Questions From Matt Cahillane, NH Department of Health and Human Services

Here's a list of items that need clarification: 1. As per Table 4 - 18 on page 4 - 36 of the EPA Regulatory Impact Assessment (see link below), there are multiple 'Avoided Health Indices' that can be projected to provide co - benefit by 2030, these include reduced mortality and morbidity for PM and ozone. The table also reports figures for a state option and a regional option. I'd like to reconcile the figures in this table with the figures reported in the EPA fact sheet 'By the Numbers' (EPA fact sheet, 2014). Provided below are the EPA fact sheet figures with questions in blue font: o 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths. These figures appear to be only for PM2.5 mortality and not ozone . The RIA table 4 - 18 provides figures for PM and ozone. Why is ozone left out of the summary? o 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children. These figures appear to be only for PM2.5 pediatric asthma, and not ozone. Why didn't the RIA report data for ozo ne and pediatric asthma exacerbation? o 340 to 3,300 heart attacks. The figures in the fact sheet appear to be a mix of the RIA Table 4 - 18 state and regional options. Is this an accurate representation of the range of benefits? o 2,700 to 2,800 hospital ad missions. No question. Figures are the same in both documents. o 470,000 to 490,000 missed school and work days. No question. Figures are the same. 2. A related report from Harvard - Syracuse (Driscoll, 2014) analyzed the potential impact of carbon reductions on PM and ozone levels for states across the nation (see Figures, pages 14 - 23). The EPA RIA doesn't seem to have similar figures in a table or map format that show state - by- state reductions in PM and ozone. Where can we find th e air pollutant reductions of the EPA proposal for individual states? 3. The figures from the EPA fact sheet above are for the entire United States. The recent analysis by Harvard - Syracuse indicates that the most benefit from PM and ozone reduction will b e realized in the central and eastern parts of the US, likely due to the higher concentration of coal -fired power plants. Where can we find the health benefits of this EPA proposal for individual states? 4. The national EPHT program has a web - based tool ( i.e. Mortality benefit estimates) that models the reduction in mortality from improvements in PM air quality in the past (2001 - 2009). http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showAirHIA.action# The EPA has now modeled the health benefits into the future (2020 - 2030). It seemsthat there could be an opportunity here to use the two models in

concert, and allow states to better estimate the health benefits of PM reductions over time. Are these estimates based on th e same methods and models, or are they not comparable? (EPA RIA, 2014) Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 2014 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf (EPA fact sheet, 2014) EPA FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan. BY THE NUMBERS. CUTTING CARBON POLLUTION FROM POWER PLANTS. June 2014 http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014 - 06/documents/20140 602fs - important - numbers clean - power- plan.pdf (Driscoll, et al. 2014) Co - benefits of Carbon Standards. Part 1: Air Pollution Changes under Different 111d Options for Existing Power Plants May 27, 2014. Driscoll C, Buonocore J, Fakhraei H, Fallon - Lambert K. http://eng- cs.syr.edu/wp - content/uploads/2014/05/Carbon - cobenefits - study- FINAL- SPE.pdf