1 From: Mike Garelik [mgarelik@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 10:05 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

C oal power is destructive from mine to smokestack.The time to eliminate this 19th century technology in favor of a serious commitment to 21st century technology and major incentives to gather the "low hanging fruit" of increased efficiency is NOW.

EPA should be protecting the environment and public health in a timely manner, no more endless studies and waiting to be sued to effect implementation of improved standards!2 From: JUDITH KOLLIGIAN [judyarmenia@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:12 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input



## please do everything in your power to phase out the burning of coal for power generation. as an asthma sufferer I know first hand the health toll of burning coal. also we MUST MOVE ALONG FAST towards a just transition to renewable energy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thank you. judy kolligian Jamaica Plain, Mass.3 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Grant Glazer [glazer.ag@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 2:28 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 02:28 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Grant Glazer Email: glazer.ag@gmail.com Comments: I applaud those who support these updated standards as champions of a cleaner, better future. Our planet is too precious a resource to risk for a few short-term financial savings, especially when the risks associated with climate change and air pollution will likely cost us millions in lost ecosystem services. Please keep fighting for our sustainable future! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards4 From: Peggy da Silva [peggyda@sonic.net] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:01 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no to coal

The climate crisis is the biggest threat to our health and wellbeing on our planet.
I urge you to implement the most stringent and expensive rules possible to phase out coalfired power plants. Thank you.

Peggy da Silva 153 Vasquez Avenue San Francisco 941275 From: Edyth Koch [ediekoch@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

To: EPA

From: Edie Koch, Seattle, WA

Subject: It's Time

Let's end burning coal for energy. Let's take the expense of extracting, hauling and transporting dirty coal and put those

c ombined resources towards clean energy. Corporations who make huge profits from this outdated and dangerous method of providing energy would be giving their children and grandchildren a future of better air to breathe and a safer environment for all. How about the cost to the EPA (taxpayers) surveillance, paper work and man hours to bring errant companies to follow the rules which are so easily broken with little fines when found guilty.

We see what climate change is doing to our country, much of which is the result of burning fossil fuels. To the expense listed above, add the costs of flooding damage, hurricanes, tornadoes, rising seas from melting ice, to R & D in alternative forms of green energy. We have to stop the assault to our air and water. We need to start now to fund research to benefit our environment instead of continuing the practice of looking the other way and not acknowledging that we need to change our ways. Continuing to extract coal, transporting the product long distances in box cars to be shipped to China or elsewhere is total folly. If Corporations really care about future generations, the members who sit on their Boards should discipline their greed and do the right thing. To these Board Members, I pose the question, "Do you want to help save planet earth and future generations or are you only interested in getting richer today by not using your privileged positions to make a difference?"6 From: Amy Maloney [amymaloney1@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 2:04 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: New Proposed Rules for Coal Fired Plants

I am very pleased with your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants. Please do the right thing and do not back down in any way. I look forward to your announcement that the new rules are in place. This is more important than any other issue regarding climate change that we've faced as a country.



### Thank you,



## Amy Maloney

S hy Lotus Jewelry Design www.shylotus.com amymaloney1@mac.com phone: 301-537-4635 fax: 301-587-88387 From: Vivien Sharples [vivs@igc.org] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:36 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Input on coal fired power plants rules



### I am opposed to coal fired power plants, as

coal-fired electricity is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions in the US. We need to make a just transition to clean energy as soon as possible. The EPA rules can help make that transition happen. Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate. Make the rules as stringent as possible.8 From: Jamie Brooks [jbrooks_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Public Listening for EPA Coal Power Regulation

To Whom It May Concern,

A s a concerned citizen about the impacts on our climate from coal -powered electricity, I'd like to offer the EPA my complete support of the new carbon regulations issued by the President, and to offer my support of the climate action plan put forth by him this summer and to support EPA efforts to implement the plan.

You are welcome to call on me for any additional support as needed as the coal industry attempts to thwart efforts to regulate carbon from their plants.

Regards,

Jamie Brooks

Sent from my iPhone9 From: Tomer Adini [tatomer@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Transitioning into the future



### It is time to make the switch to renewable resources. Our society is not efficient enough to continue with outdated power plants. Massachusetts is so close to becoming what America must become for our grandchildren to have a stable home on this earth. We have to take a step forward and stop these criminals from polluting our world. Let us finally take that needed step forward to invest in our future. Sincerely Brookline High School Alumnus, Tomer Adini

-10 From: John Sarter [sarterfish@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Hello and good day, I have read the 2012 proposed CO2 limits and see that the EPA is considering backing off of those requirements from 1000 tons to 1100 Tonnes of CO2 per megawatt. I am appalled that the EPA would consider a reduction of the original target, which was quite frankly not enough to begin with. Beyond the effects on atmospheric global warming and associated harmful symptoms and effects, the associated CO2 increase in our oceans is acidifying those oceans at a rate that has not been seen since the last major species extinction event on Earth. This acidification is directly caused by CO2 in our atmosphere, and as such all measures to reduce CO2 feasibly possible need to be taken, regardless of initial cost. Our oceans provide 50% of all oxygen in our atmosphere, and are the basis for our entire food chain and the origin of all life on Earth. We cannot afford to let our Oceans die, and that is what is occurring. I'd like to bring your attention to the following ;

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-scientists-deadly-trio-a iling-oceans.html

In addition to this, please take these following links and watch when you have time, perhaps at home and share it with your children as well... and let them know what you are doing about it. http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/aboutthefilm .asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMZfCKuFIQ#t=40



### -- John Sarter Sarter Construction & Design, Inc. Ca. Lic. # 595917, since 1987 Off The Grid Design, LLC http://www.offthegriddesign.org/ "Creating a Sustainable Future"

Sol-Lux Alpha, LLC https://www.honestbuildings.com/sol-built-alpha#.UjepntWnapg

San Francisco Chapter Liaison Passive House Alliance U.S. http://phaus.org/

Microgrid development Group San Francisco Bay Area http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Micro-Grid-Development-Group-San-4981248?trk=my_groups-b-grp-v

Consulting at; http://www.zintro.com/expert/john-sarter11 From: Martha Jaegers [jamartha@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: listening sessions



### Dear EPA:

Thank you for scheduling listening sessions to help develop regulations to bring public oversight of unregulated carbon polluters. While I have no specific solutions, I do know the following, and I encourage you to make the most stringent rules possible for the reduction of carbon in our atmosphere:

* Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States—pollution that causes climate change.

* We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution.

* Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year.

* More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards.

* Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change.

* More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue.

* We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbon.

Many sincere thanks,

Martha Jaegers 4095 Robert ave. St. Louis, MO 6311612 From: Denise D Anne [ddanne1@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:54 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: COAL FIRED PLANTS NOT THE ANSWER

I am suggesting that since we all, rich and poor of every nationality can not choose the air we breathe that the best thing i s to reduce or eliminate coal-fired plants.

Sincerely,

Denise D'Anne 351 Guerrero St. San Francisco, CA 9410313 From: Mark Roest [marklroest@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 8:37 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Don't let the coal lobby steamroll you!



### Dear U.S. EPA Administrators and Staff,

P lease stand your ground against the coal lobby when they try to block, deflect or diminish the force of your new rules for coal-fired power plants. They are business and industrial dinosaurs, no longer even competitive, on top of the fact that there is no conceivable way that burning coal is good public policy today. It boils down to a stark picture, of people addicted to their power fighting tooth and nail to retain it, against the combined, often expressed, will of the vast majority of the citizens of this nation.

Thank you very much for the stand you have taken; now please accept our expressions of support for maintaining it.

Regards,

Mark Roest

ZIP 9440314 From: Frances Mead (aka m. czerniski) [lycett8@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 8:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: End Coal Fired power plants!!!



### We must end our use of coal ASAP. Coal fired power plants have no place in the 21st century -- we should

n ever have instituted them here in the first place. We need to abandon this sort of toxic and dangerous fuel. Please do all you can to institute clean energy and abandon all use of fossil fuels.

Thank you, Frances Mead 3953 S. Americus Street Seattle, Wa. 9811815 From: Mary Lou Dauray [mldauray@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 7:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: against coal-fired plants



### I am against those who wish to develop, encourage and finance the growth of coal usage. I am
1 00% behind the development and use of clean energy. I also want to raise my voice against those who wish to transport coal in the northwest by train. Thank you, Mary Lou Dauray

-- 

## Mary Lou Dauray www.maryloudauray.com http:// maryloudaurayartblog.blogspot.com16 From: Marc Vendetti [marc@2910.org] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 7:32 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Get off coal

Dear EPA Representative,

Coal is a scourge. We need to stop burning it as soon as possible, and in the meantime we need to restrict the carbon emitted from power plants that use it as much as possible.

I support the strictest possible regulation.

Let’s put our attention on developing clean, renewable energy instead.

Thank you,

Marc Vendetti marc@2910.org Cell: 415-450-8000 | Skype: marc_vendetti “When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy.” ~Rumi 

#  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail17 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Timothy o'Shea [tim@cleanfish.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 7:07 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 19:06 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Timothy o'Shea Email: tim@cleanfish.com Comments: I am in a business that deals with and is directly impacted by the appropriate or inappropriate use of natural resources of our region. I am a Fishmonger with a national business known throughout our domestic seafood industry. There is no scientific doubt that the coal fired plants of the past and present are directly responsible for damage to the health of our seafood industry. The market for fish is rising due to the health benefits of seafood. Yet, the realization of this simple fact is at odds with the equal facts that describe the levels of damage and the levels of heavy metals being deposited in our coastal ocean regions and waterways through the diffused settling of mercury and other toxic substances from coal fired plants. This is the time to take the funds from this now clearly destructive set of byproducts of coal power and drive to research and action in the realms of other energy sources that are present, available and more benign. We must choose to spend our funds on a healthier future, not continue in problems we now know we have created in our past. Move to the future and stop spending funds on the past rather than creating greener, cleaner jobs that have a future we can believe in and trust. My business and countless other small businesses depend on this kind of turning away from toxic power and toward power that empowers us all. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards18 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Irvin Dawid [irvindawid@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:47 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 18:47 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Irvin Dawid Email: irvindawid@gmail.com Comments: I strongly support these regulations. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards19 From: Ginny Stearns [ginnystearns@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Strong coal plant regulations necessary



### Coal is definitely our dirtiest fossil fuel source, polluting our air, destroying our environment and health and

c ontributing mightily to CO2 emissions heating our planet to dangerous levels.

Strong regulations on coal firing plants are necessary to reduce these pollutants and assist the transition to renewable energy as fast as possible.

I also strongly suggest a carbon tax or price floor to equal the playing field between fossil fuels which pollute our planet for free and renewables needing stimulus and support to grow.

The EPA has a unique position of strength in leveraging the transition to renewables in a crucially important nation. Use it!

For our planet's future I thank you Virginia Stearns Ginnystearns@gmail.com20 From: Sue V. [suelooo@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: New regulations for coal-fired power plants

I'm writing today to show my support for tough regulations on coal-fired power plants.

The new rules the EPA is proposing are long overdue. We can't afford to live in a world where we blow up mountains, disturbing whole ecosystems and human communities, so we can get to a resource that further pollutes our world when we burn it. It doesn't make sense. There are better ways to create energy, and instead of spending loads of money on lobbyists to try to preserve its antiquated way of doing business, the coal industry should be spending money on R & D to transform itself into a clean-energy provider.

Thank you for your time.

-Sue Voelkel San Francisco, CA21 From: Gerilyn Denny [gdenny@sonic.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Expressing my opinion on Coal-fired plants

Hello there, I might be able to stop by on Tuesday at the hearing but in case I can't would l ike to express my opinion that coal-fired electricity is the dirtiest source of energy besides tar sands and needs to be phased out to save our planet from overheating as well as to save people from pollution-caused illnesses.

Global warming from over-production of carbon based fuels has already caused great damage to our planets ecosystem and we owe it to future generations to support clean energy solutions not coal. Thanks! Sincerely, Gerilyn Denny

Sent from my iPhone22 From: Robert Morgan [rpmtha@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Nancy Morgan Subject: We strongly support vigorous EPA actions to limit carbon pollution



### To whom it may concern,

It is absolutely essential that EPA use every means within its authority to limit carbon pollution from both old and new power plants. We have delayed long enough. The scientific evidence and the observed negative impacts of human induced climate change leave us very little time to procrastinate. We need to phase out fossil fuel use and accelerate the transition to renewable energies, like wind and solar. The U.S. has an obligation to be at the forefront of this effort, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, humanity and our planet.

Yours sincerely,

Robert P. Morgan*, PhD Nancy H. Morgan 1025 N. George Mason Drive Arlington, VA 22205

Professor Emeritus of Technology and Human Affairs Washington University in St. Louis23 From: Gayl Dieckman [gayl.dieckman@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:46 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal



### is bad for our health, communities, environment. Please do everything in your power to reduce coal

a dmissions. I have asthma, difficult enough to breathe sometimes, please don't allow industry to keep polluting our environment. Gayl Dieckman24 From: Jordyn Bonds [jbonds@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:33 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: My thoughts on reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants



### Dear EPA –

C learly, humanity has gotten itself into quite a pickle burning all these fossil fuels. We're in such a pickle that we can't even seem to have an honest conversation about our predicament, it's so terrifying. But since you are charged with protecting the environment, and since I assume you take that charge very seriously, I'm going to just call a pickle a pickle, here.

I urge you to issue the strictest possible standards on plants generating electricity from fossil fuels. I'm talking zero carbon emissions. Sure, go ahead and burn the stuff; but you better not emit a single CO2 molecule in the process. I know that's tantamount to an outright ban, but the Clean Air Act gives you the power to do it, and humanity's current trajectory toward climate catastrophe gives you ample justification.

Regarding your public listening sessions, you say on your website , "Before proposing guidelines, EPA must consider how power plants with a variety of different configurations would be able to reduce carbon pollution in a cost-effective way." While it may be impolitic at the moment, I urge you to disregard how cost-effective any such reductions would be. Whatever the near-term cost, it will be far less than the toll climate change will ultimately take on Earth's biosphere.

Frankly, my preference would have been for the federal government to tax carbon, thereby generating revenue that might offset the economic pain of transitioning away from fossil fuels. Sadly, that seems – to put it mildly – unlikely to happen in time to make much of a difference. So it's up to you. Set an example for the world. Get our economy set in the right direction. Do what's right.

To quote the Big Lebowski: Her life is in your hands, dude.

Yours truly,

Jordyn Bonds 114 Dustin Street Brighton, MA 02135 (617) 549-339525 From: Royce and Sandy Truex [truex@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulation of coal-fired plants



### Dear EPA regulators,

Everyone knows that coal-fired electricity is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions in the US. Most of us know that we urgently need to make a just transition to clean energy as soon as possible. EPA rules can help make that transition happen.

Please resist the coal industry and its unwilllingness to consider anything but profits.

Thank you.

Royce Truex26 From: Lanny Shuman [lannyshuman@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: 350@350.org Subject: EPA rules on coal



### It is time to stop coal. We need to promulgate the strongest possible rules to slow and eliminate coal mining

a nd use in our Nation's energy production. We cannot continue down the pollution path. I urge you to move forward in establish tight and rules on coal use and transportation. Please make sure that you prove that the 'P' in EPA stands for Protection (of my children and grand children) and not Pollution of or environment. Thank
you.

