before the colorado air quality control...
Post on 10-Mar-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
BEFORE THE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL
COMMISSION REGULATION NUMBER 3, PARTS A, B, AND C; REGULATION
NUMBER 6, PART A; AND REGULATION NUMBER 7:
OIL & GAS RULEMAKING EFFORT
______________________________________________________________________________
JOINT PREHEARING STATEMENT OF COLORADO PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
AND COLORADO OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY_____________________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Colorado Petroleum Association (“CPA”) and Colorado Oil & Gas Association
(“COGA”) by and through their representatives, timely submit a Joint Prehearing Statement in
connection with the above-captioned hearing regarding the Air Pollution Control Division’s (the
“Division”) proposed revisions to Regulation Numbers 3, 6, and 7 (“Proposed Rules”).
CPA and COGA support the Division’s current proposed revisions to Regulation Number
6, Part A to fully incorporate by reference the Standards for Performance of Crude Oil and
Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart OOOO
(“NSPS OOOO”), including recent amendments and the provisions not incorporated during the
partial adoption. CPA and COGA also support the Division’s current proposed revisions to
Regulation Number 3, Parts A, B, and C to simplify emissions reporting and permitting
requirements. Because of the permitting backlogs at the Division and the Division’s own
acknowledgement of the need to create further permitting efficiencies, CPA and COGA propose
that the Air Quality Control Commission (the “Commission”) adopt the additional revisions to
Regulation Number 3 that the Division proposed in the stakeholder process.
With respect to Regulation Number 7, CPA and COGA members want to do their part in
reducing volatile organic compound emissions and acknowledge the co-benefits associated with
methane reduction that are achieved by reducing volatile organic compound emissions. As
evidenced by their and their members’ extensive participation in the ten-month stakeholder
group, CPA and COGA are willing to work with the Division and the Commission to develop
reasonable provisions for the protection of air quality and further reduction of volatile organic
compound emissions. As a result, CPA and COGA have not proposed significant revisions to
many of the Division’s Proposed Rules and have in fact retained many of the concepts and
general programs and requirements proposed by the Division in the Proposed Rules. Indeed, the
majority of CPA and COGA’s proposed revisions reflect mere formatting, clarification, and
2
consistency changes throughout Regulation Number 7. However, as noted in greater detail
below, CPA and COGA propose revisions to reflect that Regulation Number 7 governs volatile
organic compounds and not greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and that the Commission should
not and cannot adopt proposed rules directly regulating GHG emissions from the oil and gas
sector. Further, CPA and COGA propose changes to: reflect maintenance and safety
considerations, including the need to vent from storage tanks; address timing of implementation
of the various programs (including availability of equipment and development of comprehensive
monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping and reporting programs); reduce the frequency of
requirements to account for the reductions in emission that occur over time under leak detection
and repair (“LDAR”) programs; eliminate proposals for which the Division has not yet provided
an explanation or basis; and address other technical and operational considerations.
CPA and COGA have revised the Division’s Proposed Rules to reflect CPA and COGA’s
suggested changes to the regulation text. These revisions are presented as a redline of the
Division’s Proposed Rules, attached and incorporated hereto as Attachment C (hereinafter, the
“Collective Proposed Revisions”). CPA and COGA respectfully request that the Commission
adopt the Collective Proposed Revisions in lieu of the Proposed Rules and apply those Collective
Proposed Revisions only in the State of Colorado’s ozone nonattainment area. CPA and COGA
note that the Collective Proposed Revisions reflect the significant and time-consuming efforts of
participants from CPA, COGA, and Bill Barrett Corporation, Black Hills Exploration and
Production, Inc., Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc., PDC Energy, Inc., and Whiting Oil and Gas
Corporation (the “DGS Client Group”) to develop a single, joint, and comprehensive proposal
for the Commission and Division’s use in this rulemaking. CPA and COGA greatly appreciate
the efforts of all those involved in this process and are pleased to present the Commission with
the unified results of this joint effort.
As noted in the Joint Prehearing Statement, CPA and COGA each request three hours of
time (for a total of six hours) for presentation of testimony at the hearing. Exhibit F, though
lengthy, contains a brief summary on the opening page of that exhibit.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................4
II. LEGAL, FACTUAL, AND POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
RULES.................................................................................................................................6
A. REGULATION NUMBER 3:..................................................................................7
B. REGULATION NUMBER 6:..................................................................................8
C. REGULATION NUMBER 7:..................................................................................8
1. LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES....................................................................... 8
a. This Commission Cannot Regulate Methane as a
Greenhouse Gas Emission from the Oil and Gas Industry..............8
b. The Division Has Not Demonstrated a Need For the
Proposed Rules or Justified the Proposed Rules as More
Stringent Than Federal ....................................................................9
c. The Division Has Not Accurately Identified and Evaluated
the Costs and Benefits Associated with the Proposed Rules
and Therefore Has Not Provided the Necessary
Justification for the Proposed Rules ..............................................10
d. The Division Has Inappropriately Proposed a One-Size Fits
All Approach .................................................................................11
2. FACTUAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES......................................................... 13
a. Timing of Implementation:............................................................13
b. Storage Tank Emissions Management Plan: .................................14
c. Leak Detection and Repair: ...........................................................14
d. Well Maintenance Revisions: ........................................................15
e. Other Proposed Revisions: ............................................................15
III. LIST OF ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ............................................................................15
IV. EXHIBITS .........................................................................................................................17
V. WITNESSES......................................................................................................................18
VI. WRITTEN TESTIMONY .................................................................................................25
VII. PROPOSED REVISIONS .................................................................................................25
VIII. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................................26
IX. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................26
4
BEFORE THE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL
COMMISSION REGULATION NUMBER 3, PARTS A, B, AND C; REGULATION
NUMBER 6, PART A; AND REGULATION NUMBER 7:
OIL & GAS RULEMAKING EFFORT
______________________________________________________________________________
JOINT PREHEARING STATEMENT OF COLORADO PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
AND COLORADO OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION_____________________________________________________________________________
Colorado Petroleum Association (“CPA”) and Colorado Oil & Gas Association
(“COGA”) by and through their representatives, hereby timely submit to the Air Quality Control
Commission (“Commission”) this Joint Prehearing Statement of CPA and COGA (this “Joint
Prehearing Statement”) in connection with the above-captioned hearing regarding the Air
Quality Control Division’s (“Division”) proposed revisions to Regulation Numbers 3, 6, and 7
(the “Proposed Rules”). CPA and COGA further endorse and join in the prehearing statement
and associated documentation submitted by Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP on behalf of Bill
Barrett Corporation, Black Hills Exploration and Production, Inc., Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.,
PDC Energy, Inc., and Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation (the “DGS Client Group” and the “DGS
Client Group Prehearing Statement”). By filing this Joint Prehearing Statement neither CPA nor
COGA relinquish their individual party status in this rulemaking. Furthermore, CPA and COGA
reserve their right to file individual rebuttal statements or exhibits, utilize individual witnesses,
and otherwise act as different and separate parties in all aspects throughout the remainder of this
rulemaking.
I. BACKGROUND
CPA is a non-profit trade association organized to operate in Colorado. CPA members
are involved in all aspects of oil and gas exploration, production, refining, marketing, and
transportation. In Colorado, CPA represents its members before local, state, and federal
government entities on policy, factual, and legal issues. CPA has elected to participate in the
above-captioned hearing because it anticipates the proposed revisions to Regulation Numbers 3,
6, and 7 could substantially impact its member’s oil and gas activities and operations in the State
of Colorado.
COGA is a nationally recognized trade association organized to operate in Colorado.
COGA’s mission is to foster and promote the beneficial, efficient and responsible and
environmentally sound development, production and use of Colorado oil and natural gas. COGA
aggressively promotes the expansion of Rocky Mountain natural gas markets, supply and
5
transportation infrastructure through its growing and diverse membership. COGA has also
elected to participate in the above-captioned hearing because it anticipates the proposed revisions
to Regulation Numbers 3, 6 and 7 could substantially impact its member’s oil and gas activitiesand operations in the State of Colorado.
CPA and COGA support the Division’s current proposed revisions to Regulation Number
6, Part A to fully incorporate by reference the Standards for Performance of Crude Oil and
Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart OOOO
(“NSPS OOOO”), including recent amendments and the provisions not incorporated during the
partial adoption. CPA and COGA also support the Division’s current proposed revisions to
Regulation Number 3, Parts A, B, and C to simplify emissions reporting and permitting
requirements. Because of the permitting backlogs at the Division and the Division’s own
acknowledgement of the need to create further permitting efficiencies, CPA and COGA propose
that the Commission adopt the additional revisions to Regulation Number 3 that the Division
proposed during the stakeholder process from January 2013 through October 2013.
With respect to Regulation Number 7, CPA and COGA members want to do their part in
reducing volatile organic compound emissions and acknowledge the co-benefits associated with
methane reduction that are achieved by reducing volatile organic compound emissions. As
evidenced by their and their members’ extensive participation in the ten-month stakeholder
group, CPA and COGA are willing to work with the Division and the Commission to develop
reasonable provisions for the protection of air quality and further reduction of volatile organic
compound emissions. As a result, CPA and COGA have not proposed significant revisions to
many of the Division’s Proposed Rules and have in fact retained many of the concepts and
general programs and requirements proposed by the Division in the Proposed Rules. Indeed, the
majority of CPA and COGA’s proposed revisions reflect mere formatting, clarification, and
consistency changes throughout Regulation Number 7. However, as noted in greater detail
below, CPA and COGA propose revisions to reflect that Regulation Number 7 governs volatile
organic compounds and not greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and that Commission should not
and cannot adopt proposed rules directly regulating GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector.
Further, CPA and COGA propose changes to: reflect maintenance and safety considerations;
address timing of implementation (including availability of equipment and development of
comprehensive monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping and reporting programs); account for the
reductions in emission that occur over time under leak detection and repair (“LDAR”) programs;
and address other technical and operational considerations. CPA and COGA have revised the
Division’s Proposed Rules to reflect CPA and COGA’s suggested changes to the regulation text.
