~ tmOW!lfO,

=J * ~ T ~~3~

= BEN SHELLYPRESIDENT 

# THE NAVAJO NATION

~ ~~-•~ - ~~~~~~~ REX LEE JIM VICE PRESIDENT

rr rrrrNt ts

VIA EMAIL

October 16, 2014

Shaun L.S. Donovan Director, Office of Management and Budget 1650 Pennsylvania Ave NW Room 252 Washing[on DC 20503

Dr. Howazd A Shelanski Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Eisenhower Executive Office Building 1650 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20503

Re: Request to Provide Information to Assist the Office of Management and Budget in Reviewing the U.S. Environmental ProteMion Agency's Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Ex;sting Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Sources - Supplemental Rule for Tribes

Deaz Messrs. Donovan& Shelanski:

The Navajo Nafion understands that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") supplemental rule for tdbes ("Supplemental Rule") related to the U.S. Environmental Protection EPA's proposed Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Sta6onary Sources: Electric Utility Genera5ng Sources ("Proposed Rule") may currently be under review by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"). As the President of the Navajo Nation, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, I respectfully request that OMB consider the Navajo Nation's concerns and recommendations regarding the Supplemental Rule. These concems and recommendations were expressed to EPA in a government-to-government consultation that occurred on September I5, 2014 and in a follow-up letter sent on September 18, 2014 to Ma. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. A copy of that letter is attached for your reference and consideraflon.

On June 18, 2014, EPA issued the Proposed Rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from exis6ng fossil fuel-fired electric generating units ("EGUs'

~ . 1 This rule sets state-specific goals for reducing cazbon dioxide emissions and provides guidance for state plans to meet those goals, but it does not set similaz goals. for sources in Indian Country. EPA committed to developing a federal plan, or allowing authorized tribes to develop tdbal plans, to meet emission

' EPA, "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for EXis[ing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 79 Fed. Reg.}4830 (June 18, 2014), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-18/pdf/2014-13726.pdf.

POST OFPICB BOX ]OW / WINDOW ROCiy NAVAJO NATION,ARIZONA / 85515 / TBLHPHON@ (9l8) 8]I-]OW PAX; (gL8) B]NOISreduction goals. EPA has now completed its draft of the Supplemental Rule, which may still be

under review by OMB. This Supplemental Rule has the potential to impact the two coal-fired power plants located on the Navajo NaSon as we1Pas the Navajo Nation economy as whole. Z The Navajo Nation is therefore requesting that OMB consider the following when reviewing the Supplemental Rule: (I) The unique economic, social and cultural circumstances facing the Navajo Nation compared to the states; (2) The impacts that othex recent EPA rulemakings have already hadbn the Navajo Nation; and (3) The potential economic and social impacts the Navajo Nation may Face due to the Supplemental Rule.

The Navajo Nation has repeatedly voiced concerns over the implications of other recent EPA rulemakings. These rulemakings threaten the Navajo Nation's economy due to the imposition of faz-reaching and stringent timelines, compliance costs, and other compliance obligations. The Navajo Nation stands to lose significant economic benefits through addiGonal reflrement of units, or deparhue of the sources, if the Supplemental Rule does not specifically tailor its goal-setting atYd planning to reflect the unique circtunstances on the Navajo Nation. Conversely, a well-tailored rule could provide lazge economic and social benefits to the Navajo Nation, including the development of renewable energy projects on our lands.

While the Navajo Na6on understands that the Supplemental Rule may be under review by OMB, the intent of this letter is not to slow down OMB's review or to delay EPA's fmalizing and release of the Supplemental Rule. It is the Navajo Nation's intent to provide input that we believe 

### will assist OMB in the review of the Supplemental Rule. However, if OMB has ' completed its review of the Supplemental Rule, please be awaze that the Navajo Nation may request govemment-to-government consultations with OMB in the future regazding proposed rules that will impact the Navajo Nation.

