impacts 

and encourage reductions as necessary. So in that respect we certainly -- we 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

29

at Chesapeake certainly agrees with EPA's comments. 

If you look in Table V1-6, DEQ specifies that Dry Flue Gas 

Desulphurization or what it's commonly been referred to here as scrubbers to 

be installed on the OG&E Muskogee Units Four and Five, OG&E Sooner Units One 

and Two, and PSO Northeastern Units Three and Four. 

While Chesapeake acknowledges that scrubber technology would result 

in significant reductions of sulfur emissions, which will accomplish -- such 

will be accomplished only again after an extraordinary and unwarranted 

investment by rate payers in this state.

Chesapeake is aware of OG&E's correspondence to this Agency where 

it is estimated that scrubber capital cost initially -- and I know this number 

is a floating -- somewhat of a floating number because costs varies from year 

to year, in some cases dramatically. But this initial letter said that it would 

be -- and I think it was mentioned earlier about 1.5 billion dollars. 

Further OG&E claims that it expects to incur an annual O and M costs 

of about 150 million dollars. 

And finally, OG&E in this, at least, one piece of correspondence, 

claims that Oklahoma rate payers would have to endure approximately a 365 million 

dollar rate increase. I think that anyone in this room would agree that those 

numbers are extremely large. 

While DEQ and others in the EPA's documents clearly disputes the 

cost per ton removed factor that OG&E has put out there. While it may be 

disputed, one fact is clear and we think it's abundantly clear. That the capital 

and annual 0 and M costs for scrubbers is going to be high regardless of what 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

30

the final number is. And it would represent one of the largest capital 

investments Oklahoma history. 

So while we definitely agree that we've got to make movement to 

protect the Class I area, there has to be a very hard look at these numbers. 

Chesapeake believes that the expenditure of funds for this type 

of emission control equipment is imprudent. While it would undoubtedly be 

acceptable to DEQ, the culpable coal-fired generation sources should focus on 

the development and utilization of more environmentally friendly electric 

generation units and fuels. And I think that was previously addressed by the 

gentleman from OG&E. 

That would conclude the comments from Chesapeake.

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Shandy. The next 

commenter is Mr. Bud Scott. 

MR. SCOTT: Good morning. My name is Bud Scott. I'm the 

Governor of Affairs Director for the Oklahoma Chapter of the Sierra Club. I 

have submitted formal comments as well that should be submitted into the record. 

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: I have it. 

MR. SCOTT: Thank you. I will make my comments brief because 

a lot of the points that I started to discuss have already been addressed this 

morning. 

One of our major issues with the draft SIP today first lies with 

the exclusion for most of the analysis of the Class I areas that are impacted 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

31

outside of the state of Oklahoma, primarily Caney Creek and the Upper Buffalo 

Area. Those two we would request be given the same level of analysis as the 

Wichita Mountain Wilderness Refuge. Just because of the same issues as far 

as any impacts that we see from emissions and of the point in areas where there 

are transport issues.

The second point that we would like to really emphasis and, number 

one I want to really clarify that the DEQ Staff did a fantastic job on this 

presentation and on this proposed SIP. It took a lot of work and effort here 

and we were very impressed and for the most part support the SIP. However, 

there are some minor revisions that we would like to see. One being the inclusion 

of those other areas. 

The second of addressing out-of-state issues primarily with the 

state of Texas. Those have already been addressed by parties at Chesapeake 

and Oklahoma Gas and Electric. That's one of our most important points is that 

we could be given alternative approaches which were very little addressed through 

the SIP for dealing with the out-of-state issues on transport, the out-of-state 

issues with direct emissions, and its impact on the -- on the Wichita Mountain 

Wilderness Area. So we really request that that issue be addressed, number 

one. 

Number two, we've identified in the alternative approaches for 

implementation of the BART and BACT that in the alternative approaches we look 

more towards fuel switching provisions which were not adequately addressed in 

the provided SIP. Most of the SIP addressed the direct implementation of BART 

and then somewhat in BACT. And we would just like to see more of that approached 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

32

and given a little more detail.

And then finally, we would really just like to see more cooperation 

on the interstate level. 

Once again echoing the comments from Chesapeake and OG&E. That's 

an area that's extremely important here as we see most of the emissions that 

are impacting our wilderness areas and both our air quality issues here in 

Oklahoma, the majority of those emissions are coming out of the Texas basin 

and need to be adequately addressed so we can solve this problem beyond regional 

haze, but also its impact on climate change, carbon emissions, and everything 

else that we're going to be addressing here. 

So ultimately the Sierra Club while we do generally support the 

implementation of Best Available Retrofit Technologies and Best Available 

Control Technologies at the same time we feel like the plan here in Oklahoma 

could be revised to address some of the alternatives available that will be 

best for the rate payers in Oklahoma, the citizens of Oklahoma, and for our 

natural resources. 

So with those brief comments, I thank you for your time. 

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Thank you. Our next commenter is Mr. 

Bud Ground. Are you not wanting to make comments?