These revisions are presented as a redline of the Division’s Proposed Rules, attached and
incorporated hereto as Attachment C (hereinafter, the “Collective Proposed Revisions”). CPA
and COGA respectfully request that the Commission adopt the Collective Proposed Revisions in
lieu of the Proposed Rules and apply those Collective Proposed Revisions only in the ozone
nonattainment area. CPA and COGA note that the Collective Proposed Revisions reflect the
significant and time-consuming efforts of participants from CPA, COGA, and the DGS Client
Group to develop one comprehensive proposal for the Commission and Division’s use in this
6
rulemaking. CPA and COGA greatly appreciate the efforts of all those involved in this processand are pleased to present the Commission with the results of this joint effort.
II. LEGAL, FACTUAL, AND POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
RULES
The Division’s Proposed Rules raise many legal, factual and policy issues for this
Commission’s consideration. The majority of these legal, factual and policy issues are related to
the Division’s proposed revisions to Regulation Number 7. However, several legal and policy
issues relate to the Division’s stakeholder process, this rulemaking process, and the requirements
of the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act (“Colorado APA”).
In advance of potential rulemaking proceedings before the Commission regarding
revisions to Regulation Numbers 3, 6, and 7, the Division engaged the public in an extensive
stakeholder process to analyze and discuss significant issues of concern by and between industry
members, environmental groups, and other stakeholders. Beginning in January 2013 through
May 2013, the Division held monthly stakeholder meetings to introduce and discuss potential
revisions to air quality regulations affecting oil and gas owners and operators. From May 2013
through October 2013, the Division frequently engaged with smaller workgroups to discuss
technical and operational issues, critically analyze proposed language, and attempt to reach
resolution regarding outstanding issues. The Division continued to revise and focus its proposed
revisions throughout this process. Working with industry, environmental groups, and other
stakeholders to reach consensus (to the extent possible) on issues of concern, the Division
released several iterations of proposed language, the last of which was made public in October
2013. CPA and COGA were active participants throughout this stakeholder process, having
made numerous submissions of proposed language changes, investing hundreds of hours of time
and appreciated and valued this level of public engagement.
The proposed revisions to Regulation Numbers 3, 6, and 7 made public for the first time
on November 18, 2013 (i.e., the Division’s Proposed Rules), endorsed by Governor John
Hickenlooper, and identified by Governor Hickenlooper as the most restrictive rules in the
Nation, were not the proposed revisions developed through the nearly ten-month time intensive,
costly, and transparent collective effort in the stakeholder process. As indicated at the
Governor’s press conference on November 18, 2013, the Proposed Rules were developed by and
between a minority set of stakeholders (four stakeholders out of dozens of stakeholder
participants), without engaging, informing or seeking the input of the entire group of stakeholder
participants in the Division’s stakeholder process. As a result, the Proposed Rules include
significant new requirements that CPA, COGA, the public, and other stakeholders had no
opportunity to discuss, analyze, or even consider during the ten-month stakeholder process.
Thus, CPA and COGA’s Joint Prehearing Statement provides the Commission and the Division
the benefits of its thoughts on the Proposed Rules and proposed amendments to reflect legal,
technical, policy, economic and operational considerations.
7
In light of the scope and impact of the Proposed Rules, and the fact that the public and
the entire group of stakeholder participants were not engaged in the final development of key
portions of the Proposed Rules, this Commission must ensure that it thoroughly and thoughtfully
considers each of the parties’ proposals and positions. Full and complete consideration is
paramount under the Colorado APA and will be critically important here to ensure that all
interested parties (whether in favor, opposed, or otherwise) are heard on these issues. Not only is
it critically important that the process provided by the Commission conform precisely to the
Colorado APA, but the Commission must ensure that it has all relevant and necessary
information prior to adopting the Proposed Rules or some portions of the Proposed Rules, to
ensure that its decision meets the standards of the Colorado APA and Colorado Air Pollution
Prevention and Control Act (“Colorado Air Act”). CPA and COGA provide further legal
analysis and discussion regarding the requirements of the APA and other governing statutes and
the extent to which those requirements are met by the Proposed Rules in Attachment B.
CPA and COGA provide more specific thoughts on the legal, factual and policy issuesraised by Regulation Number 3, Regulation Number 6, and Regulation Number 7 below.
A. REGULATION NUMBER 3:
CPA and COGA support the Division’s current proposed revisions to Regulation
Number 3, Parts A, B, and C to simplify emissions reporting and permitting requirements.
However, CPA and COGA do not understand the Division’s decision to refrain from including
other revisions to Regulation Number 3 that the Division proposed and supported during the ten-
month stakeholder process. Specifically, in several drafts presented to the public and
stakeholders during the stakeholder process, the Division proposed to amend Regulation Number
3 to: (1) simplify the Air Pollutant Emission Notice (“APEN”) reporting thresholds for criteria
pollutants to 2 tons per year; and (2) to the increase the permitting threshold to twenty-five tons
per year for all criteria pollutants. During the stakeholder process, the Division expressed a
strong need for such revisions to reduce the administrative burden on the Division (and the
regulated community) from extensive APEN reporting and permitting requirements. The
Division made clear that these changes would reduce the permitting burdens both to the Division
and the regulated community but would not alter the environmental benefits from the permitting
program. See Excerpts from 2013 Rulemaking Stakeholder Meeting, January 28, 2013,
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division,
attached as at Exhibit A. In fact, the Division consistently emphasized that oil and gas sources
would be subject to Regulation Number 7 regardless of whether a permit was required for those
operations and proposed to develop strategies for ensuring such compliance. The Division
inexplicably eliminated these proposed changes from the November 18, 2013, version of
Regulation Number 3 proposed to this Commission. Because of the current permitting backlogs
at the Division and the Division’s own acknowledgement of the need to create further permitting
efficiencies, CPA and COGA propose that the Commission adopt the additional revisions to
Regulation Number 3 that the Division proposed in the stakeholder process. CPA and COGA
8
have re-incorporated the Division’s originally proposed revisions into the Collective ProposedRevisions for review and consideration by the Commission, as defined below.
B. REGULATION NUMBER 6:
CPA and COGA support the Division’s current proposed revisions to Regulation Number
6, Part A to fully incorporate by reference NSPS OOOO, including recent amendments and theprovisions not incorporated during the partial adoption.
C. REGULATION NUMBER 7:
With respect to Regulation Number 7, CPA and COGA raise concerns about several legal
and policy issues as well as several factual and technical considerations. CPA and COGA
present those concerns below in more detail. Further, CPA and COGA propose several
revisions—including formatting, clarification, consistency, and substantive revisions—to
Regulation Number 7. Those revisions are presented as a redline of the Division’s Proposed
Rules in Attachment C. Additionally, for the Commission’s ease of review, CPA and COGA
provide a chart that contains: (1) the relevant regulatory provision; (2) the Division’s proposed
language for that provision; (3) the Collective Proposed Revision for that provision; (4) the
characterization of the type of revision (e.g., formatting, clarification, consistency, or
substantive); and (5) the explanation supporting the Collective Proposed Revision to that specific
provision (herein, the “Explanations Chart”). As a result, CPA and COGA do not reiterate those
explanations for each of the Collective Proposed Revisions in the body of this Joint Prehearing
Statement. Rather, CPA and COGA present the overarching categories and headings that
represent the basis for those changes and request that the Commission review the ExplanationsChart attached at Attachment D for more detailed information.
CPA and COGA now provide the Commission with the legal, factual, and policy issues
related to Regulation Number 7.
1. LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES
a. This Commission Cannot Regulate Methane as a GreenhouseGas Emission from the Oil and Gas Industry
Currently Regulation Number 7 explicitly states “[e]missions of the organic compounds
listed as having negligible photochemical reactivity in the common provisions definition of
Negligibly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound are exempt from the provisions of this
regulation.” See 5 CCR 1001-9, II.B. The Commission’s Common Provisions Regulation
defines Negligibly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound (“NRVOC”) to include both methane
and ethane. See 5 CCR 1001-2, I.G (definition of NRVOC). Historically, the Commission has
not regulated NRVOCs under Regulation Number 7 because of their low reactivity to form
ozone. See 5 CCR 1001-5, VII.A (“The negligibly reactive volatile organic compounds
referenced in the Common Provisions definition of negligibly [NRVOC] are considered to be of
negligible photochemical reactivity and are neither counted as reactive volatile organic
9
compounds in determining volatile organic compound emission contributions to an increase in
ozone…); see also 5 CCR 1001-5, Statement of Specific Basis and Purpose (“In other words,
sources cannot use reductions of emission of these [non-reactive] compounds to offset VOC
emissions, and we are not allowed to include emissions of these compounds in our SIP
inventory. The EPA has determined that these compounds do not react in the atmosphere to
produce ground level ozone.”). In other words, historically, the Commission and Division have
found no reason or basis to regulate methane or ethane as volatile organic compounds given their
low reactivity to forming ozone. The Division has provided no evidence that scientific data or
evidence have altered the designation of methane and ethane as NRVOCs. Thus, the Division’s
Proposed Rules would regulate methane and ethane not as volatile organic compounds, but as
GHG emissions. None of the drafts of proposed revisions to Regulation Number 7 provided to
the public and stakeholders by the Division during the ten-month stakeholder process eliminated
the Regulation Number 7 exemption for NRVOCs, and thus for methane and ethane.
Furthermore, regulation of GHG emissions in Regulation Number 7, a regulation designed to
address ozone-forming compounds, is not appropriate.