George L (Lanny) Shuman Seattle27 From: Tarek Hijaz [satur09@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal-fired power plants



### To Whom It May Concern, A s a voter and citizen of the State of Illinois, the United States of America, and our precious and irreplaceable planet and on behalf of myself, my friends and family, the other human and non-human inhabitants of this world, and all future generations of our children, I am writing to you to express my grave concern at the terrible consequences of our continued use of fossil fuels, including coal, to generate electricity at our power plants. Due to work constraints, I am unable to make my statements at the public hearing in Chicago on November 8, 2013, so I will summarize them in the form of an e-mail. I am one of countless individuals who has accepted the irrefutable science that has clearly demonstrated that the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary cause of climate change in our time. The terrible consequences thereof, including dangerous sea level rise, increased frequency and intensity of devastating storms, ocean acidification, and mass extinction have already begun and will no doubt become much worse. The best we can hope for is to take action to sharply curb our carbon output in hopes of blunting the intensity and duration of the aforementioned consequences. There are no longer any excuses for inaction. The powerful lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry, including those for the coal industry, are without conscience and seem to only be driven by profit. I, and many others, have grown tired of the lies and deliberate misinformation being spread on their behalf. One critical step we can take is to no longer build any new coal-fired power plants and to phase out those in operation. So-called clean coal is a myth, one of many invented by the coal industry. Furthermore, there is solid data implicating particulate matter from coa-fired plants as causing serious and costly health issues, including exacerbating asthma and other respiratory diseases. Investments in clean energy and technological innovations, in particular solar and wind energy, have made their costs drop precipitously just in the past 5 years. These are the types of power generating facilities we should be building, and if the electricity from such power plants costs a bit more in the short term, so be it. It's worth it! As for the argument that ending our reliance on coal will result in a loss of jobs, it's hardly a reason not to invest in our future. There is so much more at stake than the jobs of coal miners. Furthermore, continued investments in clean energy will result in countless new jobs, perhaps even ones for which coal miners could be retrained. I urge you to take serious action on behalf of all the inhabitants of our planet. End our reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, and give us all a chance at a better future than the one that awaits us if we continue on our

current course.

Sincerely yours, Tarek A. Hijaz, MD

-- Tarek A. Hijaz, MD Assistant Professor of Radiology Division of Neuroradiology Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University Chicago, Illinois Phone: 312-695-1292 Fax: 312-695-4108 *************************************28 From: Seth Larson [data.kindnet@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 4:29 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Chicago EPA meeting



### Dear EPA folks,

I was very glad to hear about your hearing for coal powered electricity in Chicago, collecting citizen input is very important and I laud your efforts in this direction. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend. However, I still wish to share my thoughts on this subject.

I completely, and without reservation condemn any expansion to coal-generated power in the state of Illinois and the nation in general. Some facts from GreenAmerica.org: Climate Change

• Coal is the absolute dirtiest of all energy sources and the greatest contributor to global warming: coal- fired power plants are responsible for over 83% of the CO2 pollution since 1990, and have the highest ratio of CO2 output per unit of electricity out of all the fossil fuels [US DOE ]. The top three

co untries in the world building new coal plants are also among the top five for CO2 emissions per capita – the US (#1), China (#2), and India (#5) [UCSUSA ].

• Un less we move quickly to reduce and clean up our use of coal as an energy source, we will pass the tipping point beyond which the effects of global warming become irreversible.

• Get some Fast Facts about coal and climate change

. 

### Mountaintop Removal / Strip Mining

• S trip mining, also known as mountaintop removal (MTR) , flattens mountains and devastates

ec osystems. In this process, forests are clear-cut to expose the tops of mountains, which are then blown off with explosives. Coal is extracted using large machinery and the unused soil and rock are dumped into adjacent valleys, filling them up and creating a flat landscape.

• The coal companies are supposed to reclaim the land, but this rarely occurs. Even if it does, the mountain ecosystem can never be fully restored.

• MTR also produces massive amounts of toxic waste that must be stored in slurries, which may endanger nearby towns (see boxes under Toxic Waste). 

### Toxic Waste

• B oth coal mining and burning generate enormous amounts of liquid waste in the form of slurry, containing carcinogenic compounds and toxic heavy metals. The slurry is stored in large lagoons that sometimes leak or break, resulting in slurry floods and water contamination.

• Slurry spills happen all the time, but some of them are especially disastrous. In both 2000 and 2008, coal-slurry ponds in Kentucky and Tennessee burst, spilling more toxic waste into the surrounding communities than the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. In summer 2010, the EPA proposed regulating coal slurry (also known as coal ash) as hazardous waste for the first time. (Green America is currently running a campaign to supply public comment on this issue to the EPA.)

• Fo ssil fuel combustion yields over 100 million tons of waste each year. [CATF ] 

### Acid Rain

•

Acid rain is a broad term for any rain, snow, fog, gas, or particles that contain higher than normal amounts of nitric acid and sulfuric acid.

•

The acids are formed when sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) enter the atmosphere and react with water, oxygen, or other chemicals.

•

In the U.S., 59% all SO2 and 18% of all NOx emissions come from coal-fired power plants. [EPA

]

•

Acid rain causes: o
Increased acidification of waterways, killing fish and other aquatic life o

Tree and soil damage29

o
Accelerated decay of buildings and statues 

### Air Pollution

• Pollution from coal-burning power plants causes an estimated 30,000 deaths a year in the United States – that’s more than drunken driving, AIDS, or homicides. [CATF ]

• F ine particles and oxygen- blocking gases produced when coal is burned are linked to asthma, heart disease, emphysema, and lung cancer.

• NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sunlight to produce smog, which causes many kinds of health problems when inhaled. 

### Toxic Emissions

• “Coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution in the U.S.” [EPA ]

• Emissions from coal-fired power plants have been found to contain 67 air toxins that are either known or suspected carcinogens and neurotoxins that can cause a number of developmental and respiratory problems. The most dangerous of these toxins is mercury.

• Mercury is released when coal is burned and falls to the earth, ultimately making its way into the water, contaminating fish. Humans become contaminated from eating the fish. 47 states and territories issued fish consumption advisories for mercury in 2004. Mercury is most dangerous as a developmental toxin, causing brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, and other problems in fetuses and breastfeeding babies of contaminated mothers. 

### Recently I read about the destruction of Appalachia and its surrounding communities, some of America's oldest, in the heart-wrenching book by Joe Sacco and Chris Hedges, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt . The moral implications of using coal are far too great to ignore. In addition, the people of the world must immediately understand that our use of carbon fuels must cease and we will need to adopt less energy rigorous lives immediately. The government needs to take the lead in demonstrating this undeniable reality as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time.

Seth A. Larson 2337 n. SAcramento Ave #2 Chicago, IL 6064730 From: ELIZABETH SLOSS [elizabethinseattle@me.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 4:13 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Public Listening Session on coal-fired plants

RE: EPA Public Listening Session on coal-fired plants, to be held in Seattle on Thursday, November 7th 3-6pm

I am writing this letter in lieu of attending the upcoming public session. As the sole caregiver to my chronically ill husband I cannot leave him to be there.

We know that coal-fired electricity is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions in the US. I believe we need to make a just transition to clean energy as soon as possible. These EPA rules can help make that transition happen -- but not if we let the coal industry stand in the way.

Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate. From Appalachia, where the tops of mountains are blown off to mine coal, to communities living with respiratory diseases and cancers in the shadow of power plants, the coal industry has run ragged over our country. Coal CEOs continue to reap profits while ripping off workers and the planet -- and it's past time to move our country and our planet beyond fossil fuels.

Thank you for listening to the citizens of Seattle!

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Sloss (from zip code 98112)31 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Marjorie Kundiger [marjoriekundiger@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 3:41 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 15:41 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Marjorie Kundiger Email: marjoriekundiger@gmail.com Comments: Please hold all plants to the highest standards. No new cold plants and when doing evaluation do a complete picture from local to gloubal warming inpact Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards32 From: Barbara Lyons [barbaralyons1@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 3:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal regulations

Profits MUST not take precedence over the health of our children and our planet. Coal's days are numbered. Please see that the number is small. Thanks you Barbara Lyons Evanston Il33 From: GRACE HALL [gracewhall@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 3:03 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Concerning coal regulations



### Dear Sir or Madam:

I understand the EPA is having hearings this Monday on proposed coal plant regulations. I will be unable to attend the hearing or rally, but want you to know that I strongly support tighter regulations on the coal industry. Coal is currently the source of a great deal of pollution that hurts our health and our atmosphere. Very tight regulations to minimize emissions will make our country healthier and decrease the level to which energy production is contributing to climate change. Please add my name to those who strongly support your proposed rule on new regulations for the coal industry.

Thank you.

Grace Hall 1188 Broadway #307 Somerville, MA 02144

215-858-5448 gracewhall@msn.com34 From: gm [atiba1997@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 2:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: New rules on coal-fired power plants



### Just a reminder, in case you are considering relaxing emission control rules on these plants.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html

Gayle Morrow

BTW, when you look the coal lobbyist in the eye pretend to see him through your grandchildren's eyes in 2050.35 From: Willene Jaqua McRae [willene.jaqua@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 2:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Seattle Public Listening Session on November 7th



### Dear EPA,

I am writing because I have just learned of the November 7, 2013 Public Listening Session on CoalFired Plants scheduled in Seattle at the Henry Jackson Federal Building. I live in Seattle, but will be out of town that day and evening. I am so disappointed! Please include this email as proxy for my presence there. I am so grateful for the new rules that the EPA is devising as truly the most important response that I am aware of on the part of our government in face of the global warming crisis. I am completely in favor of doing everything we can to shift off fossil fuels and support new clean energies before it is too late. I do not want to be using any electricity that is generated from coal-burning, but since that is not presently an option for me, I so appreciate more stringent rules on the coal emissions.

Thank you for doing what is clearly the most important work in our nation today. I am sorry that I will not be at the Henry Jackson federal building on November 7 to show you my support and gratitude. I bet there will be a huge turnout though.

Do let me know if I can send letters of support anywhere else that would be helpful to EPA.

Thank you. Willene Jaqua McRae 202 NW 60th Street Seattle, WA 9810736 From: Josie Edwards L.Ac. [josie36@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 2:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Activity warms. Human activity warms. Cow farts warm. Greed heats the human heart. Carbon
p ollution from many sources overheats our atmosphere. Heat mixes with cold and causes convection currents. Extreme human activity and desires lead to war. War leads to fire. Fire is on the far end of the heat spectrum. Selfishness is cold. Extremes of heat and cold lead to extreme weather. Humans should sit still and meditate more, desire less and be happy. Earth is a self-regulating system of biogeochemistry. The price of carbon pollution is sicker, shorter lived, less fertile human beings. Also more extreme storms, less land mass as polar caps thaw and oceans rise. Mother Earth can shake and rattle. We have been warned. Now let's act in a way that is in accordance with our compassionate nature.37 From: JONATHAN LEIBOVIC [leibovic@gse.upenn.edu] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 2:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Philadelphia Coal Hearing



### Hello,

I 'm glad to hear that EPA will be hosting a listening session on the new coal-fired power plant rules on Friday,November 8. I also understand that the time of the session has changed due to the recent government shutdown. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the time chosen will not be accessible for many Philadelphia-area residents who would like to have their voices heard.

As you are no doubt aware, coal-fired power plants are disproportionately located in working-class communities of color. The people who have the greatest stake in these new regulations are also the people who are least likely to be able to attend a session from 10 am - 4 pm on a Friday, especially if they are working more than one job. What measures are you taking to ensure that members of the affected communities will also be able to provide input? I have no doubt that lobbyists and representatives from the fossil fuel industry will be able to take time out of their busy schedules to submit their comments, but what about everyone else?

I hope to be able to attend the hearing. I am a full-time student and will be in class on Friday until 1:30 pm.

Cheers, Jonathan Leibovic38 From: Buffy [bshake@wtechlink.us] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 1:37 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Climate Change

I am deeply concerned about climate change and what we can do about it. Shipping our resources off shore does not seem like a good idea. I am most worried about the proposed coal ports as that coal will be burned in Asia and will certainly have an effect on CO2 levels as well as more acidification of the Pacific ocean.

We need to stop using fossil fuels and start developing and promoting more clean alternatives.

Thanks for your time,

Buffy Hake 49591 River Rd Pendleton, OR. 9780139 From: Elin Hert [elinanddoug@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 1:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input; Group A-AND-R-DOCKET Subject: Coal Fired Power Plant Rules



### Dear EPA,
I am writing to tell you how happy I am with your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants. I can't tell you how important these rules are. Please do not back down in any way! I look forward to having these rules approved and in place. Sincerely, Elin Hert 216 S. 10th Avenue Bozeman, Montana 59715
406-580-357740 From: grantk928@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 1:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Please prevent further coal pollution

We have alternatives to coal in renewable energy, so it's time we use them. Please prevent f urther coal pollution. This is not a technology problem, it's a policy problem. Thank you, Grant Klein41 From: Andrew Lambe [andrew.lambe@gmail.com] on behalf of Andrew Lambe [lambe@aerodyne.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I support regulation of coal-fired power plants



### Hello,

I am an atmospheric scientist and I work in the greater Boston area. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the EPA’s public listening session in Boston this Monday (11/4), but I STRONGLY support new EPA rules/legislation to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. I would be happy to answer any followup questions or address specific issues related to your public session. Thanks!

Sincerely, Andrew Lambe

work: 978-663-9500 x 209 cell: 508-212-7138

Begin forwarded message:

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov



### -- Andrew T. Lambe, PhD Senior Scientist Aerodyne Research, Inc. www.aerodyne.com42 From: Stacy Prince [skpabc@optonline.net] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:57 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal-fired power plants

Dear EPA,

I am thrilled with your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants. I can't word this strongly enough! Please do the right thing and do not back down in any way. I look forward to your announcement that the new rules are in place.

Thank you,

Stacy Prince Westport, CT43 From: William Deutschlander [billastt@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:56 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: A Healthy Environment



### Carbon Pollution is destroying the Environment we were provided by our creator.

S cience experts by a large majority, have stated that Carbon Pollution must be reduced substantially.

We MUST establish rules that continue to clean up our atmosphere and water.

Breathable Air and Potable Water are vital for all living creatures.

Provide Rules that will stop us from destroying ourselves.

William Deutschlander 7 Solar Drive New Providence, PA 1756044 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of stulips [stulips@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:36 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 11:36 S ubmitted values are:

Name: stulips Email: stulips@hotmail.com Comments: please limit carbon pollution, no more cars, coal, oil, logging or burning of anything, only allow solar & wind power, all other kinds highly pollutive! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards45 From: Jeanette Fariborz [jeanettefariborz@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:11 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Monday's public session on coal-fired power plants



### I am unable to attend Monday's public session but as the grand-daughter of a coal miner who died from black l ung after years of suffering I urge you to take strong action in moving us to cleaner sources of energy. The coal industry is currently using methods that have increased the incidence and lowered the age of onset of black lung.

Please stand with the public instead of being swayed by the coal industry.