I look forwazd to hearing from you soon and working with you to organize a consultation meeting. I have designated Mr. Stephen B. Etsitty, Executive Director, Navajo Nafion Environmental Protection Agency, telephone number 928-871-7692, as my primary contact in this mattev

Sincerely

en elly, President THE NAVAJO NATIO

' The two coal-fired power plants located on the Navajo Na[ion are Navajo Generating StatioD near Page, AZ and FDUr Comers Power Plant located near Fruitland, NM.

POSS OFF[CR BOX]GW / WrNDOW ROCK. NAVAJO NATION,ARIZONA / 86515 / TELRPHONB: (91H) 8]t-]WpPAX: (928) %Ir<025Xc: Janet McCabe, EPA, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation

Jazod Blumenfeld, EPA, Region 9 Arbin Mitchell; Chief of Staff, OPVP/Navajo Nation

. Harrison Tsosie, Attorney General, Navajo Nation Heather Clah, Legal Counsel, OPVP, Navajo Nation Stephen B. Etsitty, Executive Director, NNEPA Claza Pxatt, Executive Director, Navajo Nation Washington Office Simon Boyce, Legal Counsel, Navajo Nation Washington Office

~

PO5I OFPICB BOX]MO / WINDOW ROCK. NAVAJO NATION.AAIZONA/ 86515 / TBLHPHONB: (938) 8]1.]OtOPAX: (g28) 81{-0OSpAttttt 

### o ` °

, 

# °;`

, ° ryb,§G 

# THE NAVAJO NATION $°~ °~ ° BEN SHELLY PRLSIDENT R ' 

### ~~ v REX LEE JIM ViCE PRESIDENT

VIA EMAIL

September 18, 2014

Janet McCabe Environmenta6Protection Agency Acting Assistant Administrator Air and Radiation Docket Mailcode: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: Navajo NaHon's Position on a Clean Power Plan Supplemental Rule for Tribes

Dear Ms. McCabe:

Thank you again for meeting with the Navajo Nation in the September 15th Government-to Government consultation to discuss USEPA's Supplemental Rule for the Tribes under the Clean Power Plan.' The purpose of tivs letter is to summarize the information that was presented by the Navajo Nation at that meeting and to provide you with our posi6on on the supplemental nile for the Navajo Na6on and aspects of the Proposed Rule, including renewable energy projects.

Specifically, the Navajo Nation requests the following:

1. The Navajo Nation requests that USEPA develop a supplemental rule for the Navajo NaSon as a whole, not just a rule for the two power plants located on the Navajo Na6on. In doing so, we recommend that the Navajo Nation be allowed, as are the States, to develop its own plan to meet any COz emission reduction requirements under the supplemental mle. Specifically, such supplemental rule should address the following:

a. The Navajo Nation should be authorized to initiate a plan that provides for a mass-based emission standard, ufilizing the highest COZ emissions at NGS and FCPP since 1997, which would result in a cap being set at no less than 37,941,342 COZ tons,

b. None of the additional building block conditions under Clean Energy Proposed Rule are applicable for the Navajo Nation;

~ The four power plants located in Indian country that are subjec[ to a supplemental rule are Navajo Generating Station (NGS) and Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP), both located on the Navajo Nation, the Bonanza Generating Station on Ute lands, and the South Point Energy Center located on Mohave lands.The Navajo Nation should be authorized to consider the useful life of the EGUs and their impact on the Navajo Nation economy in developing its plan under any supplemental rule;

The Navajo Nation would be allowed to control and disposal of any carbon credits associated with its Plan as it sees fit; and

e. The unique situation of the Navajo Nation should be recognized and considered in the development of a supplemental rule.

USEPA should cladfy as an addendum to the Proposed Rule, and as pazt of the supplemental rule, that for renewable energy resources located within Indian country, which may benefit a state or a utility therein, tktat benefitting state can and should recognize such renewable energy resources for credit toward its EGUs compliance requirements under the Proposed Rule.