MR. GROUND: No, ma'am. 

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Mr. -- I'm going to mis-pronounce your 

name. I'm going to apologize up front. Mr. Darryl Smette. Did I mess it up 

too bad?

MR. SMETTE: Yes, you missed it. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

33

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: (Inaudible).

REPORTER: Then you better spell that for me. 

MR. SMETTE: S-m-e-t-t-e. First name is Darryl. 

D-a-r-r-y-l. And I am submitting written comments. 

REPORTER: Thank you.

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Very good.

MR. SMETTE: My name is Darryl Smette and I'm Executive 

Vice-President from Devon Energy Corporation. 

First I would like to thank the DEQ for having a public forum. 

I think it's a great example of what needs to happen. We like everyone in this 

room and I suspect everyone if we took a poll, are in support of cleaner air. 

We're here to support OG&E's application for an alternate proposal to the 

Regional Haze Plan. 

In short what OG&E is saying is that it not only is more economical 

but we have less greenhouse gas emissions by converting some of the base load 

generating capacity to gas fueled rather than coal fueled. The Department of 

Energy acknowledges that coal pollutes twice as much as natural gas when you 

are looking at an electric generation facility. So a logical question would 

be if you are proposing more natural gas as a fuel for generating electricity, 

what type of resources of natural gas is available to you? And that's where 

I would like to focus my comments -- my further comments this morning. 

Over the last five to six years there has been a major change in 

the gas resource potential in the United States and in North America. That 

has been driven by technological improvements we have seen with horizontal 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

34

drilling, on different types of fracking, and other technologies that the 

industry has developed. Earlier this year the Colorado School of Mines issued 

a report based on a study they put forth that said that we have 100 years of 

gas resource in the United States -- recoverable gas resource in the United 

States and that that number is growing. That number was based on data prior 

to the time that we had discovered and started to develop the Haynesville shale 

in Wyoming or in Louisiana and east Texas. It was before we developed some 

of the Woodford shales in Oklahoma; it was before we developed some of the shales 

that they are developing in south Texas. So that number of 100 BCF of gas 

available to satisfy the demand for the next 100 years keeps growing. 

As you look at Oklahoma, just the Woodford shale in Oklahoma, there 

is two Woodford plays that are going on right now. One's in Eastern Oklahoma 

and one's in western Oklahoma. Devon happens to be in both of those plays. 

Our western Oklahoma plays is called our Cana play. And just Devon's interest 

in our Cana play suggests that we will have over six TCF of recoverable reserves 

in that play. That's 40 miles from Oklahoma City. That's equivalent to about 

one billion barrels of oil. There is not an offshore project that has found 

one billion barrels of oil offshore of the Gulf of Mexico. There is a substantial 

amount of gas reserves in the United States. Also there is all kinds of gas 

reserves that are being developed in Canada from the same type of shales plays. 

There is a significant amount of shale resource and type sand gas resource 

that's available for generating electricity by coal or by firing with gas rather 

than coal.

We think the proposal by OG&E is a win-win. First of all it reduces 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

35

emissions. 

Second of all it puts people to work, drilling and completing wells. 

Once those wells are on stream and produces gas and that gas with subsequent 

productions tax. That tax goes to the State of Oklahoma and to the other states 

where it is produced. So we strongly support OG&E's alternate proposal and 

appreciate the time given us. Thank you.

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Smette. 

Bud, have you reconsidered? I don't have any other formal comment 

notices here. Does anyone else in the public have a desire to speak at this 

time? 

Our hearing was advertised to -- until noon today. We will have 

staff here to take comments. I suggest we take a five minute break for our 

Court Reporter and those of you who want to stay around or if you want to 

reconsider comments, this would be a good time to fill those forms out. So 

we'll take a five minute break. 

(Break)

MS. BOTCHLET-SMITH: Okay. We are reconvening the hearing 

of the DEQ Public Hearing for the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

During our break we had no others that indicated that they wanted 

to make an oral comment. However, we did receive two written comments. One 

written comment from AEP and a written comment from Western Farmers Electric 

Cooperative. Those are being provided to our Court Reporter and they will be 

entered into the record as a written comment. Neither of these companies wished 

to make oral comments at this time. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

36

It is now 12:00 noon and this concludes our hearing. And as I said 

before, no other commenters presented a desire to comment on the rule. 

REPORTER: Okay. Court Reporter closes it at 12:00 noon.

(Hearing Concluded)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

2

0

2

1

2

2

37

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF OKLAHOMA )

) ss:

COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA )

I, CHRISTY A. MYERS, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the 

State of Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above hearing is the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth; that the foregoing hearing was taken 

down in shorthand by me and thereafter transcribed under my direction; that 

said meeting was taken on the 16th day of December, 2009, at Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma; and that I am neither attorney for, nor relative of any of said parties, 

nor otherwise interested in said action.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal 

on this, the 17th day of December, 2009.

 

CHRISTY A. MYERS, C.S.R.

Certificate No. 00310