Sincerely, Jeanette Fariborz 118 Woodcliff Road Chestnut Hill, MA 0246746 From: Jeffrey Panciera [jeffiejimmie@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:01 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: the speed of pollution being faster than evolution



### My question is this: Given that we have spread polluting substances in our environment, most of them very toxic; Given that these toxic substances are in our bodies, in our organs, in placenta blood; Given that we are on the cusp of over-running the ability of our bees to survive in this environment, especially given the latest chemicals, the neonicotinoids; Does any scientist have an idea of the time-line in which we will arrive at a tipping point for our own species? At what point will the accumulated effect of these thousands of toxic chemicals will give a significant number of us lung, liver and kidney disease we can no longer ignore? Does the EPA see its job of protecting the environment as central to keeping us away from that tipping point, even pushing it away?47 From: Jim and Sharon Price [jasprice@isomedia.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:01 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal plants



### We totally object to the use of fossil fuels because they are not sustainable for the planet. As we transition away from

t hem as we must, we need to capture and control the emissions the coal plants subject the earth and living things to. Please toughen, don’t bow down to the industry, in making emission rules. Sharon and James Price 23406 Vashon Hwy SW Vashon Is, WA 9807048 From: Jennifer Hiebert [jenn.hiebert@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:49 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### I am writing to beg the EPA to hold firm with its proposed standards in the face of opposition from the coal i ndustry and its lobbyists. Those of us who realize the impact of carbon pollution on our children and grandchildren--and the world's poorest, as well as ecosystems everywhere--are increasingly dismayed by this country's inability to face the need for mitigation. This is a case in which the long- term damage is so destructive that it trumps whatever short-term economic disadvantage the coal industry and climate deniers wish to claim. Please keep the regulations in place. Do whatever you can to address carbon pollution!

Grateful for the EPA,

Jennifer Hiebert

--- Lauren Good & Jennifer Hiebert / Adam Good 4201 Sheridan Street | University Park, MD 20 782 301.864.9 369 | jenn.hiebert@gmail.com49 From: Tj Mathews [dumela7@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:45 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I strongly support your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants



### Dear EPA,

I am thrilled with your new proposed rules for coal-fired power plants. I can't word this strongly enough! Please do the right thing and do not back down in any way. I look forward to your announcement that the new rules are in place.

thanks,

TJ Mathews Takoma Park, MD50 From: Teresa McQueen [waterhythms@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:37 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal Feedback

As a concerned citizen, I want to contribute my feedback here since I cannot attend the
p ublic session on November 7 in Seattle. I feel strongly that coal use must be stopped. Energy sources have always needed to be sustainable and less destructive and toxic to the environment and we can no longer ignore this because the corporate rich lobby against this needed change with their political dollars. I hope you, the EPA, will represent the good for us all by making the decisions necessary to escalate the demise of dirty energy and the rapid expansion of cleaner energy. It is long overdue and action is needed now, not tomorrow. Thank you.

Teresa McQueen51 From: Brian Murray [brianmpa@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:36 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time we took our planet and its climate seriously



### To whom it may concern at the EPA:

I live in Boston. I am an American citizen, and a citizen of the world as we all are. Global warming and the climate change created by global warming is created by us, humans, with our carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases. The burning of coal for electrical generation is the greatest source of Carbon dioxide emissions into our atmosphere.

The latest IPCC report released in late September demonstrates our planet is destined to warm up by 4 - 6 degrees Celcius this Century if we do not reduce our carbon emissions now. Not next year, not by 2020, now!

Coal-fired electrical generation plants should not be built, period, and the current plants need to be taken out of service as quickly as possible.

Fight for your agency's right to control air pollution. Starting with reducing the burning of coal is the first place

to start.

Sincerely,

Brian W. Murray, Ph.D. 1575 Tremont St. Boston, MA 0212052 From: Patti Doyle [takethecannoli.psd@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:28 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Clean energy now!

Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate. We must look to wind, water and solar power. It is our only hope. Patti Doyle Seattle, WA.53 From: Chata461@cs.com Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:28 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### To Whom It May Concern:

I am sending excerpts from three articles which address the health related effects of carbon pollution on air quality. Thank you. Rosemarie Woods 4115 Holmes Kansas City, MO 64110

"On March 1st of this year, a new research study c onnecting autism and air pollution was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The largest of its kind, this study shows a correlation between autism and prenatal exposure to air pollution. With autism in the United States rising at dramatic rates over the past two decades, this study shows that air pollution may be an important contributing factor to the development of autism." ( http://www.care2.com/greenliving/autism-air-pollution -and-my-son.html Autism, Air Pollution, And My Son)

"Researchers are documenting how climate change is driving an increase in seasonal allergies. We’re not talking about some future problem, years down the line, such as sea level rise swamping the downtowns of major US cities. We are talking about today. Right now... allergies can trigger asthma attacks. And as many as one in ten children have asthma...Higher temperatures lengthen the spring and fall allergy seasons. More pollen is being produced per plant, a biochemical reaction to the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." ( http://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-climate-change- w orsens-your-allergies.html How Climate Change Worsens Your Allergies)

"...doctors and other experts believe climate change will increase the number and severity of asthma cases. Maybe your kids love getting outside to ski or fish. What’s the climate connection? Climate change is affecting snowfall and causing earlier, more dramatic spring ice melts—meaning significant shifts in snowfall during the winter as well as changing river conditions in the spring and summer (because many rivers are fed by melting snow and ice throughout the spring and summer)... As climate change worsens, droughts and extreme weather like we’ve seen recently will put even greater strain on our agriculture system– impacting the price, quality, and quantity of food ...the facts are clear: climate change is happening and it’s caused by heattrapping pollution (largely from burning fossil fuels and destroying forests)." ( http://www.care2.com/causes/climate-change-and-your-k ids.html Climate Change and Your Kids)54 From: ccarpent63@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:01 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### Carbon Pollution Standard Should be More Stringent

Sent from Windows Mail Please ensure that carbon standards for existing power plants are improved to lower carbon pollution from power plants.

Enough of devastating wildfires, droughts, floods and tornadoes that are ruining my state of Colorado and our country! Greenhouse gases need to be reduced by power plants.

Carol Carpenter Denver, Colorado55 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of George Denniston MD [geocdenn@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 7:32 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 07:32 S ubmitted values are:

Name: George Denniston MD Email: geocdenn@gmail.com Comments: I see global warming as threatening the very existence of the race. Therefore anyone who is against measures to reduce it is by definition, insane. Nothing less. So I do hope you can get c lear on reducing carbon output. thank you. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards56 From: Stephanie Clark [sclarkenterprises@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 6:55 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Best ideas for reducing carbon pollution



### Good morning,

I am unable to attend the Nov 8th EPA public sessions on carbon pollution. Existing power plants are responsible for 40 percent of the carbon pollution in the US and need strong rules in place to reduce the pollution down to 5 or zero percent. The new proposal ensures that the nation will rely on a diverse mix of energy sources such as natural gas, clean coal, nuclear power.

It is recommended that we do not depend on natural gas nor clean coal because these require destroying the environment to get the sources i.e. mining that destroys animals homes and fracking that destroys our water supply.

It is recommended that we move toward renewable source of energy as the major way of dealing with carbon pollution. More solar is needed. Please revise your proposal to include more percentage of renewable source of energy.

thank you

Stephanie clark 135 Rice Corner Road Brookfield, MA 0150657 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Elizabeth [elizabeth-grace@juno.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:47 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 00:47 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Elizabeth Email: elizabeth-grace@juno.com Comments: it is of primary importance that the carbon content in our agmosphere be reduced, or at least not increased. The strictest of regulations on carbon emissions is a first step. Moving from carbon based (or nuclear) fuel to sustainable wind and solar is another. Corporations should not be allowed to continue polluting through carbon credits. massive carbon emission should be a crime, with a high fine for the first conviction, and a discontinuation of business for a second. Fines could go to subsidize rapid development of sustainable energy, and should be high enough to be punitive, and not simply a purchasing of the right to pollute. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards58 From: Edward Greisch [edgreisch@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: carbon pollution rule for existing power plants

If we don't act immediately and take draconian action, we humans could be extinct by 2060. This is not a joke.

Please read: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/ful l "Drought Under Global Warming: a Review" by Aiguo Dai atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/adai/ This was made with data on the extent of deserts from 1870 to present. The usual General Circulation [computer] Models [GCMs] were not used. Since the sensitivity was not used, the sensitivity is irrelevant. Civilization still collapses near or shortly after mid-century this century.

See the maps of drought in the 2060s on page 15.

"Preliminary Analysis of a Global Drought Time Series" by Barton Paul Levenson, not yet published. Under BAU [Business As Usual], agriculture and civilization will collapse some time between 2050 and 2055 due to drought/desertification caused by GW [Global Warming].

Reference: "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. When agriculture collapses, civilization collapses. Fagan and Diamond told the stories of something like 2 dozen previous very small civilizations. Most of the collapses were caused by fraction of a degree climate changes. In some cases, all of that group died. On the average, 1 out of 10,000 survived. We humans could go EXTINCT in the 2050s. The 1 out of 10,000 survived because he wandered in the direction of food. If the collapse is global, there is no right direction.

We must take extreme action now. Cut CO2 production 40% by the end of 2015. [How to do this: Replace all coal fired power plants with factory built nuclear. Renewables do not work except for niche markets.] Continuing to make CO2 is the greatest imaginable GENOCIDE. We have to act NOW. Acting in 2049 will not work. Nature just doesn't work that way. All fossil fuel fired power plants must be shut down and replaced with nuclear. With factory built nuclear power plants, we can still get it done by the end of 2016.59 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jeff Reinert [jreinert2003@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 22:16 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Jeff Reinert Email: jreinert2003@yahoo.com Comments: We do need some common sense. We need to work for a sustai nable planet, and not for the self-interests of U.S. Oil. First we must admit that our actions have had a profound negative effect on carbon pollution over the past 100 years. We need to try to reverse our actions, and take a lead in making this a better place to live...for centuries, not years. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards60 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Scharmel Roussel [scharmel2008@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 9:57 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 21:57 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Scharmel Roussel Email: scharmel2008@gmail.com Comments: I am a middle-age, middle-class Christian grandmother in Arkansas, and I am pleading with you to take bold, brave, courageous action now to set limits on the amount of carbon pollution spewed into the air by power plants. The future of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are in your hands. History is being made by our collective actions. I am counting on you and praying for your
courage. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards61 From: Ron Kuts [ronkuts@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input

The carbon emissions are ruining the seasons which in turn are wrecking the food chain, the changes need to be made to reduce this awful effect on the planet.

A concerned person62 From: Edna Lord [ewlord@msn.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Reduce Carbon Pollution

Since there isn't a listening session for New Jersey, I'm forwarding some comments which I wholeheartedly support.

Existing power plants are respo nsible for 40% of the carbonpollution in the United Statespollution that causes climate change.

We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution.

Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year.

More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards.

Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effect s linked to climate change.

More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue.

We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35

- 40% reduction of carbon. Edna Lord Hillsdale, NJ63 From: Kalexandra@comcast.net Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 7:46 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution

• Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States

— pollution that causes climate change.

• We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution.

• Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year.

• More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards.

• Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change.

• More than 120 health organizati ons, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue.

• We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35

- 40% reduction of carbon. Sincerely, Kathryn Alexandra 4311 ginnett Rd Anacortes, WA 9822164 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Lori Lawrence [lawrencelorid@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 7:29 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 19:29 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Lori Lawrence Email: lawrencelorid@gmail.com Comments: There are multiple ways to reduce carbon pollution, you are familiar with them all. We know that those companies who pollute are not going to change what they do unless there are regulations imposed upon them. That is your job. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards65 From: David Kosterlitz [david.s.kosterlitz@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 6:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Please reduce carbon pollution from power plants



### Thank you.

- - David S. Kosterlitz 6209 Hollins Dr Bethesda, MD 20817

(301) 564-573466 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ben Henneke [benhenneke@cleanairaction.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 6:24 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 18:24 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Ben Henneke Email: benhenneke@cleanairaction.com Comments: The new standards are important for health reasons and also for climate change. Because political opposition is an ongoing problem, and gets refought and re- litigated at every level of implementation, I recommend that you allow offsets to be used to attai n the standard for a 5-10 year 'implementation' phase. This allows new technologies to be tried without the 'pass-fail' mentality that slows technology diffusion.

Properly created offsets will assure the attainment of the results the standards are intend ed to achieve, and will reduce the political and legal obstacles to implementation.

Good luck!

Ben Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards67 From: Natasha Gubert [an8els@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 6:14 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: pollution

dear EPA

y our mandate is to protect the public from irresponsible corporate practices that poison the environment for people and all living things. Please resist the powerful pressure to coddle business and act quickly to curtail more degradation of the environment; already we are past the tipping point of catastrophic global warming. Also catas trophic is the pollution from nuclear waste everywhere there is a nuclear facility, whether operated by a utility to boil water or by the military ..... These stats have been hidden from the public since the beginning of nuclear testing, and no one steps up to explain the obvious...the one in two cancer rate in this country. And now there is the disaster at Fukushima. Please monitor and report the pollution coming on the currents across the Pacific that will arrive on our west coast early in 2014.

I sincerely hope you and your colleagues of like mind hold together against the pressure of the revolving door. Please please please do your job and blow the whistle when you see wrongdoing. The public will thank you for your courage.

Sincerely

Natasha Gubert68 From: Steck, Theodore L. [BSD] - BMB [tsteck@bsd.uchicago.edu] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### Dear EPA,

I would like to comment regarding the current public listening sessions on carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. I am an emeritus professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at The University of Chicago. I also founded, and chaired for 15 years, the Environmental Studies Program at this institution. I have followed and taught environmental matters closely for four decades.

I want to lend my voice to the overwhelming consensus among informed individuals and experts concerning the mitigation of ongoing greenhouse gas emissions and consequent climate change. This planet and its inhabitants are already experiencing significant impacts from global warming. Our present course is very likelyto cause ever-increasing temperature rise and environmental disruption lasting for centuries. Serious longterm impacts are now unavoidable (barring drastic, novel and risky geo-engineering interventions) because of the carbon dioxide already emitted by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore only sensible that coal burning be reduced as far and as fast as possible. Coal is the most inefficient major source of energy. Fortunately, it can now be economically replaced by cleaner combustible fuels (natural gas, etc.) as well as alternative forms of energy ( e.g., wind and solar).

Thus, the President's proposed carbon pollution standards are not only wise and necessary, but feasible and attractive. Existing power plants, being the worst emitters of carbon dioxide and other pollutants as well as the least efficient provider of electricity, are a sensible target for immediate action. If carbon emission reduction is impracticable or uneconomical for existing power plants, we will be better off without them. The problems presented by the phasing out of the coal industry and coal-fired power plants are challenging but quite manageable. They should certainly not compromise our efforts to eliminate coal as a energy source as quickly as possible. (Carbon sequestration is presently not a solution to coal emissions. We should continue to develop this presently-inadequate technology, especially because it can be applied other fossil fuels if successful.)

The USA continues to be the major emitter of greenhouse gas pollution. If the rest of the world is to also mitigate its CO 2 

### emissions, this country must lead by example as well as by developing alternative t echnologies already in hand.

Thank you.