USEPA's commitment to the Navajo Nation

The federal government, including USEPA, has recognized the unique legal relaflonship that exists between the federal govemment and the Native American tribes. 2USEPA acknowledged this unique relationship and did the conect thing when it excluded Electricity Generating Units (EGUs) located in Indian country from its Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants (Proposed Rule) and provided instead that a supplemental rule would be prepazed, if necessary or appropriatz. 3 USEPA also stated that they would consult with the affected tribes (including the Navajo Nation) prior to setting any CO z emissions goals for Indian country. °

On July 15, 2015, the Navajo Nation requested Govemment-to-Govemment consultation with USEPA regazding the Proposed Rule and anticipated supplemental rulemaking for tribes. However, the Navajo Nation became concerned that USEPA was already faz along in the process of drafting the supplemental rule, which it was going to release fairly soon. This promoted a joint letter from Stephen B. Etsitty, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Envimnmental Protection Agency, and Aarrison Tsosie, the Navajo Nation Attomey General, on August 15,

' As recognized in E.O. 13175, "the Uni[ed States has a unique legal rela[ionship with Indian tribal govemments as set forth in the Constitution ofthe United States, treaties, s[atutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions." E.O. 13175, 65 Fed. Reg. at 67249. Accordingly, every federal agency "shall have an accoun

~ ble process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regula[ory policies that have tribal implicationsP ld. at 67250. As USEPA also recognius, USEPA shares "the federal govemment's trust responsibiliTy, which derives from the historical relationship between the federal govemment and Indian tribes..." USEPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 20ll). USEPA's own Indian Policy states that USEPA will "give special consideration to Tribal interests in making Agency policy, and [to] insure the close involvement of Tribal Govemments in making decisions and managing environmen[al programs affec[ing reservation lands," 1984 Indian Policy at 1; and "will assure that tribal concems and interests are considered whenever EPA's actions and/or decisions may affect reservation environments," id. at 3. ' 79 Fed. Reg. at 34844; see CAA § 301(a), (d)(4); 40 C.F.R. § 49.11. ° 79 FeA. Reg. at 39893 ("The EPA does plan to establish COi emission goals for both Indian Country and territories in the future. The EPA plans to conduct additional outreach before setting [hese goalsY); EPA Fact Sheek "NationalFramework for states," http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productioNfiles/2014-OS/documenfs/20140602fs-settinggoals.pdf.2014 to Ms. Regina McCarthy, USEPA Administrator ("August 15, 20141etter"). They

requested that USEPA not release a supplemental rule until the Navajo Nation had a chance to participate in the Govennnent-to-Government consultation and until USEPA meaningfully reflected upon input received from the Navajo Naflon from that consultafron. In a letter datad September 11, 2014, you reiterated that a supplemental rule will not be published until after USEPA's consultation with the Navajo Nation, but that USEPA also has tight deadlines.

While the Navajo Nafion is sensiflve to the fact that USEPA has deadlines, I would also like to stress the importance of the supplemental mle to the Navajo Nation and clarificafion regazding renewable energy resources to the Proposed Rule. For example, the immediate impact of the ambiguity created by the Proposed Rule has been the delay in completion initiating construc6on on several renewable energy projects on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation is at a severe economic disadvantage compared to the states and an appropriate Navajo Nation Clean Power Plan not only would take that dispazity into account but also could create a great economic opportunity for the Navajo Nation.

Again, we respectfully request that USEPA consider the importance of this decision to the Navajo people and that USEPA will take the time to reflect upon our comments and concems in a meaningful way prior to the release of a supplemental rule, which is expected in mid-October. The Navajo Nation appreciates USEPA's assurances at the September 15' h consultation that our discussions on the supplemental nile will continue; that Monday's consulta6on will not have been our only chance to provide input to USEPA on a supplemental rule, and that, to use your words from the consultation, "the draft [of the rule] is not locked in." We trust that USEPA will truly abide by these statements.