Despite the lack of such proposals in the stakeholder process and the purposes of
Regulation Number 7, during the press conference held by the Governor on November 18, 2013,
to introduce the Proposed Rules, the Governor explicitly referred to the Proposed Rules as rules
to reduce methane, a GHG. To accomplish that goal, the Proposed Rules eliminate the
exemption for NRVOCs as it relates solely to hydrocarbon emissions, including methane and
ethane, at oil and gas operations only. See Division’s Proposed Rules, Regulation Number 7, at
II.B. Neither the Division’s Statement of Basis and Purpose (“Division’s SBAP”) nor the
Division’s Initial Economic Impact Analysis (“Division’s Initial EIA”) justify the regulation of
methane and ethane individually or separate and apart from their designation as volatile organic
compounds. Regulation of methane and ethane individually serves no other purpose in this
context than as a reduction in GHG emissions. CPA and COGA contend that this Commission
cannot meet the requirements under the Colorado Air Act to regulate methane and ethane from
oil and gas sources as GHG emissions and as a result cannot adopt the Proposed Rules regulating
hydrocarbons, such as methane and ethane, other than as ozone-forming volatile organic
compounds. As a result, the Commission does not have the proper statutory authority for the
regulation of methane, as required under the Colorado APA. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4-
103(4)(b)(II). CPA and COGA set forth the details regarding the inability to regulate methane
and ethane from oil and gas emissions sources as part of the Proposed Rules in the legal and
policy memorandum attached and incorporated hereto as Attachment A.
b. The Division Has Not Demonstrated a Need For the Proposed
Rules or Justified the Proposed Rules as More Stringent Than
Federal
The Colorado APA mandates that no rule shall be adopted unless: “[t]he record of the
rule-making proceeding demonstrates the need for the regulation.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4-
103(4)(b)(I). The Commission must also comply with the Colorado Air Act in adopting the
10
Proposed Rules. The Colorado Air Act requires that any proposed regulations be based on
reasonably available, validated, reviewed, and sound scientific methodologies, including those
provided by interested parties. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-7-110.8(1)(a). Furthermore, the Colorado
Air Act requires that the Commission justify adoption of proposed regulations if they are more
stringent than federal requirements. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-7-110.5. The Division has failed
to meet these requirements under both the Colorado APA and the Colorado Air Act.
Specifically, the Division has failed to properly demonstrate the need for the Proposed Rules
given the recent adoption of NSPS OOOO for oil and gas emission sources and the recent and
ongoing implementation of enhanced control requirements in the state related to regional haze
and other mandatory emission reduction programs. The Division has not provided sufficient
time for implementation of those other significant requirements and thus has not seen the extent
to which additional (if any) regulation is needed. The Division has provided no basis for the
Commission to find that these reductions in volatile organic compounds above and beyond that
required by federal law (and certainly as described above and in Attachment A, reductions in
GHG emissions) are necessary at this time and to this extent. In fact, the Division provides no
modeling or other data to suggest that the existing rules are not sufficient at reducing volatile
organic compounds when combined with newly imposed federal and state requirements on both
oil and gas and other sources of volatile organic compounds. CPA and COGA incorporate by
reference herein and direct the Commission to the DGS Client Group Prehearing Statement at
Exhibit B, Section IV, addressing in more detail the lack of demonstrated need and justification
for the Proposed Rules.
c. The Division Has Not Accurately Identified and Evaluated the
Costs and Benefits Associated with the Proposed Rules and
Therefore Has Not Provided the Necessary Justification for theProposed Rules
The Colorado Air Act requires that the Commission ensure that rules are technologically
feasible and economically reasonable; that the benefits of the air pollution control measures
utilized bear a reasonable relationship to the economic, environmental, and energy impacts and
other costs of such measures; and that the rule is premised on the most cost-effective regulatory
strategy to reduce pollution. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-7-102; see also Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-7-105,
106, 109. As set forth in the DGS Client Group Prehearing Statement at Exhibit B, Sections II
and IV, the economic impact analysis provided by the Division has fundamental flaws and
significantly underestimates the cost-effectiveness of the Proposed Rules. This Commission
must consider the true costs of compliance with the Proposed Rules and weigh those costs in
light of the benefits associated with the Proposed Rules. The initial economic impact analysis
developed to support the Collective Proposed Revisions (attached hereto as Attachment E)
shows significantly greater projected costs, particularly for facilities outside of the ozone
nonattainment area and with respect to the LDAR program, than projected by the Division.
These inaccuracies result both from an undervaluation of the costs involved in complying with
the Proposed Rules and an overestimation of the benefits of the Proposed Rules. The
overestimation of benefits is particularly true for the LDAR program which assumes that
11
emissions reductions increase at a constant rate over time; an assumption that does not have
scientific and technical support. Correction of the inaccurate assumptions in the Division’s
analysis demonstrates that portions of the Proposed Rules are simply not cost-effective,
particularly in certain areas of the state. CPA and COGA incorporate by reference herein and
direct the Commission to the DGS Client Group Prehearing Statement at Exhibit B, Sections IIand V, for further discussion.
d. The Division Has Inappropriately Proposed a One-Size Fits All
Approach
Throughout the stakeholder process, many operators from different operating basins in
the State of Colorado presented unique and individualized concerns to the Division regarding
proposed revisions to Regulation Number 7 based upon their location. Oil and gas exploration
and production and associated activities occur along the Front Range (the Denver-Julesburg
Basin, including the Niobrara), western Colorado (the Piceance Basin), southwestern Colorado
(the San Juan Basin) and southern/southeastern Colorado (the Raton Basin). Each of these areas
are different in geography, topography, climate, population, ambient air quality, and the contentof the oil and gas resource. Those differences must be respected and considered.
In western Colorado (the Piceance Basin), oil and gas operations may be in rural,
mountainous areas that may be more difficult to access, contain weather constraints, and have
less densely populated areas. Furthermore, the Piceance Basin Basin is currently in attainment
for ozone.
In southern Colorado (in both the San Juan and Raton Basins), oil and gas operations face
the following issues, inter alia: acquiring approval for access from a number of different
landowners; scheduling access around hunting seasons and restrictions (see Example Landowner
Agreement, § 28, “Hunting and Fishing Rights,” attached hereto as Exhibit I); various
significant challenges and costs associated with water production and disposal, including water
permits regulating water quality and disposal; maintenance, repairs, and energy consumption
from well site engines, well site compression, and larger compressor stations, which is required
because coal-bed methane wells are typically low producers; and the numerous leases required to
be negotiated with landowners as coal-bed methane wells are vertical wells (i.e., one or two
wells per pad) and operators do not engage in directional drilling. The natural gas produced
there (coal-bed methane) has very low emissions from volatile organic compounds and the areais currently in attainment for ozone.
In those areas of the state with lower emitting facilities (particularly in areas of coal-bed
methane production), the burdens associated with compliance with the Proposed Rules increase
along with the cost-effectiveness of the controls and inspection (i.e., the Proposed Rules become
less cost-effective in light of the reduced benefits). In the Front Range (the Denver-Julesburg
Basin), there are also a variety of different considerations and operations. In particular, much of
the Front Range is nonattainment for ozone, although portions are not. In addition, some areas
of the Front Range are more densely populated and access to the oil and gas operations more
12
readily achievable. In yet other areas of the Front Range, oil and gas operations occur in very
rural areas, provide significant economic benefits to the landowners in those areas, and access
may be more difficult. All of these considerations and distinctions, as well as others, should be
considered by this Commission as it evaluates the Division’s Proposed Rules and evaluates the
costs and benefits of those rules. By pointing out these distinctions, CPA and COGA request
that the Commission limit adoption of the Collective Proposed Revision (and in fact any
variation of the Proposed Rules) to the ozone nonattainment area.
Limiting the application of any proposed rules to the ozone nonattainment area reflects
the realities of ambient air quality and current areas of greatest need for reduction in the State of
Colorado. As noted above, much of the oil and gas exploration and production in Colorado
occurs in areas currently in attainment with the ozone standard. The level of controls and
regulatory requirements that may be necessary or appropriate differs depending on whether an
area is in attainment or nonattainment. Throughout the stakeholder process and during the
petition for rulemaking process, questions were raised regarding whether the Division intended
these proposed revisions to Regulation Number 7 to be state-only or adopted as part of the state’s
implementation plan (“SIP”) for ozone. Division representatives were clear that the proposals
were intended to apply across the state and would be enforceable as a state rule only. However,
Division representatives further stated that the proposed controls and requirements in Regulation
Number 7 represented a “test drive” so that the Division and Commission could understand
whether these types of controls and requirements would be effective prior to the Division and
Commission’s next SIP rulemaking for ozone. Given the extensive requirements in Regulation
Number 7 and the significant costs that will result from those requirements, treatment of the
entire oil and gas industry in Colorado as a “test drive” presents serious concerns for CPA and
COGA. This Commission may only adopt regulations that will achieve effective emissions
controls to resolve and address a significant source of significant emissions. The Division’s
statements strongly raise the question of whether application of the Proposed Rules across all
areas of the state are appropriate given the Division’s intention to use the oil and gas industry as
a test case for GHG and rigorous volatile organic compound emission reductions with no
evidence of attending benefits. This Commission must thoroughly and thoughtfully consider the
appropriateness of applying the Proposed Rules statewide irrespective of the ozone status across
the state. CPA and COGA incorporate by reference and direct the Commission to the DGS
Client Group’s Prehearing Statement at Exhibit B, Section III, for a more detailed evaluation of
concerns regarding the adoption of the Proposed Rules in ozone attainment (or unclassifiable)
areas.
Finally, as presented in a the Ryder Scott Production Study submitted in an attachment to
the DGS Client Group Prehearing Statement at Exhibit E, current oil and gas production and the
anticipated growth of oil and gas production in each of the areas differs substantially. These
growth projections across all parts of the state must be considered by this Commission in
determining whether these Proposed Rules are justified. CPA and COGA incorporate by
reference the report submitted in an attachment to the DGS Client Group Prehearing Statement at
Exhibit E.
13
Though these differences in operating areas within the state, including their attainment
status, were articulated by many operators during the stakeholder process, the Proposed Rules do
not reflect the different constraints, basins, and local ambient air quality applicable in different
parts of the state. Instead, the Proposed Rules would establish a one-size fits all approach. CPA
and COGA have proposed revisions that are intended to reflect that certain of the requirements
proposed by the Division cannot be met in certain parts of the state and thus should not apply in
certain parts of the state. Additionally, CPA and COGA respectfully request that the CollectiveProposed Revisions only be adopted in the ozone nonattainment area.
2. FACTUAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES
As noted above, CPA and COGA have been engaged in the Division’s stakeholder
efforts, and have proposed revisions to reflect not only the legal issues (such as authority for
methane and ethane regulation and application of the Proposed Rules in the attainment areas of
the state), but also technical, safety, and operational issues. CPA and COGA discuss several of
these issues briefly below, but provide more detailed explanations for each of the proposed
changes reflected in the Collective Proposed Revisions in the Explanations Chart at AttachmentD.
a. Timing of Implementation:
The Collective Proposed Revisions extend the implementation dates proposed by the
Division. The implementation dates proposed by the Division with respect to storage tanks and
well maintenance occur in May 1, 2014, with many of the implementation dates related to the
LDAR program beginning January 1, 2015. Currently, the rulemaking hearing for the Proposed
Rules is scheduled for February 19, 20 and 21, 2014. We anticipate that deliberations and the
decision by the Commission may extend beyond February 21, 2014 in light of the potential for
extensive public comment and the extensive number of parties to the rulemaking. Even if the
Commission completes its deliberations on February 21, 2014, that would leave operators only
ten weeks to develop programs and implement measures to ensure compliance with portions of
the Proposed Rules. This includes requirements to implement control equipment on newly
constructed storage tanks for sources that were not previously regulated (i.e., manifolded tanks,
including produced water and crude oil tanks, above 6 tons per year) and many not regulated by
NSPS OOOO. Ordering of equipment and budgeting for capital expenditures such as those
required by the Proposed Rules requires foresight and advanced notice. It would be entirely
inappropriate to impose these regulatory requirements on operators within the timeframes
proposed by the Division. Furthermore, even the later timeframes related to compliance for
existing storage tanks and implementation of the LDAR program come too quickly. In light of
recent changes to NSPS OOOO, air pollution control equipment and pneumatic devices will be
in high demand. Operators cannot be certain that under the schedules provided by the Division,
manufacturers have the ability and the stock to meet all the necessary orders that will be
generated both by NSPS OOOO and any newly proposed rules in Colorado and elsewhere.
Similar concerns exist regarding availability of LDAR inspection equipment such as IR cameras
and the development of the extensive recordkeeping programs necessary to comply with the
14
LDAR program. Considering the thousands of well production facilities and numerous
compressor stations that will be regulated by the Division’s Proposed Rules, each operator will
need a very complex and extensive recordkeeping program to ensure compliance with the
Proposed Rules. Development of such a program, particularly across an entire state, will take
significant time, resources, and energy to develop. Additional time is required forimplementation for all of these reasons.
b. Storage Tank Emissions Management Plan:
The Collective Proposed Revisions retain the majority of the Storage Tank Emissions
Management (“STEM”) plan provisions proposed by the Division. However, as CPA and
COGA members have been communicating to the Division over the course of the ten-month
stakeholder process, elimination of venting is not only impossible but it is unsafe and unwise.
CPA and COGA have proposed revisions to the STEM provisions to add clarity, consistency,
and to ensure that as a general matter the Division does not treat venting as a problematic event.
In fact, venting is a necessary and mandatory occurrence to ensure safety of equipment and
personnel – which the Division recognized and acknowledged throughout the stakeholder
process. The Collective Proposed Revisions seek to address the Division’s concerns about
emissions that occur from thief hatches, pressure relief devices, and other access points that are
not necessary for operations while appropriately reflecting the operators need to vent.
Additionally through the Collective Proposed Revisions, we seek to clarify the schedule and
frequency for monitoring under STEM and incorporate other revisions for consistency and
clarification. The proposed formatting, clarification, consistency, and substantive changes to theSTEM program can be found in the Explanations Chart at pp. 11−15.
c. Leak Detection and Repair:
The Collective Proposed Revisions retain a significant portion of the Leak Detection and
Repair (“LDAR”) requirements proposed by the Division but alter the implementation date,
frequency, and scope of inspections. CPA and COGA have significant concerns about
implementation of an LDAR program at all and continue to believe that the Division has not
justified adoption of the proposed extensive LDAR program, particularly outside of the ozone
nonattainment area. More detailed explanation of the concerns and lack of need for the LDAR
program generally is provided in the Explanations Chart at pp. 16−27. That said, if the
Commission proceeds with implementation of an LDAR program, we request that the Collective
Proposed Revisions be made and are necessary to ensure adoption of a workable rule. We note
at the outset that many of the proposed changes to the LDAR section in the Collective Proposed
Revisions reflect our inclusion of many of the individual paragraphs into Tables 2 and 3. Upon
review, many operators found the multiple provisions regarding phase-in schedules and
inspection requirements confusing and the regulatory language difficult to read. To simplify
matters, we propose that the regulatory requirements for compressor stations and well production
facilities (as they pertain to the LDAR requirements) be included in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
In this way, operators may easily and readily understand the applicable regulatory requirements
to each separate and distinct type of location. The Collective Proposed Revisions also reflect
15
several changes to reduce the frequency of LDAR inspections to account for diminishing returns
and lower emission reductions over time. Thus, the Collective Proposed Revisions reflect a less
rigorous inspection schedule from the outset given the anticipated costs of implementing the
LDAR program and the expected benefits. In the Collective Proposed Revisions we further
incorporate step-down and skip monitoring provisions that will allow operators that are reducing
leaks to obtain the benefits of those efforts. All of the proposed formatting, clarification,
consistency, and substantive changes to the LDAR program can be found at Explanations Chart
at 16−27.
d. Well Maintenance Revisions:
The Collective Proposed Revisions remove the well maintenance and liquids unloading
provisions because the Division did not present sufficient support or basis for the regulation.
Specifically, the Division did not describe in any detail the technical and operational feasibility
of the proposed requirements, or an adequate economic analysis of the proposed rules. During
the tenth-month stakeholder process, the Division did not identify, discuss, or vet the proposed
requirements for well maintenance and liquids unloading. It is our understanding that the
Division in fact included this requirement as a suggestion from a smaller group of stakeholders
without providing a comprehensive analysis of the technical, operational, and economic
feasibility of imposing the well maintenance and liquids unloading requirements. CPA and
COGA agree with and incorporate by reference the DGS Client Group’s position on and further
support for removing the well liquids unloading and well maintenance provisions from the
proposed rule at the DGS Client Group Prehearing Statement at I.C.ix and Exhibit B, Section V.
For these reasons, CPA and COGA remove these provisions from the Proposed Rules, and would
support further analysis of the outstanding issues by the Division and interested stakeholders todetermine whether regulation of this nature is necessary and defensible.
e. Other Proposed Revisions:
Other proposed revisions include those to definitions, general provisions, visible
emissions, and use and type of air pollution control equipment. Many of these proposed
revisions are conducted to: address formatting (i.e., to capitalize defined terms); to clarify (i.e., to
more accurately reflect our understanding of the Division’s intent); address consistency needs
(i.e., to ensure consistent use of terms or to alter and use newly defined or revised terms
throughout the proposed rules); and address substantive concerns (i.e., to alter or revise the
proposal suggested by the Division). Generally, all of these formatting, clarification,
consistency, and substantive changes can be found in the Explanations Chart.
III. LIST OF ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The list of issues to be resolved by the Commission includes the following. CPA and
COGA each individually reserve the right to expand or revise this list in response to prehearing
statements submitted by other parties or the Division and will provide a revised list of issues (if
any) as part of their rebuttal statements due on January 30, 2014.
16
The extent to which this Commission has authority to regulate “methane” as a greenhouse
gas emission from oil and gas emission sources.
The extent to which the Division’s Proposed Rules should apply to sources in the attainment
(or unclassifiable) areas of Colorado.
Whether the Commission can adopt the Proposed Rules in light of the requirements and
obligations under the Colorado Air Act and Colorado APA.
The extent to which the Division has met its burden to justify regulations that are more
stringent than federal.
The extent to which the Division has adequately demonstrated a legal and scientific need for
the Proposed Rules, particularly in light of other newly implemented and existing regulatory
and emission reduction regimes.
Whether the Division has appropriately evaluated the costs and benefits of the Proposed
Rules and whether those costs and benefits warrant adoption of the Proposed Rules.
The extent to which the Commission’s proposed LDAR program should apply to facilities
with low volatile organic compounds.
The circumstances under which flares should be enclosed.
The timing and implementation of the proposed requirements for both new and existing
facilities. CPA and COGA recommend extending the implementation date for both new and
existing facilities beyond that proposed by the Division.
The circumstances under which storage tanks shall be allowed to vent and the circumstances
under which emissions from storage tanks are not proper venting but rather constitute
emissions resulting from inadequate design, operation, or maintenance of the storage tank.
The extent to which glycol dehydrators should be further regulated under Regulation Number
7.
Whether the frequency of LDAR should be reduced upon a demonstration that over time no
leaks requiring repair have been detected.
The appropriate frequency and implementation date for inspection of components at
compressor stations and well production facilities under the LDAR program proposed by the
Division.
Whether the LDAR program should be required at compressor stations and well production
facilities below two tons per year.
The threshold above which emissions constitute a leak and require repair.
The appropriate timeframe for seeking to repair leaks identified through the LDAR program.
The appropriateness of documenting pre-start-up pressure tests for new well production
facilities.
The scope of recordkeeping and reporting associated with the LDAR program.
The appropriateness of the downhole well maintenance and unloading events proposed at
XVII.H.
17
IV. EXHIBITS
CPA and COGA attach to this Joint Prehearing Statement, or may introduce at the
hearing through one or more of the collective witnesses, the following exhibits. CPA and COGA
hereby endorse and adopt by reference each of the exhibits listed in the DGS Client Group
Prehearing Statement. Each exhibit is attached to this Joint Prehearing Statement with the
appropriate corresponding label. CPA and COGA not only reserve the right but expect to list
further exhibits or revise the collective or individual exhibit lists in response to other parties’
prehearing statements, including the Division’s prehearing statement, and will identify any
further exhibits as part of their rebuttal statements due on January 30, 2014. To that end, CPA
and COGA request the Division’s assistance with obtaining data and other information necessary
to prepare additional materials in response to the Proposed Rules and the basis for the Proposed
Rules.