Theodore L. Steck

****************************************************** Theodore L. Steck, M.D. Professor Emeritus The University of Chicago Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/ 929 East 57th Street, W142 Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: (773) 702-1329 Fax: (773) 702-0439 e-mail: tsteck@bsd.uchicago.edu ******************************************************6970 From: Steve Rosenblum(pol1) [pol1@rosenblums.us] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon pollution standards

I am planning to attend the listening session in SF on Nov 5th but would like to make sure that my concerns are heard. Global climate change is a fact of life and it is being caused by man-made carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. We have very little time to reduce our emissions before the changes are devastating and irreversible. A minimal step to take is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Transferring the environmental and health costs of coal pollution to the producer and eventual consumer will help level the economic playing field with renewable sources of energy.The next step is to eliminate all intentional and covert subsidies to fossil fuel consumption such as the oil depletio n allowance and subsidies to the coal mining industry. Finally, we should use this recovered money to encourage the growth of the renewable energy sector such as wind and solar power to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible with the hope that these technologies will become less expensive than fossil fuels and thus allow the market to put fossil fuel industries out of business in a short time frame so we can avoid global calamity. Stephen Rosenblum 212 Santa Rita Ave Palo Alto, CA 9430171 From: Margaret [Mountainmoving101@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Clean up

This note is to express my sincere request that the EPA do more to clean the Quality of air

a s it is released from plants across the US. As a human being who deserves clean Air and a solid bill of health, I view the actions ( or inaction) of the EPA as inexcusable.

Please take a moment to realize the impact upon everyone, including your family & choose To act responsibly to cause good will toward all living beings. Perhaps a look into Universal laws where it is impossible to escape the repercussions of decisions may Be a motivating factor.

Please take action to prevent further killing of our planet earth.

Thank you

Dr. Margaret Newton

Sent from my iPad72 From: David Miller [bransonengineer@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 3:36 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Emission Reduction from existing Power Plants



### I have discovered that the Missouri Chamber of Commerce is now in the process of rallying all businesses in M issouri to oppose your new regulations to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants. Their misguided position is that the regulations will be economically devastating to Missouri. They are wrong! Please keep going with the new regulations. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce is also using fear factors to say that once EPA’s new regulations are in place for power plants, the EPA will turn th eir attention to ”the rest” of the economy and that will be a serious threat to economic competitiveness. I say “bullshit”.

The new regulations will help protect the environment so that my grandkids and their grandkids will have a clean world to live. If it were up to the Chamber of Commerce, they would allow rampant pollution to continue because it lets their members continue to make exorbitant profits by harming or destroying the environment of our state, country and planet.

So...I would request that you proceed. Get the new regulations in place and ignore the greedy stupidity of the short-term visions of groups like the Missouri Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you

David Miller

Branson, MO73 From: BJ Davies [bad1jr@att.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Jonell Davies; Miles Thompson; Lois Harder Subject: Limiting Existing Power Plant Carbon Pollution

Hello EPA public comment gatherers,

Amazingly, there are no current limits on the amout of carbon pollution that can be spewed into the public air by profit driven power plants! Limiting carbon pollution from existing power plants is essential for many reasons.

Foremost among many reasons are these two:

First, spewing carbon pollution is a giant health hazard, especially for those living near the plants. Allowing this limitless pollution is a public subsidy encouraging this DESTRUCTIVE behavior against the public. The chemicals spewed have consistently been shown to destroy the health of countless people!

Second, spewing carbon pollution is the major factor causing climate change, and existing carbon spewing power plants are a major contributor to this disastrous climate change process. Gone unchecked, climate change will destroy human life on this planet.

My public comment: Our very survival depends on limiting existing power plant carbon pollution!! Please make these limits strong, and please do it soon!

BJ Davies, 669 North Armour, Wichita, Kansas 6720674 From: Michael McMurtrey [skyking918@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:54 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: New Standards Needed



### I fully support new, tougher standards for carbon pollution for the following reasons:

• Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States—pollution that causes climate change.

•We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution.

•Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States
every year.

•More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards.

•Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change.

•More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue.

•We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbon.



## J . Michael McMurtrey 1330 Mac Arthur Dr Apt 2709 Carrollton, TX 75007-442575 From: Nick Berezansky [nickb@acereprographics.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:58 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input

We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbon. We protect

p ublic health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution. Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States--pollution that causes climate change.



### P lease, the stronger the rules, the better.

Nick Berezansky 123 Washington Pl. Ridgewood, NJ
0745076 From: Judd Williams [juddwill@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:33 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Everything in moderation. Carbon dioxide is great for champagne bubbles, fire extinguishers, and not so great beyond 350ppm in earths' atmosphere. No one wants to eat the entire cow at a meal and we shouldn't be force fed a toxic atmosphere to destroy our children's future. There is no science in question, there are easily manifest effects already and things are just getting started. It takes a long time for the kettle to begin to rumble and God help us when it is whistling. Carbon dioxide is invisible but its effects are not. The purpose of reduction is to create a healthier world. The point of denial and distraction is greed. We've seen this before. It is the nature of business to make money. Hopefully the Environmental Protection Agency is in the busine ss for the people to protect us from their externalites so we can breathe easier, and our children won't inherit the wind.

Judd Williams juddwill@pacbell.net77 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of MaryRausch [maryr425@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 14:24 S ubmitted values are:

Name: MaryRausch Email: maryr425@aol.com Comments: Something must be done immediately to prevent climate change before it's too late. Our air and water are at risk, as are our lives from storms and other dangerous weather. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards78 From: Ronald Moore [tahitibeaches@msn.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:39 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input



### Please consider the dire consequences of global warming and the catastrophic affect if will have on our

c hildren's lives. To sacrifice a portion of our GDP seems like a small price to pay. Our generation will be harshly judged for having placed profit above the future of our own environment. So, unless you have another planet to scurry off to, you better get serious about saving this one. Dr Ronald Moore79 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mr. Patrick J. Kerwin [patrickkerwin@centurylink.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 12:30 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Mr. Patrick J. Kerwin Email: patrickkerwin@centurylink.net Comments: What is the name of your governmental organization? Who created you, what is your purpose ? Please restrict carbon pollution, and fine and jail the polluters, we have scientific evidence of global warming and you can do something about it, that is your task, that is why you exist, do your job. Thank you for your attention Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards80 From: LN [ejdorfman@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA must do their job



### Hello We need to radically change this, and decrease carbon pollution NOW, it is already LATE but if we dont d o something NOW everything on this planet is doomed!

Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States— pollution that causes climate change.

• We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution.

• Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year.

• More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards.

• Children, seniors and other vulnera ble populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change.

• More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serio us public health issue.

• We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35

- 40% reduction of carbo81 From: abazikos@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:57 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: air pollution

* I have asthma- *both my sons have asthma ages 12, 16 respectively * My uncle died of emphysema *my mother died of COPD *my father died of heart disease which was exacerbated by asbestosis and pollution

I take steroids so I can breathe. The steroids make me gain weight and stress my other bodily functions.

New Jersey gets the short end of the stick all the time in regards to the jet stream. Make these money hungry inhumane practices of passing the buck stop. Air pollution leads to water pollution. When are you going to care more about the environment and your fellow man than big business? If you read Uptown Sinclairs' "The Jungle" you'd see what I was talking about. Don't talk about it. Find environmentally friendly practices that gets us off the gas industry's treadmill of coal gasoline and other petro chemicals. God Bless you for all of the good that you do.

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented auto matic download of this picture from the Internet. Respectfully yours, Antoinette Bazikos82 From: granbob@verizon.net Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:46 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: STOP !!!!



### EPA, Stop carbon pollution. Assume it’s one of your families that live next to a coal fired power plant !!

Bob Delaney Sherborn, Mass83 From: Thomas W. Bailey [atbailey@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:07 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Pollutants and CO2



### Please make the electric power generation companies include the public costs for the toxic pollutants and
CO2 they produce.

Thomas W Bailey

45 Upland Rd

Concord MA84 From: caryn graves [caryn@lmi.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:07 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Please reduce carbon pollution from power plants

T o Whom it May Concern,

Existing power plants are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution in the United Statespollution that causes climate change.

We protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution. Carbon pollution also leads to increased air pollution that can cause thousands of deaths in the United States every year. More than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards.

Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change. More than 120 health organizati ons, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Lung Association, are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue.

We need a strong carbon pollution rule for existing power plants that will ensure 35-40% reduction of carbon. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Caryn Graves Berkeley, CA85 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Chris Fox [bluedragonflydesigns@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:56 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 10:55 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Chris Fox Email: bluedragonflydesigns@gmail.com Comments: I'm concerned about climate change. There are too many unknow consiquences for human culture and the remaining flora and fauna on our planet. I'm affraid that my unborn grand children will inherit a very unpleasant and chaotic world. Please forward to Congress. Regards, Chris Fox Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards86 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Martha Susan Adams [marthasadams@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:25 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 10:25 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Martha Susan Adams Email: marthasadams@hotmail.com Comments: I am a strong supporter of reducing carbon emissions. I think that climate change is the most critical issue of our time and applaud any efforts by the EPA or the administration to address the emissions of greenhouse gases. I would be a strong support of a carbon tax, which would make it unnecessary to have these sorts of standards. Until then, though, these standards are critical. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards87 From: Parsons, Judy [Judy.Parsons@uphs.upenn.edu] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:18 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Thanks



### I would like to thank the people who insist on acting on this Global issue mainly because some of us fail to see the d amage we have done over the years versus we also have to identify and fix it. I am 100% on repairing the damages done to incur what we are experiencing presently and might even get worst if we ignore the reality that it exists. I cannot attend the session in Philadelphia but would appreciate updates. Thanks again for doing a great job!!

Judy Parsons



### Th e information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.88 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Joel Carlson [Fox7799@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:13 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 10:13 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Joel Carlson Email: Fox7799@gmail.com Comments: The key to reversing the destruction of our planet from the massive burning of fossil fuels is leaving fossil fuels in the ground. Biofuel from algae holds a lot of promise as does solar panels and Electric or Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles.

350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is what many scientists, climate experts, and national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for sustainable life on earth. For many thousands of years before human industrialization it was 180- 280 parts per million. Because of our massive burning of fossil fuels, we are now at 400 parts per million and rapidly rising. This is similar to the Permian period approx. 250 to 300 million years ago when huge volcanoes in what is now Russia raised the CO2 level to 900 ppm (parts per million) and the mean surface temperature 2 degrees C above modern level. Oceans rose significantly above modern levels, lost their oxygen and emitted deadly hydrogen sulphide gas. Nearly 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species died out. It would take millions of years, well into the Triassic period for life to recover from this catastrophe. Stopping this destruction of our planet is the most important issue of our time!

We have got to stop burning fossil fuels as fast as possible. Solar panels for homes now are affordable and make economic sense. Electric and electric hybrid cars are rapidly developing, becoming more affordable and becoming a compelling buying decision. Buildings can be made much more energy efficient. Unfortunately most Republicans are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. We must vote them out of office. We all must do our part to stop burning fossil fuels!

See http://vimeo.com/28991442 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards89 From: Jo Schaper [joschaper@socket.net] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 2:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA is going in the correct direction...

Dear Sir or Madam:

I would have never written except that I got a request to attend a listening session or write a comment to the EPA from my local Chamber of Commerce.

The US Chambers of Commerce are wrong. Emissio ns rules to limit CO2 should be put in place as soon as reasonably possible, with the goal being the elimination of the heaviest polluters, mitigation by CO2 capture and recycling, and carbon sequestration into building materials, and other solid carbonates being implemented as soon as reasonably possible.

Climate change exists. It's Halloween, the trees are still full of leaves and at peak color at latitude 38.36 degrees in Missouri. We need to do whatever we reasonably can to turn around the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, as soon as technologically and economically possible. I have a degree in geology, and studied this for an entire semester in a class on carbonate geochemistry. There are things we can do. Let's do them for our sake and that of having the planet remain a habitable place.

Without people, there is no economy, anyway.

Respectfully

Jo Schaper 46 Cedar Drive Pacific MO 6306990 From: Jon Facemire [jonfacemire@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:37 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### I would like to express my support for strict carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. I am an Engineer at ERIN Engineering where I do risk assessment for nuclear power plants and a graduate student at the University of Maryland where I am studying energy policy. I see the threat of global warming and ocean acidification as our generations greatest challenges and I believe strong CO2 controls will be the key to avoiding catastrophic consequences. As a student I have modeled energy markets and come to realize the huge impact that CO2 regulations could have. As an engineer I have worked to develop CO2 free energy solutions. I hope to spend my life working to provide clean energy to avoid dangerous climate change and I hope that strict emissions limits can help make my work successful.

Thanks, Jon Facemire91 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of M.E. Wilcox [mewilcox91@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:15 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/31/2013 - 09:14 S ubmitted values are:

Name: M.E. Wilcox Email: mewilcox91@gmail.com Comments: Because the science and evidence of climate change and global warming are factual and dire, I support restrictions on carbon emissions from power plants. I believe that we must not settle for minimal restrictions, but rather that aggressive action must be taken against the severe pollution produced by power companies. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards92 From: Jeanette MacNeille [councilpresident@millbourneborough.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:32 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Air quality and asthma

I'm one of the millions of asthmatics in our country. In a good year I'm in the emergency

r oom 4 or 5 times. In my worst year I lost count, but it was something over 17 visits. My best year was about two years ago, and I was only in there twice. I am so accustomed to the emergency room that often the first question the staff ask me is "Are you a doctor?" Honestly, no one wants to fit in so well in an emergency room that people think you belong there. Visits historically have ranged from about $4,500 to $17,500 in costs. The meds: about $3,500 a month, these days. There are the doctor visits, pulmonary function tests, the constant inhalers and the need for regular meds. It's not great.

More than all of that, we ought to be thinking of the children. I personally know 4 different kids, agest 12 -18, who've died from asthma. When you lose a kid that young honestly you've lost a whole lifetime of productivity and joy and just plain living. It stinks. And we ought to consider the kids when we think about the price required to clean up our air.

I serve as a local municipal council president. Our Borough was recently award an Air Quality Partnership Award from DVRPC, the regionally planning organization in our area. There is nothing I am prouder of, and we dedicated it to all the kids we know in the Borough who cannot breathe. We planted 161 new trees in 2012, became members of the Tree City USA program, used a firm called Eco-Goats to clear a steep bank of Japanese Knotwood rather than getting the gas-powered machinery down there. We put in speed tables to help control speeding, added legends to a state road, have worked to get new crosswalks on the same state road. We bought our street light system, upgraded the lights and saved more than $7,000 in electric costs while using 20% less energy. We had an energy audit done, and right now we're working on energy efficiency measures in our 100+ year old Borough Hall. We have tried -- unsuccessfully -- to get hybrid police cars, so that's a challenge still to be met.

From my perspective, there's no cost too high for cleaner air. I work to breathe myself every day, and as an elected official I work on cleaner air for everyone in my borough. It's a long-term fight I know and I'll be long dead before things are really better -- but please do everything you can to improve this situation.

Thank you.

Jeanette MacNeille, President, Millbourne Borough Council Cell 610-755-1445 35 North Millbourne Avenue Millbourne, PA 1908293 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Janson Thomas [jmt@jansonllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:44 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/30/2013 - 15:44 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Janson Thomas Email: jmt@jansonllc.com Comments: My name is Janson Thomas and I’m a member-owner of Platte-Clay Electric – a not-for-profit rural electric utility. I came here today because I’m very supportive of these regulations.