The Navajo Nation's Unique Situation

Any rule developed for the Navajo Nafion should consider key chazacteristics tbat distinguish the Navajo Nation from the states. These chazacteristics include the following:

The Navajo reservation was set aside as a cultural homeland for the Navajo people. Under the supervision of our trustee, the United States govemment, the Navajo Na6on's economy developed into a coal-based economy. It was the federal govemment who established this coal-based economy, which the Navajo Nation has grown to rely upon. Previous environmental regulatory decisions by USEPA have already impacted our economy in a negative way, and will reduce the output of the power plants by about a third of what they were: More restdctions by USEPA directed towazd the power plants and associated mines have the potential to weaken the Navajo Nafion economy even further. There aze no other industries on the Navajo Nation that can compensate for this economic loss.

_ The Navajo people as a whole live in extreme poverty, which includes a staggering unemployment rate of 52%. The per capita income of the Navajo Nation is around $1Q,000, while the per capita income of the poorest state (Mississippi) was $34,478 in 2013 ' This extreme poverty leads to higher rates of alcoholism, domestic violence, other crimes and suicides.

' U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.• A lack ofjobs severely strains the Navajo Nation economy and forces the Navajo people

to leave their homeland in search of work, sometimes leaving behind their spouse and children and weakening family bonds. • 32% of the Navajo people do not have electricity, which is worse than Nepal and Indonesia, and only slightly better than Bangladesh. bThe per capita use of electricity on the Navajo Nation is 10% of that used by neighboring states and about 15% of that of the most efficient state (Califomia).' Electricity consumption on the Navajo Nation needs to 

### increase in the future to promote economic development. • Almost all of the electricity generated on the Navajo Nation is exported to the states; it is not used by the Navajo people. • The Navajo Nation has an extremely low carbon footprint compared to our neighboring states. Notably, the Navajo people receive almost all their power from cazbon-free sources (primarily hydroelectric). • Unlike the states, any reductions at the existing EGUs on the Navajo Nation cannot be
offset or shifted to other facilities.

Key Components of a Clean Power Plan for the Navajo Nation

The Navajo Nation advocates for a Clean Power Plan tbat considers the unique situation of the Navajo Nation and also incorporates the key components described belows

1. The Navajo Nation recommends a mass-based COZ emission standard based on historical COz emissions.

The Navajo Nation supports a plan that provides for a mass-based emission limit because it would better allow for an option of trading cazbon allowances than a rate-based approach. The Navajo Nafion is interested in preserving an option for trading, for the reasons given below. The Navajo Nation also believes tbat the emission rate on which the mass-based standazd is based should be based on the highest COZ emissions at NGS and FCPP since 1997. 1997 was the yeaz just prior to implementation of various pollution-control technologies and other processes (including unit shutdowns) that have already resulted in significant car6on reductions at the two power plants. This approach would result in a cap being set at 37,941,342 COz tons.

The cap that the Navajo Nation is proposing is based on NGS's 2002 emissions of 2Q,4S8,265 COZ tons and FCPP's 1999 emissions of 17,483,077 COZ tons. An acceptable alternative emissions rate, although not ideal, would result in a cap of 37,077,435 tons, which aze the 2000 total COz emissions from the two power plants. Moreover, any cazbon mass emissions cap

s Navajo Tribal Utility Authoriry, International data firom World Bank and International Energy Agency. ' NTOA and California Energy Commission.

s As mentioned in the August 15, 2014 letter from the Navajo Nation to USEPA, the Navajo Nation has embarked on a his[oric and unprecedented undertaking concerning the Proposed Rule and Ihe Supplemental Rule. The Navajo Natioq including its Environmental Protection Agency and Division ofNatural Resources, along with Navajo tribal enterprises (NTUA, Navajo Transitional Energy Corporation and Navajo Nation Oil and Gas Company) have come together to plan a course of action that will be in the best in[erest ofthe Navajo Nation to determine its economic and culturalfuture.developed from historical emissions should not be adjusted downward to account for retirement

of units at the plants since this was not performed by 

### USEPA when developing state emissions rates under the Proposed Rule. It is umeasonable to use the yeaz 2012 as the basis of a mass emissions rate because 2012 was a low-emitting year for both plants as a result of unusually low generation.