Exhibit A: Excerpts from 2013 Rulemaking Stakeholder Meeting, January 28, 2013,
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division.These excerpts set forth the Division’s stated need for additional permitting efficiencies and
proposed revisions to Regulation Number 3.
Exhibit B: Letter from State Attorneys General to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regarding EPA Settlement Negotiations with Seven Northeastern StatesRegarding the Regulation of Methane Emissions, at 2 (May 2, 2013). This document is a
letter to EPA from several state Attorneys General, responding to a group of Northeastern States’
Notice of Intent to sue EPA related to EPA’s decision not to regulate methane emissions from oil
and gas operations under NSPS OOOO.
Exhibit C: Draft Colorado Greenhouse Gas Inventory – 2013 Update. This document
summarizes the Colorado Greenhouse Gas Inventory utilizing the most recent data, which is the
EPA version of the State Inventory Tool. This document identifies the limitations of the existing
inventory.
Exhibit D: Commission’s Annual “Report to the Public 2012-2013.” Through its annual
report to the public, the Commission summarizes and analyzes the major pollutants in the state,
the Commission’s major initiatives, roles of state government and the public, and regional air
quality. This summary includes discussion of GHGs.
Exhibit E: API, “Methane Management Answers” (April 2013). This document
discusses methods to manage methane in the oil in gas industry, highlighting industry’s new
technologies to capture gas, maintain equipment to minimize leaks, and avoid process releases
altogether. This document also includes relevant data regarding GHG (and particularly methane)
emissions in the U.S., focusing on the oil and gas industry.
18
Exhibit F: Measurements of Methane Emissions at Natural Gas Production Sites in theUnited States,” (Aug. 2013). This document presents the results of a study performed by the
University of Texas in conjunction with several oil and gas companies and Environmental
Defense Fund in an attempt to measure and calculate methane emissions from multiple sources at
onshore natural gas production sites in the United States.
Exhibit G: Letter to EPA regarding Clean Air Act § 111(d) Implementation on CarbonPollution Standards for Existing Power Plants. This document is a letter to EPA from a group
of state environmental agency leaders, energy agency leaders, and public utility commissioners
from fifteen states that have taken action to promote clean energy and address climate
change. The letter addresses how each individual state is successfully addressing GHG emission
standards through various GHG reduction initiative programs, and requests that EPA develop a
flexible approach to regulating GHGs.
Exhibit H: Example Landowner Agreement, § 28, “Hunting and Fishing Rights.” This
excerpt from a landowner agreement provides an example of the types of hunting restrictions an
operator might face as a result of a lease agreement with a landowner.
V. WITNESSES
CPA and COGA may introduce the following witnesses at the hearing. CPA and COGA
also list witnesses that may be collectively used by CPA, COGA, and the DGS Client Group.
CPA and COGA expect that further witnesses may be identified as rebuttal witnesses upon
review of other parties prehearing statements, including the Division’s prehearing statement. As
a result, CPA and COGA not only reserve the right but expect to list further witnesses either
jointly or individually or to revise the collective or individual witness lists in response to other
parties’ prehearing statements, including the Division’s prehearing statement, and will identify
any further witnesses as part of their rebuttal statements due on January 30, 2014.
CPA Witnesses: CPA may call the following witnesses at the hearing:
Stan Dempsey, Executive Director, CPA. Mr. Dempsey may present testimony
regarding legal and policy matters articulated in or adopted through this Prehearing Statement.
Mr. Dempsey may rely upon any of the exhibits listed in Section IV above, exhibits listed by the
DGS Client Group in its prehearing statement, or exhibits later included with the rebuttal
statement as necessary to support his testimony.
Lyndon Harrison, Assistant Operations Superintendent, XTO Energy Inc. Mr. Harrison
may provide testimony on the overall impacts of the Proposed Rules as they relate to coal-bed
methane operations in the San Juan and Raton Basins. Mr. Harrison may also provide testimony
on the specific impacts related to the Division’s proposed well maintenance provisions. Mr.
Harrison may utilize any or all of the exhibits listed in Section IV, any exhibits listed by the DGS
19
Client Group in its prehearings statement, or exhibits later included with the rebuttal statement as
necessary to support his testimony.
Van Reid, Senior Production Foreman, XTO Energy Inc. Mr. Reid may provide
testimony on the specific impacts of the Division’s proposed well maintenance provisions. Mr.
Reid may utilize any or all of the exhibits listed in Section IV, any exhibits listed by the DGS
Client Group in its prehearings statement, or exhibits later included with the rebuttal statement as
necessary to support his testimony.
Jennifer M. Englesma, Air Quality Specialist, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Ms. Englesma may
provide testimony on the specific economic, emissions, and safety impacts of the Division’s
proposed flaring provisions. Ms. Englesma may utilize any or all of the exhibits listed in Section
IV, any exhibits listed by the CPA/COGA and DGS Client Group in their prehearing statements,
or exhibits later included with the rebuttal statement as necessary to support his testimony.
Peter J. Botes, Air Advisor, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Mr. Botes may provide testimony on
the specific economic, emissions, and safety impacts of the Division’s proposed flaring
provisions. Mr. Botes may utilize any or all of the exhibits listed in Section IV, any exhibits
listed by the CPA/COGA and DGS Client Group in their prehearing statements, or exhibits later
included with the rebuttal statement as necessary to support his testimony.
CPA continues to identify necessary witnesses and reserves the right to list additional
witnesses in response to other parties’ prehearing statements, including the Division’s prehearing
statement, and will identify any further witnesses as part of their rebuttal statements due on
January 30, 2014.
COGA Witnesses: COGA may call the following witnesses at the hearing:
Tisha Conoly Schuller, President and Chief Executive Officer, COGA. Ms. Schuller
may present testimony regarding legal and policy matters articulated in or adopted through this
Prehearing Statement. Ms. Schuller may rely upon any of the exhibits listed in Section IV
above, exhibits listed by the DGS Client Group in its prehearing statement, or exhibits later
included with the rebuttal statement as necessary to support her testimony.
Tony Barlage, Air Consultant, Ollson Associates. Mr. Barlage may present testimony
regarding the technical and scientific matters articulated in or adopted through this Prehearing
Statement. Mr. Barlage may rely upon any of the exhibits listed in Section IV above, exhibits
listed by the DGS Client Group in its prehearing statement, or exhibits later included with the
rebuttal statement as necessary to support her testimony.
COGA continues to identify necessary witnesses and reserves the right to list additional
witnesses in response to other parties’ prehearing statements, including the Division’s prehearing
20
statement, and will identify any further witnesses as part of their rebuttal statements due on
January 30, 2014.
Collective CPA, COGA, and the DGS Client Group Witnesses: CPA, COGA, or the
DGS Client Group may call the following witnesses at the hearing:
Dr. Lisa McDonald, Senior Economist, Louise Berger Group. Dr. McDonald is a Senior
Economist with the Louis Berger Group in Denver Colorado. She has been evaluating rules and
regulations applicable to the oil and gas industry in Colorado since the 1990s, and has been
involved with and testified on other Commission rulemakings, including the 2008 rulemaking
regarding Regulation Numbers 3 and 7. Dr. McDonald has been involved during the stakeholder
process to the current rulemaking since April 2013. Dr. McDonald will testify about the various
costs and benefits associated with the Proposed Rule, including an analysis of the Division’s
various cost and benefit projections reflected in the Initial Economic Impact Analysis and any
additional cost/benefit or regulatory impact analyses that may be produced. Dr. McDonald will
also testify to the various costs and benefits associated with the suggested changes to the
Proposed Rule submitted by the DGS Client Group and CPA/COGA. In general, Dr. McDonald
will testify as to the errors, overestimations, and overly conservative assumptions underlying the
Division’s Initial EIA, when corrected and properly accounted for, result in a significantly less
cost-effective rule.
James Wilkinson, Senior Consultant, Golder Associates, Inc. Mr. Wilkinson is a Senior
Consultant with Golder Associates, Inc. He possesses knowledge and experience in applied
research and directly related technical experience in disciplines spanning the physical sciences,
geophysical sciences, mathematics and computational sciences. His experience includes but is
not limited to managing large scale, multidisciplinary applied research projects with multiple
stakeholders and sponsors such as urban- to continental-scale air quality modeling studies using
such models as CAMx, CMAQ, UAM, MAQSIP, and URM; continental-scale meteorological
modeling using WRF-ARW and MM5; emissions modeling system design, development, and
application (e.g., SMOKE, CONCEPT, EMS-95); micro- to global-scale environmental data
base management system design and deployment; design, development, and application of
computational mathematical models of the environment (e.g., URM, BIOME); formulation of
public policy perspectives associated with the technical and scientific findings of basic and
applied research; and teaching at the university level. Dr. Wilkinson will testify about various
air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Rules, including air quality impacts associated
with the suggested revisions submitted by the DGS Client Group and CPA/COGA. He will also
testify about the results of the sensitivity analyses performed by ENVIRON on behalf of the
DGS Client Group, and the implications of these results with respect to this rulemaking.
Additionally, Dr. Wilkinson will testify regarding the Division’s, and/or the RAQC’s last known
source apportionment analysis for ozone precursors in the Nonattainment Area, and the very
limited contribution of VOCs from the oil and gas sector to ozone concentrations measures at the
Division’s air quality monitors. Dr. Wilkinson will also provide testimony about the costs and
21
benefits associated with this rule in addition to Dr. McDonald’s testimony. This will include
testimony about the Division’s Initial Economic Impact Analysis, any subsequent cost/benefit or
regulatory impact analyses, as well as testimony in support of the economic analyses presented
by Dr. McDonald. In general, Dr. Wilkinson will describe various errors and incorrect or overly
conservative assumptions related to various aspects of the Division’s VOC inventory for the oil
and gas sector, and its suggested air quality benefits, that when corrected for demonstrate little if
any need for the Proposed Rules outside of the nonattainment area, little if any projected benefits
from the Proposed Rule outside the nonattainment area, as well as implications for the Proposed
Rule within the nonattainment area.