It’s been a difficult few years for those of us in my community. While it was hard enough to make ends meet and then we saw our take- home pay decrease as the economy declined I know that every extra dollar spent on our electricity bill is a dollar invested in saving our children’s future in a world beyond coal.

I respectfully ask the EPA to take actions that will decrease the pollution of energy companies and protect hardworking families like mine. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards94 From: Nelson Bock [nbock6552@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 1:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution Standards



### Submitting comments delivered at Oct. 30 EPA Region 8 hearing in digital format:

Te stimony at EPA region 8 hearing on regulations to reduce carbon emissions at existing power plants, Denver CO, Oct. 30, 2013

My name is Nelson Bock, and I live here in Denver. I am an ordained minister in the Lutheran Church, and have taught religion and ethics at the college level. I am also a member of the Board of Directors of Colorado Interfaith Power and Light, which, as one of 40 affiliates of the national Interfaith Power and Light movement, works to mobilize religious communities to live out their faith and their calling to be stewards of creation by taking action to help prevent catastrophic climate change. We work with congregations from all faith traditions to help them imrove the energy efficiency of their facilities, to educate their members about climate change, and to engage in advocacy for public policies which move us away from reliance on fossil fuels and towa rds sources of clean, renewable energy.

We are motivated by our faith; we know that the earth is a gift entrusted to our care. We are also informed and motivated by the science which tells us that our behavior is a primary driver of climate change. We know that the continued burning of fossil fuels for energy guarantees that we will experience catastrophic changes in the earth’s climate which will cause incalculable human suffering in the forms of famine, disease, and displacement, which will in turn ca use severe social disruption, violence, and political and economic instability, and that those least responsible for climate change—the poor of the earth—will be impacted first and worst by these eventualities.

With the unprecedented droughts, fires, and floods in Colorado the last couple of years, we have gotten just a glimpse of what is to come if we do not quickly and drastically begin to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. I do not believe we can afford to build new fossil fuel-burning power plants unless and until it is demonstrated that they can operate without further contributing to atmospheric carbon pollution, and I do not believe we can afford to allow existing power plants to continue burning fossil fuels until the end of their operational lives. We must require them to quickly begin reducing their CO2 emissions, both through the use of new technologies to remove carbon pollution at the source of generation, as well as aggressively using demand-side management tools.

The other approach we can take concurrently is to ensure that energy consumers pay the true costs—all the costs—of the energy we consume, and by that I mean the cost of remediation for all impacts to air, water, and95 

### land. Incorporating these costs into the consumer’s cost to purchase energy will cause them to reduce their use of fossil fuel-sourced energy and increase the demand for clean renewable energy.96 From: Sarah Currie-Halpern [scurrie541@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:57 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution feedback

To Whom it may concern at the EPA,

I am a NYC resident, a working Mom, and a member of my community board. I absolutely support carbon limits for major polluters including power plants, factories, etc.

Many countries around the world, including Germany, UK and even China have taken steps to reduce their carbon pollution and are seeing real results. It's time for the US to step up and back up our promises with action.

Please don't let corporate lobbyists and the "needs" of corporations stand in the way of imposing carbon pollution reduction mandates. The American people, and the health and security of future generations are relying on the EPA to make this happen.

Thank you,

Sarah Currie-Halpern 917-498-5748

Sent from my iPad97 From: Ann and Tom [annntom22@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:57 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: FW: Listen to carbon pollution opinions



### E PA: Apparently I sent this message to you while it was still in draft and without signature. Ann Deutch 4001 W Hougham Rd Trafalgar, Indiana 46181

From: annntom22@hotmail.com
To: carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov Subject: Listen to carbon pollution opinions Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:30:03 -0400

EPA: In brief-- I support requiring all power plants, especially coal plants, to significantly reduce the pollution they generate. This is true even though I know my own electric bill will rise because my power monopoly is almost exclusively coal-dependent. I have no choice between using the available electricity of going off the grid. I'd prefer to require my power company to spend the extra money to seek out and use cleaner and renewable

energy sources.

Here are a few details for your consideration:

My power company terms coalbed methane an "alternative energy". Hogwash. It is another form of fossil fuel and the new regulations must not let my power company off the hook just because of misleading vocabulary.

My State Department of Energy advocates using our abundant wind energy potential to generate electricity for sale out of state while continuing to provide dirty cheap coal power to our residents. This wrong-headed approach might be ameliorated by new federal regulations.98 From: Anika Berhang [anikaberhang@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Re: Clean Air Act



### Public comment as I am located in Los Angeles and cannot physically attend.

Th e time is now:

There can be no further delay or compromised effort to 'just curb' carbon pollution. Please remember your organization's true mission: To act and decide on behalf of the people's interest, health and safety ONLY.

Nothing should be more important than finally implementing the most stringent standards against Air Pollution. And if that means one industry's days are numbered, so be it. We need Renewables to take over asap and prolonging this transition will only harm humanities well-being further. Slay the dragon as you would rip off a band aid already: bold and swift motion.

And please, please don't be corrupt to any potential money donations trying to thwart your efforts.

Anika Berhang - EcoBroker ® 

### certified

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.



### John Aaroe Group

Sunset Strip | Beverly Hills | Downtown LA | Sherman Oaks | Pasadena 

### cell: 310.967.9233 www.anikaberhang.com www.aaroearchitectural.com www.youtube.com/user/AnikaBerhang CALBRE# 0182130099 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Brian Ramey [brianramey@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:19 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/29/2013 - 16:18 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Brian Ramey Email: brianramey@comcast.net Comments: I am proud of the EPA’s recent proposal to curb the addition of carbon from any new generating plants into our atmosphere. The urgency of making changes to the way we do things to preserve our atmosphere is critical. I know there are many ways we can contribute to reducing greenhouse gases but one element I believe we should be concentrating our efforts on is small scale solar power to replace all the many gas driven "emergency" generators sold each year to consumers who feel they must have emergency "stand by" electrical power generation capabilities. The science in providing easily portable solar power "units" for the home or business cannot be that far away. I personally googled "generators" the other day for my own home use and was surprised to find one option was solar panels. I hope we can develop a NETWORK of solar generation, through the possible use of brownfield properties in urban areas. I do worry about the Department of Energy pushing too hard to utilize large industrial solar generation on industrial sized federal lands, such as deserts as an avenue to substitute for other systems. I believe the use of large industrial solar systems has environmental consequences that are unrecoverable and will end up costing our society a great deal in the loss of critter habitat and arable land for future agriculture use.

Also please stop the shipment of coal to China please, please please.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards100 From: Ann and Tom [annntom22@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Listen to carbon pollution opinions



### EPA:
I n brief-- I support requiring all power plants, especially coal plants, to significantly reduce the pollution they generate. This is true even though I know my own electric bill will rise because my power monopoly is almost exclusively coal-dependent. I have no choice between using the available electricity of going off the grid. I'd prefer to require my power company to spend the extra money to seek out and use cleaner and renewable

energy sources.

Here are a few details for your consideration:

My power company terms coalbed methane an "alternative energy". Hogwash. It is another form of fossil fuel and the new regulations must not let my power company off the hook just because of misleading vocabulary.

My State Department of Energy advocates using our abundant wind energy potential to generate electricity for sale out of state while continuing to provide dirty cheap coal power to our residents. This wrong-headed approach might be ameliorated by new federal regulations.101 From: William Heiland [14hei@gmx.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:05 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Why are limits controversial?



### I don't understand why there such controversy over limits to carbon emissions from present power plants. Do

w e all not breath the same air? If the utilities want to be good neighbors and civic minded they should not object to limits on their stack exhaust that effects the lungs and health of all of us. Not to mention the effect on the earth's climate. I thank you for opportunity to attend the meeting in Philadelphia, Pa. on the eighth of November.102 From: Burke, Stephen J [steve.burke@nacoal.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 12:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulating Existing Coal-Fired Plants



### Good Morning,

F irst of all I appreciate EPAs desire to do the right things for the future of our country and its citizens. I wish that it was a commitment by all citizens and elected officials to work together towards a better, stronger country with more of a focus on coming together and finding more common ground. The situation in Washington today certainly leaves most Americans feeling sick to their stomachs in regard to lack of cooperation, respect, and community displayed today. And it certain spits in the face of those that have shed blood to give us the freedom that we often take for granted.

I am not going to tell you why you should not add addition regulations to coal fired power plants or how it will likely cause me to lose my job that I have been proud to have for almost 14 years. I want to focus on the country and our need to work together to take small calculated steps towards a better tomorrow with a deep, conscious and compassionate understanding of those impacted today and into the future.

I think we are missing grandpa today. Grandpa listens............listens.............says a few words......................listens................waits................never impulsive, never assumes, softly and slowly steers with a steady hand.

EPA please consider your steps carefully and with reverence towards the American people and their futures.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my input, and God Bless you all in your pursuit of a better, stronger America

Sincerely,

Steve Burke
S hort Range Engineering Th e Falkirk Mining Company Office 701-250-2440 Cell 701-426-7160 stephen.burke@nacoal.com



### N OTICE: This message may contain privileged and confidential information which is protected from disclosure. If you are not the addressee indicated in this communication (or an agent or employee responsible for delivering this communication to such person), you may not read, copy, use or disseminate this message to any other person. In such case, you should destroy this communication and kindly notify the sender immediately by reply email or telephone. Please advise the sender immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. This communication is restricted to the intended recipient and is not to be provided to a third party without the prior consent of The North American Coal Corporation or its representatives.103 From: alan apt [alanrapt@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:03 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Reducing Emissions



### Dear EPA,

Please do tighten power plant emissions dramatically ASAP. These regulations are long overdue. You know the negative impacts on human health, plant and animal life, and the climate. There will be long term economic savings, and health benefits, when these badly needed regulations force a switch to less polluting technology; especially clean, renewable energy.

Thank You.

-- Alan Apt

PH: 970-980-9027 P.O. Box 620 Nederland, CO 80466104 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Dr. James Lazell [hq@theconservationagency.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:36 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/29/2013 - 08:35 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Dr. James Lazell Email: hq@theconservationagency.org Comments: I am a professional biologist and ecologist with a long career invested in environmental conservation. We must reduce carbon pollution and overpopulation. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards105 From: Mariella Colvin [colvin@ecentral.com] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



## I am fully in support of strong pollution standards for existing power plants both for health reasons

a nd to combat climate change. (I wanted to keep this short and sweet but I feel quite strongly about this)

Mariella Colvin 3032 10th Boulder, CO 80304106 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Margy Halpin [mahchwink@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 8:37 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 10/26/2013 - 08:36 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Margy Halpin Email: mahchwink@gmail.com Comments: Thank you for all of your efforts and work on behalf of a healthy, functioning biosphere for all life.

Thank you for the listening sessions and for the opportunity for input. Sincerely, from, Margy Halpin, McLean, VA 22101 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards107 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kyle Evenson [kevenson@boileakers.org] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 5:35 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 10/25/2013 - 17:34 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Kyle Evenson Email: kevenson@boileakers.org Comments: Hope everything goes well Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards108 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Evelyn Arévalo [jaragua@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:28 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 15:28 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Evelyn Arévalo Email: jaragua@yahoo.com Comments: Carbon pollution places our children, their grandparents and those of us suffering from respiratory illness, serious conditions or face economic problems at risk. We have to protect our children and our sick from the causes of climate change. Please set strong standards for existing power plants and reduce the carbon pollution that contaminates our air and worsens our health. Gracias! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards109 From: D. R. Tucker [drtuck6@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:50 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Re: My prepared comments for 11/4 EPA hearing in Boston

The proposed EPA emissions standards for new coal-fired power plants are literal lifesavers,

n ecessary armaments in the battle against the hazards of human-caused climate change. With these new standards, the EPA has struck a blow for clean air and a stable climate.

Earlier this President Obama issued a challenge to Congress: if the House and Senate did not take affirmative steps to limit unrestrained carbon pollution, he would take action though the EPA. After many months of Congressional recalcitrance, the EPA has finally taken action-- and not a moment too soon.

These new standards will guarantee that new coal-fired plants will be state-of-the-art, implementing the best available technology to capture and sequester dangerous carbon. Thus, these standards will require accountability to public health on behalf of power providers-- an accountability that too many of these providers have long since escaped.

If you've ever heard the labored breathing of someone suffering from asthma...if you've ever known someone whose health has been diminished by perilous pollution from coal-fired power plants...if you've ever experienced the destruction to person and property caused by poisoned weather...then these new emissions standards represent a prayer answered and a promise kept. These strong standards will reduce medical bills, FEMA costs, and casualty rates. There is simply no rational argument against these new standards...and no rational basis for delaying their implementation longer than necessary.

Some may say that these new rules are either not necessary or too expensive. They're simply wrong. It is necessary to avoid the expensive risks of climate change. It is necessary to take these effective steps to protect our air and our atmosphere. It is necessary-- absolutely necessary--to implement these strong standards.

Devone R. Tucker

Sent from my iPhone110 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Katharine Hayhoe [katharine.hayhoe@ttu.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:34 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 10:34 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Katharine Hayhoe Email: katharine.hayhoe@ttu.edu Comments: As a climate scientist, my research and that of my colleagues clearly shows that human-induced climate change is already having a serious impact on human and natural systems in the United States and around the world. Future changes depend on the choices we make now: if we do not limit carbon emissions, global temperature changes will exceed +4oC by end of century and the consequences -- on agriculture, human health, water resources, infrastructure, and the economy -- will be severe. On the other hand, by setting sensible limits on emissions, we can limit global temperature change to +2oC. This lower threshold still entails consequences but, in many cases, at levels we can adapt to. Setting emission standards for power plants is a crucial and essential first step to preserving the world we will be passing on to our children. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards111 From: Mike Jones [mjones3244@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:27 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

D ear EPA,

I support a strong EPA rule limiting carbon emissions from fossil fuel-burning new power plants, with the goal of reducing the threats of climate change and related extreme weather events that ultimately jeopardize public health. The EPA's new proposal will especially help protect the health of children, seniors, individuals with cardiopulmonary disease, and those living in poverty. I live in an area with a coal burning plant and am directly affected by the air that is influenced by this plant.

Please work for the country!

Mike Jones 3244 Lake Shore Rd S Denver, NC 28037112 From: Betty Chafin Rash [bettychafinrash@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:23 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

D ear EPA,

I support a strong EPA rule limiting carbon emissions from fossil fuel-burning new power plants, with the goal of reducing the threats of climate change and related extreme weather events that ultimately jeopardize public health. The EPA's new proposal will especially help protect the health of children, seniors, individuals with cardiopulmonary disease, and those living in poverty.

Betty Chafin Rash 610 N. Pine Street Charlotte, NC 28202113 From: Phil Konigsberg [bayterracephil@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:46 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants



### I was unable to attend the public testimonial sessions available for the public to comment Wednesday, October 2 3, 2013 as intended so I would like to provide an abbreviated portion here.

I have restricted pulmonary disease and require oxygen at night combined with a BiPap respirator that I use throughout the day on a daily basis. I therefore am urging the EPA to use their authority to their fullest extent to reduce and eliminate carbon pollution that emits from existing power plants far and near the residential area of Queens County, New York in order for me and my wife (who also has lung disease) and our neighborhood to breathe clean air.

Thank you.