The Navajo Nation believes that using historical CO2 emission rates for the baseline is a fair and reasonable recommendation. The Navajo Na6on fias already suffered adverse economic impacts due to unit retirements at the power plants. Navajo workers lost high-wage jobs, both at the plants themselves and at the associated coal mines, and equivalentjob opportunities aze not available elsewhere on the Navajo Nation.

The power plant unit retirements also decreased revenue to the Navajo Nation government in the fonn of taxes and royalties. This decrease has strained the government's budget and lowers the ability to provide essential services to our people, many of whom live in extreme poverty. Using a mass-based emissions standard based on historical emissions will help assure longer-term operation of the two power plants, enabling more time for development of and transition to other industries on the Navajo Nation. The resulting excess cazbon credits also could be used in a carbon credit trading program that may help generate funds and provide other opportuni6es for the Navajo Nation, as discussed further in item 2 below.

In the alternative, if 

### USEPA were to require a rate-based approach either 

### as the preferred approach or as the firs[ step in developing a mass-based standard, the power plants should not have to improve their heat mtes as set forth under Building Block 1 of the Proposed Rule. 

### USEPA's Proposed Rule for the states relies on the assumption that power plants did not improve their heat rates prior to 2012. This is 

### an inwrrect assumption for NGS and 

### FCPP. As demonstrated by 

### USEPA's data, both power plants have reduced their COz emissions, COZ emission rates and heat rates significantly since 1997 and prior to 2012. Therefore, it would be unreasonable and infeasible to require any further reductions of heat rates.

2. The Navajo Nation requests carbon credits and ownership and control of such credits 

### 9

We strohgly request that 

### USEPA grant the Navajo Nation carbon credits and that the Navajo NaSon have ownership and control of those credits. This will allow the Navajo Nation to participate in a current or future multi jurisdiction trading program(s). 10 The Navajo Nation's intention would be to use such a program as a means to finance clean energy development on the Navajo Nation and provide transifional employment opportunifies for the Navajo people. Granting carbon credits to the Navajo Nation also may prove to be a significant mechanism for mitiga6ng the effects of extreme poverty on the reservation. We also ask that you clarify that any carbon credits resulting under the Clean Power Plan aze sepazate and distinct from those

9 "Carbon credits" and "allowances" are used interchangeably.

10 The Navajo Nation understands that USEPA cannot give us the authority to participate in a multi-jurisdictional plan. Howeveq we request that USEPA not structure the final rule for the states and/or the supplemental rule for the tribes in a way tha[ poses obstacles to participa[ing in a multi-jurisdic[ional approach.under any other federal programs, such as the Depaztment of Interior's Cazbon Reduction Credit

program. We understand that USEPA has the option of determining that no plan is necessazy for the Navajo Nation. 11 Such a determinafion would acknowledge the efforts made by NGS and FCPP in response to USEPA's other environmental regulations that resulted in lower carbon emissions (e.g. the BART rules). " However, this determination would not acknowledge the sacrifices made by the Navajo Nation. Navajo employees lost their jobs at NGS, FCPP and the associated mines due to these environmental regulations and these high-payingjobs cannot be replaced elsewhere on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation govemment has also seen reduced tax and royalty payments as a result of the changes mandated at NGS and FCPP by USEPA. This option also would not recognize the fact that the Navajo Nation historically has had extremely low electriciTy demand (currently only 10% of its neighboring states) and is not a significant contdbutor to cazbon pollution. Therefore, we are requesting that USEPA acknowledge both the sacrifices made by the Navajo Nation and the Navajo Nation's historically negligible contdbution to the current cazbon problem by allowing us to receive carbon credits and to retain ownership and control of such credits. Determining that no plan is necessary for the Navajo Nation would be USEPA taking the easy way out. We request that USEPA not take this course of action and work with us to deteanine another course of action that results in significant carbon credits for the Navajo Nation. 13

3. The Other Building Blocks Outlined in the Proposed Carbon Rule for the States are Not Applicable to the Navajo Nation.

a. Switching from coal-Bred to Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants should not be a component of a supplemental rule for the Navajo Nation.

There aze no NGCC plants located on the Navajo Nation, nor aze there plans to build any. The Navajo Nation is a coal-based economy and does not rely on natural gas in any significant capacity. Therefore, the requirements of the Proposed Rule's Building Block 2 aze inappropriate for the Navajo Nafion and should not be a component of a Navajo Nation rule.

b. A Navajo Nation rule should not require increased use of no or low carbon electric-generating sources.

Although there are two power plants located on the Navajo Nafion, the Navajo people receive virtually all their electricity from carbon-free sources (mostly fiydroelectric power). Almost all of the electriciTy generated at the two power plants leaves the Navajo Nation and is consumed in neighboring states. Additionally, the Navajo people's use of electdciTy is negligible compared to the electricity generation at the power plants. The Navajo people have a much lower cazbon footprint than the states, including the most energy-efficient states. Therefore, the Proposed

° See e.g. 79 Fed. Reg. at 34852 ("If it de[ermines that such a plan is necessary or appropriate, the EPA has the responsibility to establish a CAA sec[ion 111(d) plan for areas of Indian country...") "The Navajo Nation cer[ainly acknowledges and appreciates the efforts made by NGS and FCPP. " USEPA has provided extra allowances in the past to states that historically were not significant contributors to an environmental problem, specifically to "clean sta[es" in the acid rain program.Rule's Building Block 3 is not appropriate for the Navajo Nation and should not be a component

of a Navajo Nation rule.

C. A demand-side approach to energy efficiency is inappropriate for the Navajo Nation.

The Navajo Nation should not be subjected to any mle that requires a reducfion in energy consumption. As noted above, per capita electricity use in the Navajo Nafion is about 10% of that of neighboring states and about 15% of the most energy efficient state, and 32% of the Navajo people do not even have electricity. The Navajo Nation's energy consumption needs to increase, not decrease.

It would be a social injustice to require the Navajo people to reduce their energy consumption when they use negligible amounts of electricity and when a significant percentage of the people do not even have elechicity. The issue facing the Navajo Nation is not energy efficiency; it is inadequate access to electricity. As was brought up by USEPA dudng the consultation, Building Block 4 of the Proposed Rule applies to future electricity consump5on in order to make sure that energy consumption grows in an efficient manner. The Navajo Nation maintains that any demand-site approach to energy efficiency, whether based on current or future consumption, is inappropriate for the Navajo Nation. It is completely unreasonable to put such restrictions on a group of people such as the Navajo, who live in poverty and one third of whom do not even have electricity. Therefore, Building Block 4 of the Proposed Rule is not appropriate for the Navajo Nation and should not be a component of a Navajo Nation rule. Any rule applied to the Navajo Nation should allow for the increase of energy consumption on the Navajo Nation. Any emission rate should be determined accordingly to provide for increased electricity consumption rather than decreased consumption.