Mr. Brian Ross, M. Sc., P. Eng. Mr. Ross will testify about the challenges of
implementing leak management programs in the upstream oil and gas sector based on his
considerable experience both in consulting for this sector in Canada (1991-2006), and his
perspectives more recently as Senior Engineer and Air Issues Specialist for Nexen Energy ULC
(2006 to present). Mr. Ross will testify more specifically about the development and
implementation of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ (“CAPP”) Best
Management Practice (BMP) for directed inspection and maintenance (“DI&M”) of upstream oil
and gas activities for leak management, adopted in response to the promulgation of Directive 060
by the Provincial Government in Alberta, the latter of which required formal leak management
programs for this sector, all as part of Alberta’s comprehensive approach to Greenhouse Gas
(“GHG”) regulation by virtue of its membership and participation in the Western Climate
Initiative. Mr. Ross will also testify regarding the general nature of costs and benefits associated
with DI&M leak management programs in the oil and gas sector, and the most current study of
their effectiveness by his former colleague David Picard for CAPP. Finally, Mr. Ross’ testimony
will address the topics of appropriate frequency of inspections and monitoring at various
facilities in the upstream oil and gas sector and the nature of emissions benefits typically
achieved by leak management programs in Alberta since the promulgation of Directive 060 and
the subsequent adoption of the CAPP BMP.
Ms. Elise Bieche, B.A. Ms. Elise will testify concerning her knowledge of methane leak
management efforts of the upstream oil and gas industry in Canada based on her knowledge and
experience as the Manager of National Air Issues for the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers. CAPP works collaboratively with stakeholders and governments to develop an air
quality management system that is both effective in ensuring good air quality across North
America and practical and efficient to implement. Ms. Bieche will emphasize in her testimony
that there is a wide diversity in type and size of facilities in the upstream oil and gas industry,
from well site to large gas plants, and the potential for VOC and other hydrocarbon emissions
varies significantly, as a function of the facility types, the oil and gas reservoir properties and
ultimately the type of product the facilities produce and process. More specifically, Ms. Bieche
will testify in this proceeding concerning several aspects of the proposed revisions to AQCC
Regulation No. 7 for the Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors. In that regard, she will testify
concerning the 2007 CAPP Best Management Practice for the Management of Fugitive
22
Emissions, and the recent study commissioned by CAPP and completed by Clearstone
Engineering evaluating reduced emissions and appropriate emission factors for facilities subject
to fugitive emissions management, as well as, the approach taken by respective provincial energy
regulators in Canada to manage and reduce fugitive emissions at individual oil and gas facilities.
Ms. Bieche will further testify how the aim of the BMP was to assist the Upstream Oil
and Gas industry in meeting the requirements of section 8.7 of the AER Directive 060 in cost
effectively management the most likely sources of significant fugitive emissions. She will
describe how only a small percentage of the equipment components at a Upstream Oil and Gas
sites have significant measureable leakage, and of those only a small percentage contribute to
most of the emissions, based on CAPP and other studies and data. Thus, the control of fugitive
emissions is a matter of minimizing the potential for big leaks and providing for their detection
and repair, in CAPP’s view.
Finally, Ms. Bieche will testify that the magnitude of effort required for comprehensive
surveys of numerous remotely located and widely dispersed upstream oil and gas production
facilities is neither cost-effective nor practical, especially at smaller facilities, such as single well
batteries. In addition, CAPP member experience has been that results from LDAR studies differ
by facility type, so that program design considerations should be tailored to specific facilities or
facility types. She will explain how different technologies are suited for different facility types.
For example, hand-held monitors and visual inspections are appropriate for smaller facilities
such as well-sites and some compressors stations. Larger facilities, with higher component
counts, may justify the expense of infrared camera surveys in some cases, however the cost of
these surveys is very high and difficult to justify, in CAPP members’ experience.
Clark Parrott, Petroleum Engineer, Ryder Scott Company L.P. Mr. Parrott is
responsible for coordinating and supervising staff and consulting engineers of the company in
ongoing reservoir evaluation studies. He has held a number of engineering positions with Norstar
Petroleum, Inc. and Pacific Oil Company/Terra Resources. Mr. Parrott earned a Bachelor of
Science degree in Petroleum Engineering from Colorado School of Mines in 1987, is a registered
Professional Engineer in Colorado, and a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. He has
more than 25 years of practical experience in the estimation and evaluation of petroleum
reserves. Mr. Parrott was the lead engineer in developing and drafting the Production Study for
the DGS Client Group. Mr. Parrott will testify generally about the Production Study and its
implications for this rulemaking, the Division’s Proposed Rules, as well as the Collective
Proposed Revisions.
Jon Lesko. Mr. Lesko has specialized for over 25 years in the science of metrology and
has been involved with optical systems for over 35 years. He is the inventor the Apogee
Thermal Imaging System, an advanced diagnostic tool for both reciprocating and gas turbine
engines. Mr. Lesko has extensive experience in many imaging techniques using visible light,
infrared, and X-Ray processes. He is a member of SAE, SPIE, OSA, and Sigma XI and has
23
published over 30 papers. Mr. Lesko will testify in support of a broader definition of Approved
Instrument Monitoring Method (“AIMM”), and the relative capabilities and limitations of
currently available methane detection technology and instrumentation more generally. As Chief
Operating Officer and Vice President, Optical Technologies for Apogee Scientific, Inc., Mr.
Lesko has decades of experience in the field of ultraviolet (“UV”) and infrared (“IR”)
spectrophotometry and other gas and thermal detection and measurement technologies in a wide
variety of industrial and defense applications. Mr.Lesko will more specifically testify regarding
the impracticality and infeasibility of employing EPA Method 21 in wide-spread monitoring
efforts, and then discuss the relative benefits and capabilities of all other instrument-based
methods currently available to the oil and gas industry. Mr. Lesko may also provide rebuttal
testimony in response to other parties’ witness testimony based upon his experience and training.
Judah Fontenet, Operations Manager, Dexter Field Services, LP. Mr. Fontenot’s
expertise in leak detection and repair (“LDAR”) programs includes 23 years of field work
performing Method 21, fugitive emission component inventorying, implementation of federal
and state equipment leak standards, and more recently use of Alternate Work Practice (AWP).
His knowledge of field logistics, program costs, process equipment, and leak detection
workflows makes him uniquely qualified to explain the nuances associated with implementing
equipment leak standards. His experience collecting, categorizing, and calculating emissions for
sources of fugitive emissions at various industry sectors enables him to relate LDAR program
scope (i.e. affected equipment, leak definitions, and inspection frequencies) to program benefits.
Finally, his ability to research rule development and familiarity with history and development of
several key LDAR rules allows him to compare proposed rules to existing rules or program
basis.
David K. Dillon, Principle, P.E., LLC. Mr. Dillon is a principle of David K. Dillon,
PE, LLC, a petroleum engineering consulting firm. Mr. Dillon is a licensed professional
engineer in Colorado and Wyoming with nearly 40 years of petroleum engineering experience.
Mr. Dillon may testify regarding his knowledge of several aspects of the well site separation of
oil and natural gas, including general information on crude oil and natural gas chemistry. In
particular, Mr. Dillon may testify regarding his knowledge of the physical states of different oil
and gas compounds at atmospheric pressures and common temperatures, which will encompass
the differing types of oil and gas production found at different locations in Colorado. Mr. Dillon
may also testify regarding his knowledge of equipment used for the treating and separation of
crude oil and gas at the well site. Mr. Dillon’s testimony may include a discussion of how this
equipment functions, how liquids are stored on the well site, and the physical limitations of this
equipment. Mr. Dillon may also summarize the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission’s rules and regulations pertaining to oil and natural gas production equipment and
storage tanks. Mr. Dillon may also testify regarding his knowledge of leakage issues from these
systems, as it applies to leakage from the piping between well separation equipment and possible
venting from pressure relief valves used for storage tanks and separators. Mr. Dillon’s testimony
may encompass vapor recovery units and safety issues that could arise from requiring such
24
things as sealed tanks. Mr. Dillon’s testimony may reference the following materials, which are
publicly available: (1) “A Study of Storage Tank Accidents,” Chang and Lin, Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries 19 (2006); and (2) “Catastrophic Tank Failures: Highlights
of Past Failures along with Proactive Tank Designs,” Cornell and Baker, US EPA Fourth
Biennial Freshwater Spills Symposium (2002).
Request for Time at Hearing:
As evidenced by this Joint Prehearing Statement, the Collective Proposed Revisions and
the many attachments to this Joint Prehearing Statement, the Division’s Proposed Rules will
significantly impact—both financially and operationally—oil and gas operators in the State of
Colorado. Furthermore, the Division’s Proposed Rules (amounting to more than twenty pages of
revisions) are complex and involve complicated and thoughtful review and analysis given the
significance of the impacts associated with them. Thus, the regulated industry, many of whom
are CPA and COGA members, require significant and substantial time to explain the technical
requirements, operational considerations, and economic costs associated with the Division’s
Proposed Rules.
At this time, CPA individually requests 3 hours for testimony. COGA also individually
requests 3 hours for testimony. Though CPA and COGA have filed this Joint Prehearing
Statement, in part to facilitate ease of the Commission’s review, CPA and COGA membership
differs in many respects and thus CPA and COGA need separate and distinct time to present
testimony at the hearing. Specifically, CPA represents both oil and gas producers and midstream
operators. The Division’s Proposed Rule and anticipated positions by other parties have the
potential to impact each of those segments of the oil and gas sector and in different ways.
COGA represents many of the independent oil and gas producers in the State of Colorado and
thus represents many smaller operators whose operations may be uniquely impacted by the
Division’s Proposed Rules. As a result, and to adequately allow each of CPA and COGA to
individually participate, as granted by the Commission’s Procedural Rules at V.E.3.a., CPA and
COGA must each be granted substantial and meaningfully time separate and distinct from each
other. See also § I (stating the Commission’s goal to “encourage[ ] public participation to its
fullest extent” and “promote participation by all interested persons in a fair and responsible
manner.”) CPA and COGA reserve the right individually or jointly to request additional time at
the prehearing conference upon review and analysis of other parties’ prehearing statements.
Additionally, to assist the Commission in directing efficient rulemaking proceedings and
to ensure that witnesses testifying at the rulemaking hearing are not duplicative, CPA, COGA, or
the DGS Client Group have listed and may call on any of the eight (8) collective witnesses
identified above. As a result of this joint effort, CPA, COGA, and the DGS Client Group
collectively requests 10 hours for all testimony between CPA (3 hours), COGA (3 hours), and
the DGS Client Group (4 hours). The total list of witnesses combined for CPA, COGA, and the
25
DGS Client Group is twenty-two (22) witnesses, making this request for 10 hours a reasonable
request.
VI. WRITTEN TESTIMONY
CPA and COGA have not identified any specific written testimony at this time but
reserve the right jointly or individually to submit written testimony as part of their rebuttal
statements in response to prehearing statements submitted by other parties or the Division. One
or more of CPA or COGA’s witnesses may utilize a powerpoint presentation to facilitate his/her
presentation to the Commission and such powerpoint presentation will be offered into evidence
at the hearing.
VII. PROPOSED REVISIONS
CPA and COGA have attached the Collective Proposed Revisions to the Proposed Rules
as Attachment C. The Collective Proposed Revisions reflect an effort by many, but not all, of
the industry stakeholders to present a unified recommendation to the Commission. The
Collective Proposed Revisions do not introduce new regulatory requirements beyond those
proposed by the Division in the Proposed Rule but rather merely propose revisions to the
regulatory requirements proposed by the Division in the Proposed Rule. As such, CPA and
COGA do not believe that the Collective Proposed Revisions represent an alternate proposal as
set forth in the Commission’s Procedural Rules. However, to the extent that the Commission
and its staff contend that the Collective Proposed Revisions are an alternate proposal under the
Procedural Rules, COGA and CPA have provided all necessary documentation that would
accompany an alternate proposal in association with these Collective Proposed Revisions.
CPA and COGA’s proposed text revisions are reflected in blue in the Collective
Proposed Revisions demonstrate. Additionally, and as noted above, for ease of the
Commission’s review, CPA and COGA provide in Attachment D the Explanations Chart that
contains the provision number for each provision revised, the Division’s proposed language for
that provision, the Collective Proposed Revision to that provision, the type of change (e.g.,
formatting, clarification, substantive), and an explanation for the change.
As with the Proposed Rule, none of the elements of the Collective Proposed Revisions
are required by provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. Furthermore, as with the Proposed Rule,
all of the elements of the Collective Proposed Revisions are more stringent than the requirements
of the Clean Air Act. CPA and COGA incorporate by reference and agree with the concerns set
forth in the DGS Client Group Prehearing Statement at Exhibit B, Section V, regarding the
Division’s failure to justify adoption of a rule with terms differing from federal requirements,
particularly for methane. To the extent that this Commission has concerns with the Division’s
justification for adopting the Proposed Rule, those same concerns would apply to the justification
for adopting the Collective Proposed Revisions. However, to the extent this Commission accepts
the Division’s justification for the Proposed Rule as appropriately more stringent than federal,
26
then, CPA and COGA rely upon the Division’s justification for the Proposed Rule to support the
Collective Proposed Revisions. Consistent with Commissioner Loewy’s order dated December
18, 2013, (herein “Alternate Proposal Order”), CPA and COGA submit a Draft Statement of
Basis and Purpose (“Draft SBAP”) for the Collective Proposed Revisions as Attachment F.
Even if the Collective Proposed Revisions are an alternate proposal under the Procedural
Rules, CPA and COGA do not read the Procedural Rules as requiring them to submit all the
documentation set forth in V.C.3.a through k with the Collective Proposed Revisions. In fact,
submission of certain of those documents, such as the Petition Cover Sheet and Memorandum of
Notice are inappropriate because the Collective Proposed Revisions fall within the scope of the
rulemaking noticed by the Commission. However, in an abundance of caution to meet all
potential regulatory requirements, CPA and COGA provide a Petition Cover Sheet,
Memorandum of Notice, Documentation Pertaining to Miscellaneous Requirements (addressing
submission requirements at Sections V.C.3.a. through k., as per the Alternate Proposal Order),
Draft Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose, and Initial Economic
Analysis as Attachments G, H, I, F, and E, respectively.
CPA and COGA reserve the right, either jointly or individually, to make revisions to the
Collective Proposed Revisions and associated documents after reviewing the other prehearing
statements, including the Division’s. CPA and COGA would provide any final proposed
revisions to the Commission along with their rebuttal statements due on January 30, 2014.
VIII. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Consistent with the Alternate Proposal Order, CPA and COGA provide an initial
Economic Impact Analysis supporting the Collective Proposed Revisions as Attachment E.
CPA and COGA will provide jointly or individually or adopt through incorporation by reference
any final Economic Impact Analysis to accompany final proposed revisions to the Proposed
Rules on January 30, 2014 per the Alternate Proposal Order.
IX. CONCLUSION
CPA and COGA welcome the opportunity to submit these concerns and the proposed
language for consideration by the Commissioners. CPA and COGA look forward to continued
participation in these proceedings.
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 6th day of January, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing PREHEARING STATEMENT OF COLORADO PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION AND COLORADO OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION was sent via electronic
mail to the following:
APPLICANT/NAME REPRESENTATED BY/ADDRESS
1. Office of Air Quality Control Commission Air Quality Control Commission
cdphe.aqcc-comments@state.co.us
2. Theresa Martin – Program Coordinator Air Quality Control Commission
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, EDO-
AQCC-A5
Denver, Colorado 80246
Theresa.Martin@state.co.us
3. Commissioner John Loewy - Hearing Officer Air Quality Control Commission
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, EDO-
AQCC-A5
Denver, Colorado 80246
jloewy@mac.com
4. Mike Silverstein – Administrator/Technical
Secretary
Air Quality Control Commission
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, EDO-
AQCC-A5
Denver, Colorado 80246
Mike.Silverstein@state.co.us
5. Will Allison – Division Director Air Pollution Control Division Staff
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South,
AOCD-B1
Denver, Colorado 80246
William.Allison@state.co.us
6. Garry Kaufman Air Pollution Control Division Staff
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South,
AOCD-B1
Denver, Colorado 80246
Garrison.Kaufman@state.co.us
7. Kirsten King – Program Manager Air Pollution Control Division Staff
29
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South,
AOCD-B1
Denver, Colorado 80246
Kirsten.King@state.co.us
8. Tom Roan Attorney for the Commission
Attorney General’s Office
Colorado Department of Law
Natural Resources Section – Air Quality
Unit
1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Tom.Roan@state.co.us
9. Clay Clarke Attorney for the Division
Attorney General’s Office
Colorado Department of Law
Natural Resources Section – Air Quality
Unit
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Clay.Clarke@state.co.us
10. Robyn Wille Attorney for the Division
Attorney General’s Office
Colorado Department of Law
Natural Resources Section – Air Quality
Unit
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Robyn.Wille@state.co.us
11. Linda Miller Attorney for the Division
Attorney General’s Office
Colorado Department of Law
Natural Resources Section – Air Quality
Unit
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Linda.Miller@state.co.us
12. Be The Change USA Phil Doe
30
A Non-Profit Organization 7140 South Depew
Littleton, CO 80128
303-973-7774
ptdoe@comcast.net
Wes Wilson
2505 Yates Street
Denver, CO 80212
719-337-0402
anwwilson@comcast.net
13. Chevron USA, Inc., and its affiliates Chevron
Midcontinent, LP,
and Four Star Oil & Gas Company (Chevron
Poulson Odell & Peterson LLC
1775 Sherman Street, Suite 1400
Denver, CO 80203
303-861-4400
Scott M. Campbell
scampbell@popllc.com
Jeremy I. Ferrin
jferrin@popllc.com
14. City of Greeley
1100 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80634
970-350-9786
Brad Mueller, Director of Community
Development
brad.mueller@greeleygov.com
15. Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry
(CACI)
1600 Broadway, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80202
303-866-9622
Carly West
cwest@cochamber.com
16. Colorado Oil & Gas Association
PO Box 540
Denver, CO 80201
303-861-0362
Tisha Schuller
Tish.schuller@coga.org
Andrew Casper
Andrew.casper@coga.org
Jost & Shelton Energy Group, P.C.
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 420
Denver, CO 80202
720-379-1812
Jamie L. Jost
jjost@jsenergygroup.com
James P. Parrot
jparrot@jsenergygroup.com
17. Colorado Petroleum Association (CPA)
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2545
Hogan Lovells US LLP
1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1500
31
Denver, CO 80203
303-860-0099
Stan Dempsey, Jr.
stan@coloradopetroleumassociation.org
Denver, CO 80202
Jennifer L. Biever, Esq.
303-454-2410
Jennifer.biever@hoganlovells.com
Ana Maria Gutierrez, Esq.
303-454-2514
ana.gutierrez@hoganlovells.com
18. Colorado Utilities Coalition for Clean Air
(Individually and Members of include: Platte
River Power Authority, Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association Inc., Public Service
Company of Colorado doing business as Xcel
Energy, and Colorado Springs Utilities)
Colorado Oil & Gas Association
Ryley Carlock & Applewhite
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3500
Denver, CO 80203
303-863-7500
James W. Sanderson
jsanderson@rcalaw.com
Julie A. Rosen
jrosen@rcalaw.com
19. DCP Midstream, LP
370 17th Street, Suite 2500
Denver, CO 80202
Carver Schwarz McNab Kamper &
Forbes, LLC
1600 Stout Street, Suite 1700
Denver, CO 80202
303-893-1815
Jeffrey W. Schwarz, Esq.
jschwarz@csmkf.com
Stewart McNab, Esq.
smcnab@csmkf.com
20. Dolores County
PO Box 608
Dove Creek, CO 81324
970-677-2383
Julie R. Kibel
970-739-0704
jrae@ftitel.net
21. DGS Client Group
(includes: Bill Barrett Corporation, Black Hills
Exploration and Production, Bonanza Creek
Energy Inc., PDC Energy Inc., and Whiting Oil
and Gas Corporation)
Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
1550 17th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-1500
303-892-9400
John R. Jacus, Esq.
john.jacus@dgslaw.com
Zach C. Miller, Esq.
zach.miller@dgslaw.com
Radcliffe Dann IV, Esq.
randy.dann@dgslaw.com
32
Eric P. Waeckerlin, Esq.
eric.waeckerlin@dgslaw.com
22. Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project
(OGAP)
PO Box 1102
Durango, CO 81302
Earthjustice
1400 Glenarm Place, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
303-623-9466
Robin L. Cooley
rcooley@earthjustice.org
Michael S. Freeman
mfreeman@earthjustice.org
23. Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. (Encana) Beatty & Wozniak, P.C.
216 16th Street, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80202
303-407-4499
James Martin
jmartin@bwenergylaw.com
24. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
2060 North Broadway, Suite 300
Boulder, CO 80302
303-447-7213
Dan Grossman, Rocky Mountain Regional
Director and Senior Attorney
dgrossman@edf.org
The Gallagher Law Group
2060 North Broadway, Suite 280
Boulder, CO 80302
303-800-6901
Thomas A. Bloomfield
tbloomfield@thegallaghergroup.com
DeLone Law, Inc.
1555 Jennine Place
Boulder, CO 80304-1834
303-442-0610
Elizabeth DeLone Paranhos
elizabethparanhos@delonelaw.com
25. Garfield County
195 West 14th Street
Rifle, CO 81650
970-625-5200
Board of County Commissioners: John Martin-
Chair, Tom Jankovsky and Mike Samson
Environmental Health Manager: Paul Reaser
Oil and Gas Liaison: Kirby Wynn
Paul Reaser
Environmental Health Manager
970-625-5200 x8113
preaser@garfield-county.com
33
County Attorney: Frank Hutfless
26. Grand Valley Citizens Alliance (GVCA), Weld
Air and Water (WAW), Community Alliance of
the Yampa Valley (CAYV), Citizens for Clean
Air (CCA), Western Colorado Congress (WCC),
and NFRIA-WSERC Conservation Center
Grand Valley Citizens Alliance (GVCA)
PO Box 656
Silt, CO 81652
Bob Arrington, GVCA Member
Weld Air and Water (WAW)
1717 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Wendy Highby, Founding Member
Community Alliance of the Yampa Valley
PO Box 772695
Steamboat Springs, CO 80477
Rodger Steen, Board Member
Citizens for Clean Air (CCA)
514 Rado Drive #F
Grand Junction, CO 81507
Tom Phillips, Board Member
Western Colorado Congress (WCC)
PO Box 1931
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Rein van West, President
NFRIA-WSERC Conservation Center
PO Box 1612
204 Poplar Avenue
Paonia, CO 81428
Sarah Sauter, Executive Director
Matthew Sura, Esq.
4291 Prado Drive
Boulder, CO 80303
720-563-1866
mattsura.law@gmail.com
27. La Plata County Todd A. Weaver, Esq.
34
1060 East 2nd Avenue
Durango, CO 81301
970-382-6200
Board of County Commissioners: Robert
“Bobby” Lieb, Jr.-Chair, Julie Westendorff, and
Gwen Lachelt
Deputy County Attorney
La Plata County Attorney’s Office
1099 Main Avenue, Suite 313
Durango, CO 81301
970-382-8600
weaver@lpcattorney.org
Courtney Roseberry
La Plata County Natural Resources
Planner
1060 East 2nd Avenue
Durango, CO 81301
970-382-6390
Courtney.Roseberry@co.laplata.co.us
Leslie Jakoby
La Plata County Environmental
Specialist
1060 Main Avenue, Suite 104
Durango, CO 81301
970-382-6376
Leslie.Jakoby@co.laplata.co.us
28. La Plata County Energy Council (LPCEC) Dugan & Associates, PC
900 Main Avenue, Suite A
Durango, CO 81301
970-259-1770
Thomas P. Dugan, Esq.
tpdugan@dugan-law.com
29. Local Government Coalition
(includes: City and County of Denver, La Plata
County, San Miguel County, Pitkin County,
Boulder County, Adams County, City of Fort
Collins, City of Boulder)
On behalf of Boulder County:
Pamela H. Milmoe
Air Quality Coordinator
Boulder County Public Health
3450 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80304
303-441-1189
pmilmoe@bouldercounty.org
Ben Doyle
35
Assistant County Attorney
Boulder County
P.O. Box 471
Boulder, CO 80306
303-441-3854
Email: bdoyle@bouldercounty.org
On behalf of the City and County of
Denver:
Gregg W. Thomas
Manager of Air, Water, and Climate
Section
City and County of Denver Dept of
Environmental Health
201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept. 1009
Denver, CO 80202
720-865-5413
gregg.thomas@denvergov.org
Jessica R. Brody
Assistant City Attorney
City and County of Denver
201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept. 1207
Denver, CO 80202
720-913-3267
Jessica.Brody@denvergov.org
Katherine Wilmoth
Assistant City Attorney
City and County of Denver
201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept. 1207
Denver, CO 80202
720-913-3253
Katherine.Wilmoth@denvergov.org
30. Mesa County
544 Rood Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-244-1605
John Justman, Mesa County Commissioner
John.Justman@mesacounty.us
Mesa County Planning
200 South Spruce Street
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Randy Price, Senior Planner
Randy.price@mesacounty.us
36
Pete Baier, Director
970-244-1689
Peter.baier@mesacounty.us
31. Moffat County
221 West Victory Way, Suite 250
Craig, CO 81625
970-824-9115
Charles G. Grobe
cgrobe@moffatcounty.net
Jeff Comstock, Natural Resources
Director
Moffat County
221 West Victory Way, Suite 130
Craig, CO 81625
970-826-3400
jcomstock@moffatcounty.net
32. Montezuma County
109 West Main, Room 302
Cortez, CO 81321
970-565-8317
Board of County Commissioners: Steve
Chappel-Chair, Kennan G. Ertel, Larry Don
Suckla
County Attorney: John Baxter
County Administrator: Melissa Brunner
Office of Community Services: James Dietrich
Office of Community Services
109 West Main, Room 304
Cortez, CO 81321
970-565-7402
jdietrich@co.montezuma.co.us
33. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
1152 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
202-289-6868
Earthjustice
1400 Glenarm Place, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
303-623-9466
Robin L. Cooley
rcooley@earthjustice.org
Michael S. Freeman
mfreeman@earthjustice.org
34. Noble Energy, Inc. & Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation
For both Noble and Anadarko:
Denise W. Kennedy, Esq.
Holland & Hart LLP
555 17th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
303-295-8066
dkennedy@hollandhart.com
For Noble:
Denee A. DiLuigi, Esq.
Noble Energy, Inc.
37
1625 Broadway, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
303-228-4251
DDiluigi@nobleenergyinc.com
For Anadarko:
Julia A. Jones, Esq.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
1099 18th Street, Suite 1800
Denver, CO 80202
720-929-6850
Julia.Jones@anadarko.com
35. Phillips County
221 South Interocean Avenue
Holyoke, CO 80734
970-854-3778
Board of County Commissioners: K. Joe Kinnie-
Chair, Donald J. Lock, and Harlan Stern
Randy Schafer, Administrator
Randy.Schafer@phillipscounty.co
Laura Schroetlin, Administrative
Assistant
Laura.Schroetlin@phillipscounty.co
36. Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.
1401 17th Street, Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
303-298-8100
Douglas P. Wall, Associate General
Counsel
doug.wall@pxd.com
37. Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC)
1445 Market Street, Suite 260
Denver, CO 80202
303-629-5450
Kenneth H. Lloyd, Executive Director
303-629-5450 x250
klloyd@raqc.org
38. Rio Blanco County
200 Main Street
Meeker, CO 81641
970-683-8799
Shawn Bolton
sobolton@co.rio-blanco.co.us
Mark Sprague, Natural Resource
Specialist
970-878-9584
Msprague@co.rio-blanco.co.us
39. Sierra Club
620 16th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Earthjustice
1400 Glenarm Place, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
303-623-9466
Robin L. Cooley
38
rcooley@earthjustice.org
Michael S. Freeman
Email: mfreeman@earthjustice.org
40. Washington County
150 Ash Street
Akron, CO 80720
970-332-5796
Board of County Commissioners: David Foy-
Chair, Lea Ann Laybourn, and Terry Hart
Chris Packer, Administrator
cpacker@co.washington.co.us
Val Foutz, Assistant to Board
vfoutz@co.washington.co.us
41. Weld County
1150 O Street
PO Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
970-336-7234
Board of County Commissioners: William
“Bill” Garcia-Chair, Douglas Rademacher,
Sean Conway, Mike Freeman and Barbara
Kirkmeyer
Bruce T. Barker, Attorney
bbarker@co.weld.co.us
42. WildEarth Guardians (WEG)
1536 Wynkoop, Suite 301
Denver, CO 80202
Earthjustice
1400 Glenarm Place, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
303-623-9466
Robin L. Cooley
rcooley@earthjustice.org
Michael S. Freeman
mfreeman@earthjustice.org
43. Worldwide Liquid Solutions, LLC
700 Independent Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81505
Dan Wilson, Attorney at Law
607 25 Road, Suite 201
Grand Junction, CO 81505
970-248-5800
Dan@danwilsonlaw.us
44. WPX Energy Rocky Mountain LLC and WPX
Energy Production LLC (WPX)
1001 17th Street, Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
Lisa A. Decker, Senior Counsel
303-606-4080
lisa.decker@wpxenergy.com
JoDell Mizoue, Environmental
top related