Ph il Konigsberg bayterracephil@msn.com Smokefree Community Advocate Queens Tobacco Control Coalition114 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mike Schuhow [captmike_e29@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:31 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/23/2013 - 21:31 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Mike Schuhow Email: captmike_e29@hotmail.com Comments: The power production industry has proven to be historically selfish in their quest for profit and adamantly defiant of any hindrance to their quest and devoid of remorse for the toxic results of their efforts. In short, I support any controls bro ught to bear on their industry to ensure our health and safety now, and for our future generations. Lord knows they will not do it themselves. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards115 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of William Heiland [14hei@gmx.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:41 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/23/2013 - 12:41 S ubmitted values are:

Name: William Heiland Email: 14hei@gmx.com Comments: There is no doubt that human activity is effecting the earth's climate. These effects have accelerated in the last twenty five years. As the recent disastrous storms throughout the world have shown. The sea ice is melting at a alarming rate, and this is affecting the ocean currents. These changing current patterns have affects not only on weather from heating up the atmosphere, but on the migration of nutrients for sea live from whales to micros copic organisms. We must reduce our fossil fuel pollution of the seas and air before these changes create a world environment that is hostile to life. An we must start now because there is no one who truly knows how much the world can adapt before there is a disastrous tipping point in the world's climate. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards116 From: Joe Spease [spease4kc@everestkc.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:45 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: economy improves with reduced carbon emissions



### To the EPA: Thank you for your efforts to reduce carbon emissions. It is very important for the future of life on the planet that

c arbon restrictions be put in place immediately. I want to emphasize that claims made by oil, gas, and coal companies of the damage to the economy from regulations

o n carbon emissions are completely false. In fact, the economy will improve by reducing carbon emissions. Employing new energy storage technologies such as compressed air energy storage, and large-scale battery storage

s ystems, we can use low-cost wind power as a baseload power replacement for coal power and natural gas power. The cost of electricity from these energy storage technologies combined with wind power is competitive right now with the fossil fuel electricity. But even better than the low cost of electricity from wind/CAES projects, is the fact that millions of new jobs would be

c reated by these renewable power baseload energy systems. A new manufacturing base would be created in the USA that could last for hundreds of years. And damaging healthcare costs from coal plant emissions would be eliminated. Arguments by fossil fuel companies that reducing carbon emissions is bad for our economy are completely false.
R egulating carbon emissions is the best thing that could happen to our economy. Thank you for hearing my comments.

Joe Spease CEO, WindSoHy 9934 Goddard Overland Park, KS 66214
913-766-9749
CELL: 913-481-2869 Jspease@windsohy.com www.windsohy.com117 From: Jared Howe [jaredchowe@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:34 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: We need to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants



### To whom it may concern,

M y name is Jared Howe and I live with my wife and family in Seattle. I am writing to you because I am very concerned about our shared future.

We have a moral obligation to our children and future generations to address the causes of climate change.

I support a strong carbon pollution standard for EXISTING power plants, which are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.

Currently we protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards against carbon pollution.

According to the American Lung Association, more than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards. Millions of children live in areas that receive an “F” rating for at least one air quality measure.

Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change.

According to a column in the New Jersey Star-Ledger, “More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society and others, are on record stating: ‘Climate change is a serious public health issue. As temperatures rise, more Americans will be exposed to conditions that can result in illness and death due to respiratory illness, heat- and weather-related stress and disease carried by insects. These health issues are likely to have the greatest impact on our most vulnerable communities, including children, older adults, those with serious health conditions and the most economically disadvantaged.’”

Please do whatever is needed to make sure that existing power plants decrease their carbon pollution. The future of our planet literally hangs in the balance.

Respectfully,

Jared Howe118 From: David Lewicki [david@ndpc.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:51 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Strong support for carbon pollution standards



### I am the pastor of a 350-member Presbyterian church in Decatur, GA.

I strongly support the EPA's new carbon pollution standards. We live a state with huge coal-powered plants, with a state energy monopoly (Georgia Power) that has limited the growth of renewable energy sources.

We experience a short term gain (lower energy prices) but grave long-term loss (health consequences, environmental degradation, climate change).

In our church, we teach that the earth is a precious gift. Care for the earth is the sacred work that all human beings share. Reducing greenhouse gases and lowering our environmental impact is part of our church's core faith practice.

Therefore, we strongly support the EPA's work to protect our environment through the implementation of these new carbon pollution standards.

Respectfully,

Rev. David Lewicki

--

Rev. David Lewicki Co-pastor North Decatur Presbyterian Church 404-636-1429 (office) www.ndpc.org119 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Monica Kraatz [mokraatz@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:24 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/23/2013 - 01:24 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Monica Kraatz Email: mokraatz@gmail.com Comments: Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

The United States currently has NO national carbon limits for fossil fuel power plants— in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans support such a commonsense solution. Energy efficiency is a clean energy solution that can save businesses and families money while creating jobs and reducing emissions of carbon pollution and other harmful air pollutants. Climate change will impact many facets of human health in the U.S., including through worsened air quality (which means more asthma attacks for our kids); increased transmission of infectious diseases from insects, food, and water; and increased impacts from extreme weather including floods, storm surges, and wildfires. In fact, American communities are already facing the high costs of climate change. In 2012, a year-long drought led to widespread crop failure in 22 states. Western wildfires burned over 9.2 million acres. And Hurricane Sandy devasta ted major population centers in the Northeast. In fact, 2012's 12 climate disasters each caused more than $1 billion dollars of damage, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The winds of change are blowing briskly. In red, purple and blue states alike, wind is meeting new electricity needs. In 2012, wind power led the nation in new capacity additions for electricity generation. Working together, our nation can power forward with clean, safe and cost-effective electricity.

We cannot delay any longer. It is time to act, and these regulations on existing power plants are an integral part of President Obama's Climate Action Plan. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards120 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of HERSHEY [hrshjulien37@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:36 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 22:36 S ubmitted values are:

Name: HERSHEY Email: hrshjulien37@gmail.com Comments: I know of no practical way to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. They should all be replaced by plants deriving energy from liquid fluoride thorium reactors (molten salt reactors-- MSR). Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards121 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Richard Scoles [stargazer1944@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 20:21 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Richard Scoles Email: stargazer1944@hotmail.com Comments: Regardless of the specific details, we must establish and adhere to stringent carbon pollution standards for new and existing power plants. In addition, efforts toward reducing our waste of energy by private business and state and local governmental bodies must likewise be addressed. The detrimental effect of fossil fuel use on climate change and the health of our planet are already evident and compounding at a rate far beyond expectations. The future of our children and grandchildren are in the balance now. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards122 From: Barbara Walker [bwalker@ibcbanks.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 6:07 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Dear EPA,

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on carbon pollution standards for existing sources.

For 60 years I have lived primarily in Denver, Colorado. While we have greatly improved Denver’s pollution
p roblems over the past, I know first- hand that its pollution exacerbated my breathing problems, including asthma. It was not until we bought a second home in the foothills of Tucson did I realize how Denver’s pollution still adversely impacts my breathing. We just moved out of Denver to the foothills west of Denver, and I am breathing better. Not to mention my eye itchiness is gone when I am in either out-of-Denver location. I am not alone in my personal reaction to pollution, as discussed below.

Now, after 60 years of living, I am first-hand experiencing dramatic swings in our weather. Changes I can attest to f rom the weather when I was growing up, to the horrific weather disasters in the past 10 to 15 years. Drought in both states that I witness firsthand. Native vegetation in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert is dying at an alarming rate. A monsoon storm so fierce, I could see its destruction on the side of the Catalina Mountains at the base of Mount Lemmon from two miles away as the crow flies where we live. I don’t need to remind you of Colorado’s recent horrific Front Range floods.

I believe firmly we are responsible for these dramatic weather patterns across the globe. I also believe we have a

m oral obligation to our children and future generations to address the causes of climate change. I strongly support a strong carbon pollution standard for EXISTING power plants, which are responsible for 40% of the carbon pollution that causes climate change. We already realized we need to protect public health from mercury, arsenic, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards against carbon pollution. Why? The strength of and financial contributions by the carbon industries. As a lobbyist, I see this power first hand. Our government must stand firm against this influence and stand firm for our citizens and our planet.

As described above, I have experience first-hand the dangerous impacts of carbon pollution on my own health.
A ccording to the American Lung Association, more than 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by strong carbon pollution standards. Millions of children live in areas that receive an “F” rating for at least one air quality measure. Children, seniors and other vulnerable populations like me are at a higher risk of the health effects linked to climate change. According to a column in the New Jersey Star-Ledger, “More than 120 health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society and others, are on record stating: ‘Climate change is a serious public health issue. As temperatures rise, more Americans will be exposed to conditions that can result in illness and death due to respiratory illness, heat- and weather-related stress and disease carried by insects. These health issues are likely to have the greatest impact on our most vulnerable communities, including children, older adults, those with serious health conditions and the most economically disadvantaged.’” [Star Ledger (NJ), 5/15/12 ]

Please do what is morally correct and strengthen carbon pollution standards for existing sources. These rich mega

c ompanies will continue to thrive in spite of their protestations of financial ruin. Nonsense.123 

# Barbara Walker

5450 Windsong Court, Morrison CO 80465 and 5348 North Fort Yuma Trail, Tucson AZ 85750 / 303.722.7852 / walkerfeigin@msn.com124 From: Holly Hunnicutt [hhunnicutt@mail.rockefeller.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:37 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: please help the planet



### Dear EPA,

I t is time to place limits on carbon pollution, the leading cause of greenhouse gas and global warming. Please do set these limits without delay, in the name of the planet and every living thing on it.