4. The proposed rule should consider the useful life of the power plants located on the Navajo Nation.

A Navajo Nation rule should examine and incorporate the useful life of NGS and FCPP. Because of their huge significance to the Navajo Nation, these plants should be allowed to continue operating into the future. The Navajo Nation is a coal-based economy in lazge part due to the actions of our tmstee, the United States government. The Navajo people depend on the power plants and associated mines to earn a living and support their families. NGS, FCPP and the associated mines (Navajo Mine and Kayenta Mine) provide approximately 1,584 Navajos with employment. USEPA has already rendered decisions impac6ng these power plants and mines which have adversely affected Navajo families. We respectfully ask tktat you cbnsider the haanful effects to these Navajo workers and their families that may occur from additional regulatory requirements. 14

°0 San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) is located just outside the Navajo Nation in Farmingron, NM. This power plant also employs many Navajos. Any impact to SJGS under New Mexico's Clean Power Plan has the po[ential to negatively affect Navajo workers and further strain the Navajo economy. The Navajo Nation has an interest in assuring tha[jobs at aII tivee plants are protected.5. Renewable energy projects on the Navajo NaRon that provide electrlcity outside the

Navajo Nation should be counted toward the relevant state's emission rate.

States, and ufilities therein, should not be hindered from receiving credit for engaging in renewable energy projects on the Navajo Nation in order to meet carbon emission rates, reduce reliance on carbon sources, and satisfy renewable energy goals. USEPA should clarify as 

### an addendum to the Proposed Rule, and as part of the supplemental rule, that for renewable energy resources located within Indian country, which may benefit a state or a utility therein, that benefitting state can and should recognize such renewable energy resources for credit toward its EGUs compliance requirements under the Proposed Rule. Language to this effect will benefit both the states and the Navajo Nafion. Furthermore, this clarifica6on should state that the Proposed Rule in no way modifies the federal govenunent's intent to promote the development of renewable energy projects on Indian Land as described in EPAct 2005.

The Proposed Rule has already created 

### an obstacle to the development of renewable energy resources within the Navajo Nation. At least one Navajo Nation enterprise is directly engaged in the development of renewable energy resources for sale of energy and Renewable Energy Credits to utilities not located within or regulated by the Navajo Nation. The enterprise has been informed by such a utility that it is re-evaluating the purchase due to the ambiguity of whether the renewable energy resource with the Navajo Nafion could be used as credit against the utility's EGUs not located within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation. This ambiguity of the Proposed Rule is delaying job creation and much needed investment into the development of renewable energy projects on the Navajo Nation. Without clarifica6on of the Proposed Rule, states will not have the incentive to develop these types of projects on the Navajo Nation. As a result, the Navajo Nation's economy will be severely hindered and we will lose 

### an opportunity to develop a green economy.

Other Considerafions

The Navajo Nation is awaze of the threats posed by climate change and supports USEPA's decision to take action. It is also possible that environmental groups will seek to minimize any COZ allowances that may be proposed for the Navajo Nation, and most likely will seek finther reducfions in emissions at the power plants. However, the situation at Navajo is one where social justice and environmental goals should go hand-in-hand. The Navajo Nation has already made, and continues to. make, substantial sacrifices as a result of efforts to reduce the environmental impact of the two power plants even without 

### an additional COZ emissions requirement. It is possible to create a Navajo Nation rule that reflects our unique situation, helps the Navajo people out of pover[y and also assists the United States in the fight against climate change. USEPA just needs to be willing to do the hard work to create such a rule. The Navajo Nation will do whatever we can to assist USEPA with the complexi5es that are involved in developing such a rule. With our extremely low carbon footprint, the Navajo Nation is not a lazge contdbutor to the climate change problem, but we are ready and willing to be a parf of the solution.Thank you again for meeting with the Navajo Nation and for allowing us to provide our input on

a supplemental nile for the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation looks forwazd to an ongoing discussion with USEPA on this mattec Please direct any follow-up communications conceming this matter to Stephen B. Etsitty, Executive Director, Navajo Nation Environmental Protec6on Agency, at 928-871-7692, stephenbetsitty@navajo-nsn.gov

.



### Sincerely,

~~~ •

~

Cc: Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region 9 Stephen B. Etsitty, Executive Director, Navajo Nation EPA