Opinion ID: 1311164
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Primary vs. Other Purposes

Text: Appellees also appear to assert that the equipment used after the diesel has been processed, which processes the H2S gas, is primarily pollution control equipment, because it is not necessary to produce the fuel, but is necessary to process the poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas by-product. However, the County Board heard testimony concerning several purposes for the sulfur plant, the sulfur recovery unit and the amine unit. The purposes included: to manufacture diesel according to current standards for highway consumption, for the purpose of product and by-product recovery essentially, that the entire system is an integrated system to produce compliant fuel and also meet other environmental emission standards and that the amine treater and sulfur recovery units are necessary for safety and health and risk management and insurance. When the evidence presents more than one purpose for equipment, the County Board, as the finder of fact, is responsible for determining whether the primary purpose of the equipment is pollution control. See State Bd. Of Equalization v. City of Lander, 882 P.2d 844, 848 (Wyo.1994); City of Cheyenne v. Sims, 521 P.2d 1347, 1349 (Wyo.1974) (concerning statute exempting property used primarily for a governmental purpose). The County Board determined pollution control is not the primary purpose of the equipment. In State Bd. of Equalization v. City of Lander, we held: The term primarily has an ordinary and obvious meaning in the law. Primarily means of first importance or principally. The term primarily may also be synonymous with essentially or fundamentally in some circumstances. City of Lander, 882 P.2d at 850 (citations omitted). Substantial evidence in the record before the County Board supports its denial of the pollution control exemption in this case. We do not substitute our judgment for factual determinations supported by substantial evidence. White, 837 P.2d 1095, 1098.