Sincerely, Holly

~~~ Holly Hunnicutt HHMI/Rockefeller University hollyh@rockefeller.edu 212.327.7242125 From: Eleanor MacLellan [elmac104@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### • The United States currently has NO national carbon limits for fossil fuel power plants—in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans

s upport such a commonsense solution.



### • Energy efficiency is a clean energy solution that can save businesses and families money while creating jobs and reducing emissions

o f carbon pollution and other harmful air pollutants.



### • Climate change will impact many facets of human health in the U.S., including through worsened air quality (which means more

a sthma attacks for our kids); increased transmission of infectious diseases from insects, food, and water; and increased impacts from extreme weather including floods, storm surges, and wildfires.



### • In fact, American communities are already facing the high costs of climate change. In 2012, a year-long drought led to widespread

c rop failure in 22 states. Western wildfires burned over 9.2 million acres. And Hurricane Sandy devastated major populat ion centers in the Northeast. In fact, 2012's 12 climate disasters each caused more than $1 billion dollars of damage, according to the National Climatic Data Center.



### • The winds of change are blowing briskly. In red, purple and blue states alike, wind is meeting new electricity needs. In 2012, wind
p ower led the nation in new capacity additions for electricity generation. Working together, our nation can power forward with clean, safe and cost-effective electricity. The above statements encapsulate my feelings about national carbon limits. Of course, we must limit carbon emissions. The price of global

w arming is too severe!

Eleanor MacLellan, C ambridge, MA.126 From: Kay Coats [umome@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment Regarding Carbon Pollution Standards, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495



### EPA Policy Makers:

Governments are rarely proactive in dealing with future realities demanding great changes in perspective, preferring rather to ignore coming realities until they are overwhelmingly obvious. Do have the foresight and courage to acknowledge that in little over 200 years the impact of relying on the use of fossel fuels for energy has created an ensuing climate change that will by the end of this century, inundate the world's port cities with at least several feet of water. The effect of Hurricane Sandy only gave New York City a taste of what is coming.

Your duty to this country is to put in place the strictest and lowest carbon emissions standards on power plants, transportation, etc., legally possible, until the laws and energy sources for replacing the use of fossil fuels finally defeat the money, power and influence of its vested interests.

Thank you, Marilyn K. Coats 119 Second Ave. SE Magee, MS 39111127 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Bruce Willock [bhw2@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:41 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 13:41 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Bruce Willock Email: bhw2@aol.com Comments: I am 80 year old, an "ordinary citizen" with no technical expertise but, hopefully, some

common sense. I agree with the international scientific experts regarding GHGs and global warming. BUT, even if the skeptics are right, a"do nothing" approach today is too risky, and the price to future generations too great, if they are wrong. The sane approach is to reduce GHGs worldwide, from all sources, as quickly as possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to express this opinion. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards128 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ken [Oldshipkrb@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:03 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 13:02 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Ken Email: Oldshipkrb@comcast.net Comments: Please tightly regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants. The climate change crisis is upon us, and we have no time to lose. Future generations will judge us, and appropriately so. Thank you for all you can do. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards129 From: fmoolten [fmoolten@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:07 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Dear EPA Administrators,

I vigorously applaud EPA efforts to restrict carbon emissions. I will not be able to attend any of the listening sessions, but in addition to offering my support here, I thought it worthwhile to call your attention to plans for orchestrated opposition to EPA regulations. Among these are efforts by contrarian climate blogs to encourage their audiences to contribute negative views. One example is the widely read blog, Watts Up With That (WUWT), as illustrated in this piece - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/epa-to-listen-then-presumably-ignore-the-public-on-power-plant-co2- emissions/#more-96110 . You are probably already aware of these actions, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention them again in case there is any inclination to judge responses simply by the number of respondents.

With best wishes for success.

Sincerely,

Fred Moolten130 From: Ate Atema [ate@Atemanyc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:47 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: 111(d) Carbon Pollution Standards For Existing Power Plants NYC Public Listening Session

Dear EPA,

I hope you’ll factor in the long-term economic and human costs of carbon pollution to our country and beyond over the short-term

e conomic concerns of plant owners and our energy needs, and strongly support tighter limits on carbon pollution from our coun try’s power plants.

The costs our country will incur to cope with adjusting infrastructure alone to accommodate rising sea levels and thawing

p ermafrost alone will dwarf any shorter-term economic upside in lower power generation costs. Increased severe weather and related phenomena of flooding, mudslides, drought, crop losses, and forest fires will also force major resettlement and infrastructure changes, and cost our country $140B just last year. This will also result in increased health care and agricultural costs due to increased disease and pest activity, and the attendant increase in human suffering associated with all these trends.

Since power plants generate 40% of our carbon pollution, it is critical that we focus on reducing their carbon emissions as much as

p ossible to minimize their long-term costs and consequences to our economy and citizens.

Regards,

Ate Atema Principal, Atema Architecture New York, NY131 From: Dick Guldi [rlguldi@tx.rr.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:08 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Input for Carbon Pollution Reduction

I want to submit my input for Carbon Pollution Reduction since I will be unable to attend the session in Dallas due to travel plans.

I would like to tell you about my personal experience with lignite fired power plants in Texas. My father worked for Alcoa Aluminum in Rockdale Tx, where lignite was burned to generate power to smelt aluminum. While I was happy that my father had a job, I was unhappy to breath the air in Rockdale. Every trip I made there - some 300 trips between 1971 and whenever they shut down the old lignite fired plant, my noise started dripping as soon as I got out of the car, and it didn't stop until I got home. The first time I visited Rockdale after the old generator plant was taken off line, I had no nose problems, and I never did in
50 or so subsequent trips. That makes 300 trips with the old lignite plant where I always had nasal drip and 50 trips after it was turned off where I never had the drip - a pretty conclusive demonstration that dirty air is unhealthy. I'm the canary for society. My nose is more sensitive than other people's, and my nose tells us that Rockdale air was bad from that old lignite burning plant. My nose dripped to try to cleanse the air pollution.

Now regarding the current situation in Texas, I'm sure y ou know that Texas has something like four of the five dirtiest coal plants in the United States. These dirty plants need to be retired right away.

The first thing this situation shows is that some states, like Texas, have fought against clean air practices tooth and nail since the beginning of time. Texas legislators are more interested in letting industry do whatever it likes than in keeping people healthy. The first lesson is that only the EPA can help us get clean air, and we need very strong EPA activity towards this end.

The second issue associated with these dirty coal plants, as you most also likely know, is that their nearly bankrupt owner, Luminant, will likely have to sell their coal plants to another company. We fear that the other company may somehow manage to remain exempt from clean air laws and thus be able to continue operating the dirty plants. This would be reprehensible. The plants are a significant source of air pollution in the Dallas-Ft Worth Metroplex, 8.8 million people live in a non-attainment area, and where the asthma rate is twice the national average. Please do not allow the old dirty Luminant coal plants to continue to operate.

The next input is that the EPA needs to accelerate the transition to clean energy. Natural gas is NOT green energy, and don't let anyone get confused on this. I have friends in Arlington, TX whose families have gotten cancer since fracking began across the street from their house. Arlington citizens report frequent noxious smells, dirty air from diesel trucks and pumps, and a nine foot sinkhole. Parker County Texas has just had its second verified case of methane pollution in a family well, this case was even acknowledged by the Texas Railroad Commission, an agency that has been as notoriously pro fossil fuels as can possibly be imagined. Last week, Ovilla, a small community 15 miles SW of Dallas, had its first earthquake in recorded history - near a frac king disposal well. The most recent survey shows that 49% of Americans oppose fracking. That fraction is going to increase, not decrease.132 San Antonio and Austin often get over 50% of their electricity from wind and solar. North Texas could do this if w e could expedite building infrastructure to bring in more electricity from wind farms in the Panhandle. Austin subsidizes the installation of solar panels on family homes in quantities to sufficient to generate 100% of a family's previous year's energy, but Dallas subsidizes only 70%. Last month, our family and five of our friends installed solar panels on our homes, and we couldn't be more pleased. It the Dallas Metroplex had subsidies like those in Austin, we could accelerate the use of solar energy.

Don't let the fossil fuel industry complain that wind and solar energy have an unfair advantage in being subsidized. Many studies have shown that their subsidies are a small fraction of the costs to society from harmful side effects of the fossil fuel industries, that are born completely by citizens. Last month, my homeowner's insurance increased 25% in a single year due to costs of repairing roofs damaged by the increasing number of hail storms all over Texas as the earth heats up. That's $500 each year that the fossil fuel industry cost me just for the roof of my house. With North Texas asthma cases occurring at a frequency twice as great as the US average, over 100 Dallas physicians now oppose fracking because it exacerbates asthma.

Lastly, three tar sands pipeline through metropolitan centers and their reservoirs threaten to rupture as they have in Kalamazoo and Mayflower Arkansas, making people sick and polluting water. The repurposed 38-year old Seaway tar sands pipeline, similar to the repurposed 57- year old Pegasus tar sands pipeline, runs for a distance of 40 miles within one of five north Texas reservoirs. The probability that it will rupture, like its worn out cousins, and destroy a reservoir is 30% over 30 years, and a contaminated lake will drain into the Trinity River, a water source for Houston and for the Texas rice farmers. Destruction of one North Texas reservoir would deprive 8.8 million people of 10% of their water effectively forever, because you can't remove arsenic and mercury from the bottom of a lake. None of our Texas municipalities have the capability to detect or remove other harmful substances contained in tar sands crude, including carcinogenic benzene, xylene, toluene, and naptha. And finally, we now have well documented evidence that TransCanada's Keystone-Gulf tar sands pipeline in East Texas was installed using procedures known to have led to leaks on their previous pipelines. Over 80 sections of pipe were removed and 'replaced', but the replacement also involved faulty methodology. It is very likely that Keystone-Gulf will rupture soon after it starts up.

Lord, help us. We're depending on the EPA.

Thank you very much, Richard and Christine Guldi 7228 La Sobrina Dr Dallas, Tx 75248 972-239-5878133 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Laura Merli [merll431@newschool.edu] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 11:59 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 11:58 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Laura Merli Email: merll431@newschool.edu Comments: The new standards on power plants are a good step forward, but do not go far enough in limiting emissions. My generation is aware of the irreparable harm that methods of power generation have already caused human health and the environment. At a time when WHO has added air pollution to its list of carcinogens, and less harmful power generation technologies are available, existing power plants should not get a free pass to harm humanity. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards134 From: Jacqueline Victor [Jacqueline.Victor@du.edu] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: fracking

Importance: High

Dear anyone with a conscience, It is clear that we need to clean up dirty power plants or continue to suffer the consequences on our health and environment—effects that cannot be reversed once the pollutants have drifted to the earth's surface and water. Another bigger problem is that the EPA with the president's current policy of fracking us to DEATH is dropping the ball on reporting just how extremely dirty fracking is—huge amounts of methane and CO2,etc. released into the atmosphere adding to global warming not to mention the water pollution it causes with the horendous chemicals the process uses to extract these carbon fuels, earthquakes, etc. It is a huge step backwards ands threatens the entire world as much as loosing our democracy does—if not more. Stand up and fight for us, not for corporations who could care less how much of the entire world they completely spoil. If the EPA and the FDA are working for the corporate world and tied to political pressures, we are all screwed. This should be beyond illegal. Fracking is killing us.

Sincerely, Jacqueline Victor135 From: Tammy Ellis [ellis.tammy.tammy@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 5:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: CHILDREN AT RISK FOR ASHMA TODAY



### I am a mother of three children. Two born in the 90's and one born in 2000. The one born in 2000 has ashma
p roblems every month of the year. My Family has no history of Ashma. This is Pollution. A toxic chemical, called Carcinogens that cause Cancer.

This could be in products and the Air. Soda company's are the biggest Polluters. The Government has to do something now. Thank-u. Tammy Ellis ellis.tammy.tammy@gmail.com136 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jim Fary [jimfary@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:50 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/17/2013 - 16:49 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Jim Fary Email: jimfary@earthlink.net Comments: For our families and our future, we need strong carbon pollution standards. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards137 From: Shaun Walker [xshaun75@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 7:56 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Humans are not put on Earth to make money..
W ake up:) Please Free energy technology exists, there is no need to rape our home planet for coal and/or oil. Do you care? Karma is real:)

*YoU aRe LoVeD*138 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Aaron Wesche [Wesche@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 19:40 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Aaron Wesche Email: Wesche@gmail.com Comments: We have been creating energy the same way for hundreds of years, burning fossil fuels and putting off carbon emissions. Recently it has been proven that this is having a catastrophic affect of the ecosystem of Earth. I understand that many people support themselves and their families by working in the coal and oilfield industries, but that doesn't justify the organized destruction of our planet. There are clean energy sources that typically cost less than fossil fuel combustion of any kind. We need to put coal power where it belongs, in history books and museums. there is no if and or but, carbon emissions need to be reduced drastically within the next decade or we will be facing some much more serious problems. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards139 From: jhjennings@juno.com Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments on climate chamge



### Dear EPA

I n 1977-78 I worked in the lab at SIO led by Dr. Keeling that monitored the world's CO2 and I know climate change is a problem. The fossil fuel usage must go down. I feel that the U.S. should not drill for oil in the Arctic and should not build the Keystone pipeline. Also, vehicles that use electricity should be used and there should be solar cells in deserts like the Mojave in California to harvest energy and windmills and other creative ways of gathering energy should be employed. Somehow there needs to be enough pressure on recalcitrant money-making interests to stem the tide of climate change. Then and only then we will have a livable planet.

For you information I am a published scientist with two articles in mathematical biology and two in physical chemistry and am a Phi Beta Kappa graduate in Chemistry. Thank you for your attention. I'm going to try to attend the workshop in downtown San Francisco on November 5th and I'm praying for peace.

Respectfully,

John H. Jennings Jennings Research & Editing 2530 Hillegass Ave. #307 Berkeley, CA 94704140 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Tracey Sherry [tsherry@gnoyo.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 4:19 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/15/2013 - 16:18 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Tracey Sherry Email: tsherry@gnoyo.org Comments: CO2 pollution from power plants must be eliminated for the sake of future generations. Sustainable, non-fossil fu el power is our only hope. Our future depends upon the EPA's setting standards that will eliminate the financial viability of fossil fuel-based power generation. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards141 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Gordon S. Bates [gsbates34@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:07 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 10/12/2013 - 14:07 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Gordon S. Bates Email: gsbates34@yahoo.com Comments: While I have not read all the details of the proposed regulations for new power plants, they appear to be reasonable and compelling, given the threats now virtually certain regarding green house gas emissions. I add my voice to those urging their implementation as soon as possilble. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards142 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Julie L Webster [websterjl@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 6:43 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 10/11/2013 - 18:42 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Julie L Webster Email: websterjl@comcast.net Comments: Dear Sir/Madame -- I support the most stringent carbon pollution standards possible. Health should always trump fiscal concerns. Without health, money has no purpose. Thank you for fighting for our health! Julie Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards143 From: Marilyn Ortt [marilynortt@suddenlink.net] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2013 9:50 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: reduction of carbon from fossil-fuel power plants

Since Congress is not acting on this vital matter, it is critical that USEPA proceed with carbon reduction standards. Marilyn Ortt 701 Colegate Dr. Marietta, OH 45750144 From: bobbywego@gmail.com on behalf of Bobby Wengronowitz [robert.wengronowitz@bc.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:48 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input; Renahan, Kate Subject: Carbon pollution standards for power plants



### To whom it may concern,

A s a U.S. citizen, I have been ashamed of my country's inaction regarding anthropogenic global warming. Should EPA set strict standards on extant power plants and even stricter standards on future power plants, I might be less ashamed of our position on this most important area of global concern. I would like to have children, but am afraid to bring new life into a world that may not be hospitable to human civilization. With this email, I urge the EPA to take bold action regarding power plant carbon emissions.

Sincerely,

********************************** Robert J. Wengronowitz Boston College Sociology Doctoral Student robert.wengronowitz@bc.edu ********************************** 410A McGuinn Hall 140 Commonwealth Avenue Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA

**********************************145 From: rshamel@juno.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: susanshamel@gmail.com Subject: Carbon Pollution Comments from Concerned NH Citizens



### Dear EPA Administrators,

I am Roger Shamel, a citizen of Hillsborough, NH. I have advanced degrees in Chemistry (from Ohio State U.) and in Business Administration (from Harvard U. I also run a chemical management consulting business. I'm also a veteran, a father and a grandfather. My wife, Susan, is a physical therapist, with a degree from Ohio State. We agree on the following.

Please do all you can to control carbon pollution from power plants. These plants, as you know, contribute a large amount of CO2 to our atmosphere with the result that serious climate is already underway in the US and worldwide. Climate change is hard for many people to see or understand because it is a relatively complex scientific concept. This makes it easy for the fossil fuel-related businesses to keep the public confused, by giving money to front groups, politicians and PR firms who help them preserve the profitable status quo, and at our expense. As you also know, from the climate change information summarized at www.globalchange.gov

, from the IPCC's ongoing reports, and from other sources, unmitigated climate change will have very serious consequences for all of humankind, not to mention the US citizens you are charged with protecting via a clean environment. It's time to do or die, so act!

In summary, carbon pollution-based climate change is real, serious, and deadly. We need the US government, through the EPA, to put carbon pollution rules into effect--to protect the public. Even Adam Smith, the proverbial father of the free ma rket system, realized that regulation was necessary in order to prevent businesses from running rampant over the public.

Very truly yours,

