~tmOW!lfO, 

=J*~ T ~~3~= BEN SHELLYPRESIDENT THE NAVAJO NATION ~ ~~-•~ - 

~~~~~~~ REX LEE JIM VICE PRESIDENT 

rrrrrrNtts 

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' ~. 1This 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]NOIS 
reduction 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<025 
Xc: 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{-0OS 
pAttttt 

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 zemissions 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 "National 

Framework 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. b The 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 

sNavajo Tribal Utility Authoriry, International data firom World Bank and International Energy Agency. 

' NTOA and California Energy Commission. 

sAs 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