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