Roger E Shamel & Susan A Shamel 262 E Washington Rd Hillsborough, NH 03244146 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Carolyn Dry [drycementmixer@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 6:33 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 09/23/2013 - 06:32 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Carolyn Dry Email: drycementmixer@aol.com Comments: I hope this increases the restrictions I live in MN under the emissions from Dairyland power in WISC and it has really affected my life. I look outside and if there is too much white stuff in the air I dont go out . I know that the ash is full of heavy metals and radioactive materials which I do not want in my lungs We in Winona MN could be a recreational area being on the Mississippi river BUT the air quality is bad and it affects everything especially my 71 year old energy level I do not give them the right to ruin my air Please please make them stop polluting my air and lungs. Yes I know that DIaryland sett led a lawsuit for 500 million for polluting and had an offer to improve the air and it did get somewhat better but still white greyish air is not what I want to breathe thanks and I want standards for old power plants to be as high as for new ones WHy the difference? Carolyn Dry Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards147 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Michele [mmer_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 9:26 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 09/22/2013 - 09:26 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Michele Email: mmer_2000@yahoo.com Comments: Great news! This is long overdue, and is an important step in curbing greenhouse gases. Thanks! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards148 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of JAIME P. IMBAT [jaimeimbat@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 11:13 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 23:12 S ubmitted values are:

Name: JAIME P. IMBAT Email: jaimeimbat@gmail.com Comments: THE REAL TRUTH ( CLEAN COAL TECHNOLO GY) IN ORDER THAT COAL EMITS WHITE SMOKE INSTEAD OF SUPER BLACK INDUSTRIES ADD PULVERIZED LIME AT THE BOTTOM PART OF THE CHIMNEY (PULVERIZED LIME IS 60% KEY COMPONENTS ON THE PRODUCTION OF CEMENT, IN BILLIONS OF METRIC TONS YEARLY) THUS MAKING OUR AIR HARD TO BREATH WITH OR ON WORST WE WILL BE CEMENTING OUR BLUE SKIES, SEE WHAT HAPPEN AT THE RUSSIAN INCIDENT LAST JAN 2013 THAT HILLS THOUSANDS, MORE ROCKS WILL BE POURING ON THE CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY (CCT) SMOKE EMITTED WILL BE PUMP UNDERGROUND, SMOKE CON FINED WILL FORM POISONOUS GAS WHEN LEAKS ( IN VOLCANOES OR EARTH CRACK) CAN KILL HUMAN BEINGS INSTANTLY, MORE DANGEROUS THAN CLIMATE CHANGE , A SIGNAL TO THE END OF THE WORLD. IT IS A MUST THAT WE MUST ABOLISH THE FUEL COAL, WE THE FUEL WITH EVERLASTING SUPPLY TO POWER ALL INDUSTRIES RUN BY COAL. THE FUEL EMITS NEUTRAL CO2 THE AGENDA IN ALL THE COOPERATION OF PARTIES UNITED NATION FRAMEWORK CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE ( COP-UNFCCC) Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards149 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of JAIME P. IMBAT [jaimeimbat@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 10:51 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 22:50 S ubmitted values are:

Name: JAIME P. IMBAT Email: jaimeimbat@gmail.com Comments: COAL MUST BE ABOLISH, IT EMITS 25 BILLION METRIC TONS CO2 YEARLY (SOURCE AWAKE) THE
CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE THAT NOW BEGINS TO RUIN OUR P LANET EARTH, WE HAVE THE FUEL TO REPLACE FUEL COAL WITH EVERLASTING SUPPLY. IT EMITS NEUTRAL CO2. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards150 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of John Olson [jf_olson@me.com] Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:46 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 09:45 S ubmitted values are:

Name: John Olson Email: jf_olson@me.com Comments: I would like to make a comment in favour of the proposed regulation of carbon emissions from new power plants, but the website which tells me how to do that ( http://www2.epa.gov/carbonpollution-standards/how-comment-2013-proposed-carbon-pollution-standard-new-power-plants ), doesn't work. First, I can't find the docket on regulations.gov. Second, you provide a link to "Carbon pollution standards" website ( http://www2.epa.gov/node/39387 ), but that link takes me to a "page not found."

I'd like to encourage my friends to comment as well, so I hope you'll get your system ready to actually receive comments.

J Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards151 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of pascal molineaux [pmolineaux@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:04 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 09:03 S ubmitted values are:

Name: pascal molineaux Email: pmolineaux@gmail.com Comments: Well done! It is the right thing to do, but now must be made compulsory on old coal-fired power plants too. Human-induced global cliamte change is too serious a matter to be dithering on such issues. The EPA MUST enforce stricter air quality standards and lead. THANKYOU! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards152 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Pamela Walker [crispinwalker.pam@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:10 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 02:10 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Pamela Walker Email: crispinwalker.pam@gmail.com Comments: I am 100% behind the President's efforts to lessen the impact of carbon pollution from power plants, even at a slight cost to our struggling economy. The healthcare costs that result from industrial pollution can be reigned in through legislation, just as fuel economy has lessened harmful emissions from cars. The health and purity of our air, water, soils, oceans and environment generally must take priority over profits. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards153 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:34 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 21:34 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Email: Comments: January 15, 2013 OILS WELL THAT ENDS IN A WELL

re: Global Warming or Core of the Matter

With all the talk about global warming and how we as man need to do somthing about it now, Well, I say yes, lets do something now. Although my "something" is a little different in approach as far as the regular procedure(s) we are asked to follow, that of which , dont seem to be working.

So I would like to propose a different approach in handling this problem. I say to attack the problem at it's core then the one thing we need to do is "STOP PUMPING OIL". One may think this is an odd approach but let me give you a few reasons:

Take into account that oil is a natural resource. Natural, yes...resource, no. By taking a look at the center (the core) of the earth, we can see that other than the sun this is the hottest area closest to man. Over 90% of the earth's core is liquid iron thus leaving the remaining10 percent solid. The liquid portion spins opposite that of it's solid part therefore giving the earth it's gravitational make-up. The earth is made up of the core (iron) the mantle, the crust and the surface. Throughout the entire earth there is or at least was many oil deposits. These deposits are at different depths, areas, under water, under land everywhere inside this ball of rock. We as the United States of America are not the only ones pumping the oil out. Every other country is also doing the same. Let me give you something to think about...The core of the earth is so extremeley hot that in order for the heat not to reach the surface of the earth, it has the mantle, which kind of works somewhat like a heat deflector or a porcelin-type shield. Although this is the case, the mantle does not. nor can it maintain this job itself. Now, this is where "oil" comes in to play.

Oil, along with the mantle works as a natural insulator whereas, to p rovide a barrier to keep the internal heat from the core from reaching the surface of the earth. Compare hot spots on the surface of the earth along side areas known to have been drilled for oil. Even as science confirms the oceans are heating up. Science is telling us that ice- caps and glaciers are melting away more rapidly than at any other time we know of. This is due to global warming. No, it is not...If we were to take a look at footage of these massive rocks of ice, clearly we would see they are not melting, as an ice cube in the sun, but they are154 crumbling. They are crumbling becaause when the foundation of an object is weaker than that of which it supports most likely the object is going to crumble. This is not rocket science but simple common sense.

Earth Quakes are another phenomenom man seems to be baffled by, when clearly we can see a contributing factor if we look a little more closely into the matter itself. Earthquakes seem to occur when an underground land mass shifts. Same, can be said under the ocean as well. Oil has been pumped out of the ground for nearly two-hundred years. Not in just one spot but all over the entire earth. Can we be expected to believe this has no effect or impact on the natural functions the earth has been doing since it's existance? Oil has been pumped out of the ground in several locations and at different depths inside the earth. The problem here is that we are taking out and not putting in. What is happening is that there are major empty oil veins and gapping holes throughout the entire earth. We can almost say the earth is collapsing in upon itself. The same goes for beneath our oceans... Lets take a look at the tsunami that struck indonesia, What happened: an earthquake several miles out to sea, under the ocean occurs. The ground opens up and water is sucked into this hole as the water is receeding from the shore. Once the hole is filled the pressure shoots the water back up at an alarming rate causing a massive Tsunami. One can say that we have always had natural disasters, always. I say, yes we have but not at the increasing frequencies nor the magnitude of such.

Another problem taking this natural insulation from the ground is drought. We have become no closer nor further away from the sun so how is drought affecting the ground? Think, for a minute on a grander scale than what we are used to. Again, oil is a natural insulation and works along side the earths mantle in maintaining the internal temperature from the center of the earth. It keeps or helps to maintain such that it does not reach the surface of the earth. Due to the natural insulation thus being removed, the heat from the core is being allowed to reach closer to the surface of the earth and absorbing the moisture on the surface more so than ever before. Yes, the sun is the most powerful energy source and provides evaporation for clouds as well as other natural functions. However, because the heat from the core is reaching the surface more so than it has ever done the evaporation rate is less and the absorbtion rate is increased. This is a major off-set in the natural progression of the cycle. The evaporation rate is still performing. However, the absorbtion rate is now much quicker therefore the water is taken from the grou nd and absorbed only to dry up. In turn we see the surface of certain areas of the ground throughout the earth dried up arid and cracking. There are other aspects which also affect this on- going destructive behavior but this is just to name a few.

Let's be real, You know as well as I do that oil is a commodity that man just seem's unable to do without. No matter what the consequences are for us as well as future generations, oil, seem's to be in every aspect and mostly every product produced by man. I highly doubt even to cut back on drilling would be something we are willing to do. Money plays to big of a role in this chapter of history and the powers that be would probably feel threatened by the idea of even suggesting such an absurd proposal. Unless we can come up with an alternative as well as a cleaner and more effeciant replacement, the irreversable damage will only increase until the global community realizes the impact is to great to ignore and start pointing fingers at each other and this eventually will lead to a fall- out and collapse of major institutions throughout the globe.

This will be no easy task, but here is a temporary solution, but one of which will only slow down the onset of such disaster. If we take a look at all the fuel produ ced from oil, mostly gasoline, we could see that instead of producing the different octanes for particular vehicles we should limit the production to that of the lowest of the most common three: 91, 89 and 87.155 instead of investing the time in producing the other octane as well as the cost of such, we could then invest in production of one grade of fuel along with research and developement going towards solid research to approach and/or solve the problem we face.

In closing, let me say that the above is only a formed opinion by myself in which I am entitled to have. However if there is the smallest chance that any of this could in fact be true, then is not this worth taking a look into. If we say we are all concerned about the future of the earth, well then what harm is there in researching because nothing else sees to be working...Everyone thinks everyone else is going to take care of the problem.

What we fail to realize is we are the problem. The great news is that we can also be the solution...let's work together so hope can be spread to future generations of life as we now know it. When it comes down to it, this rock we call earth has been here far longer than any of us and it w ill remain far after we are gone. We must not fail to see that the earth also is a living, breathing life supporting object as well. The health of the earth is getting worse with time. Just like us either one of two things is going to happen...either it heals itself with all the help we can give or it heals itself naturally and eventually gets rid of what makes it ill, naturally...us

Thank you,

S.R. Leto Person of Opinion, inc.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards156 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of sam leto [samleto@att.net] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:33 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 21:32 S ubmitted values are:

Name: sam leto Email: samleto@att.net Comments: January 15, 2013 OILS WELL THAT ENDS IN A WELL

re: Global Warming or Core of the Matter

With all the talk about global warming and how we as man need to do somthing about it now, Well, I say yes, lets do something now. Although my "something" is a little different in approach as far as the regular procedure(s) we are asked to follow, that of which , dont seem to be working.

So I would like to propose a different approach in handling this problem. I say to attack the problem at it's core then the one thing we need to do is "STOP PUMPING OIL". One may think this is an odd approach but let me give you a few reasons:

Take into account that oil is a natural resource. Natural, yes...resource, no. By taking a look at the center (the core) of the earth, we can see that other than the sun this is the hottest area closest to man. Over 90% of the earth's core is liquid iron thus leaving the remaining10 percent solid. The liquid portion spins opposite that of it's solid part therefore giving the earth it's gravitational make-up. The earth is made up of the core (iron) the mantle, the crust and the surface. Throughout the entire earth there is or at least was many oil deposits. These deposits are at different depths, areas, under water, under land everywhere inside this ball of rock. We as the United States of America are not the only ones pumping the oil out. Every other country is also doing the same. Let me give you something to think about...The core of the earth is so extremeley hot that in order for the heat not to reach the surface of the earth, it has the mantle, which kind of works somewhat like a heat deflector or a porcelin-type shield. Although this is the case, the mantle does not. nor can it maintain this job itself. Now, this is where "oil" comes in to play.

Oil, along with the mantle works as a natural insulator whereas, to p rovide a barrier to keep the internal heat from the core from reaching the surface of the earth. Compare hot spots on the surface of the earth along side areas known to have been drilled for oil. Even as science confirms the oceans are heating up. Science is telling us that ice- caps and glaciers are melting away more rapidly than at any other time we know of. This is due to global warming. No, it is not...If we were to take a look at footage of these massive rocks of ice, clearly we would see they are not melting, as an ice cube in the sun, but they are157 crumbling. They are crumbling becaause when the foundation of an object is weaker than that of which it supports most likely the object is going to crumble. This is not rocket science but simple common sense.

Earth Quakes are another phenomenom man seems to be baffled by, when clearly we can see a contributing factor if we look a little more closely into the matter itself. Earthquakes seem to occur when an underground land mass shifts. Same, can be said under the ocean as well. Oil has been pumped out of the ground for nearly two-hundred years. Not in just one spot but all over the entire earth. Can we be expected to believe this has no effect or impact on the natural functions the earth has been doing since it's existance? Oil has been pumped out of the ground in several locations and at different depths inside the earth. The problem here is that we are taking out and not putting in. What is happening is that there are major empty oil veins and gapping holes throughout the entire earth. We can almost say the earth is collapsing in upon itself. The same goes for beneath our oceans... Lets take a look at the tsunami that struck indonesia, What happened: an earthquake several miles out to sea, under the ocean occurs. The ground opens up and water is sucked into this hole as the water is receeding from the shore. Once the hole is filled the pressure shoots the water back up at an alarming rate causing a massive Tsunami. One can say that we have always had natural disasters, always. I say, yes we have but not at the increasing frequencies nor the magnitude of such.

Another problem taking this natural insulation from the ground is drought. We have become no closer nor further away from the sun so how is drought affecting the ground? Think, for a minute on a grander scale than what we are used to. Again, oil is a natural insulation and works along side the earths mantle in maintaining the internal temperature from the center of the earth. It keeps or helps to maintain such that it does not reach the surface of the earth. Due to the natural insulation thus being removed, the heat from the core is being allowed to reach closer to the surface of the earth and absorbing the moisture on the surface more so than ever before. Yes, the sun is the most powerful energy source and provides evaporation for clouds as well as other natural functions. However, because the heat from the core is reaching the surface more so than it has ever done the evaporation rate is less and the absorbtion rate is increased. This is a major off-set in the natural progression of the cycle. The evaporation rate is still performing. However, the absorbtion rate is now much quicker therefore the water is taken from the grou nd and absorbed only to dry up. In turn we see the surface of certain areas of the ground throughout the earth dried up arid and cracking. There are other aspects which also affect this on- going destructive behavior but this is just to name a few.

Let's be real, You know as well as I do that oil is a commodity that man just seem's unable to do without. No matter what the consequences are for us as well as future generations, oil, seem's to be in every aspect and mostly every product produced by man. I highly doubt even to cut back on drilling would be something we are willing to do. Money plays to big of a role in this chapter of history and the powers that be would probably feel threatened by the idea of even suggesting such an absurd proposal. Unless we can come up with an alternative as well as a cleaner and more effeciant replacement, the irreversable damage will only increase until the global community realizes the impact is to great to ignore and start pointing fingers at each other and this eventually will lead to a fall- out and collapse of major institutions throughout the globe.

This will be no easy task, but here is a temporary solution, but one of which will only slow down the onset of such disaster. If we take a look at all the fuel produ ced from oil, mostly gasoline, we could see that instead of producing the different octanes for particular vehicles we should limit the production to that of the lowest of the most common three: 91, 89 and 87.158 instead of investing the time in producing the other octane as well as the cost of such, we could then invest in production of one grade of fuel along with research and developement going towards solid research to approach and/or solve the problem we face.

In closing, let me say that the above is only a formed opinion by myself in which I am entitled to have. However if there is the smallest chance that any of this could in fact be true, then is not this worth taking a look into. If we say we are all concerned about the future of the earth, well then what harm is there in researching because nothing else sees to be working...Everyone thinks everyone else is going to take care of the problem.

What we fail to realize is we are the problem. The great news is that we can also be the solution...let's work together so hope can be spread to future generations of life as we now know it. When it comes down to it, this rock we call earth has been here far longer than any of us and it will remain far after we are gone. We must not fail to see that the earth also is a living, breathing life supporting object as well. The health of the earth is getting worse with time. Just like us either one of two things is going to happen...either it heals itself with all the help we can give or it heals itself naturally and eventually gets rid of what makes it ill, naturally...us

Thank you,

S.R. Leto Person of Opinion, inc.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards159 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Pr. Dorothy Daniela Gioseffi [danielag333@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 6:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 18:39 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Pr. Dorothy Daniela Gioseffi Email: danielag333@gmail.com Comments: We are very pleased with the new carbon emission standards for new power plants. It is a good step in the proper direction to curb the horrors of extreme weather now upon us due to global warming. At the same time, we feel the president must move ahead faster and halt the Keystone XL Pipeline. If the FILTHY tar sands of Canada are burned, it is life over on our habitable planet. Also, his all of the above energy policy and his embra ce of toxic and dangerous EarthQuake causing, water contaminating hydro-fracking is an insane policy. The methane from hydro-fracking more natural gas is as much a problem as carbon emissions. Natural gas is NOT cleaner. That is a myth that science has disproved. The study on the XL pipeline, moreover, is tainted by special interests, as have been the studies on the dangers of hydro-fracking condoned by the EPA. The proof is now in regarding contaminated waters and earthquakes due to hydro- fracking. Also sink holes are a danger due to melting of salt domes under the earth caused by huge injections and removal of tons of toxic waters in the process. PLEASE due all you can to halt hydrofracking and halt global warming and reduce carbon and methan emissions. We are thrilled with the 2013 proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants. An excellent step in the proper direction. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards160 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Andy Hinson [andyhi_99@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 6:01 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 18:01 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Andy Hinson Email: andyhi_99@yahoo.com Comments: I think this is one small step but a great move forward in the direction that is right for our nation and for the planetary system we all depend upon. It may even become a part of a cultural renewal for American society through sustainable growth instead of an unbridled environmental destructiveness due to greed that can only lead to more ad more of the same until the entire American economy becomes its own victim. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards161 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Theresa Waldron [b.jaybird@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 5:41 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 17:40 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Theresa Waldron Email: b.jaybird@yahoo.com Comments: What about the carbon emitted from current plants? Those are the polluters now. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards