Comments of William H. Penniman 

At EPA's July 30, 2014 Public Hearing in Washington, D.C. Concerning 

EPA's Proposed 111(d) Rule To Reduce CO2 Emissions from the Electric Sector 

I am William Penniman. I live at 2007 Upper Lake Dr., Reston, VA 20191. I have spent nearly 

40 years working for clients on energy regulatory and business issues. However, I am here, 

today, as individual, a parent, a grandparent, and an uncle. 

1. I strongly support EPA's proposal and approach. The proposal is extraordinarily 

generous to states in their expressed desire for regulatory flexibility, while it still aims for 

substantial reductions of CO2 emissions from the nation's electricity sector. 

a. Climate change is real, as has been documented by thousands of reports. It is 

adversely affecting the U.S. and the world now, and the impacts will get 

increasingly worse, the longer we delay reductions in greenhouse gases. The 

adverse impacts affect our health, our economy, our national and state budgets, 

our national security and military spending, and our natural heritage. Making 

delay worse, CO2 emissions build a heat-trapping blanket that will continue to 

harm us for hundreds, even thousands of years. 

b. We need to achieve CO2 emissions reductions as soon as possible. The electric 

power sector is particularly important since it represents approximately 40% of 

our CO2 emissions. 

c. As documented by many reports, the longer we wait the more costly will be the 

harms, mitigation requirements and adaptation measures. 

d. EPA should not reduce the requirements of its proposal in response to pleas by 

opponents. We have a moral obligation to our neighbors, children, grandchildren 

and ourselves to take timely action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly 

as possible. EPA's proposal will advance the economy, help the U.S. become a 

leader in the technologies that are essential to the world's future, and reduce costs 

of unpriced externalities. 

e. Cries of economic harm or inability to comply are no more valid today than they 

were previously when EPA proposed rules to reduce air pollution. Opponents of 

the proposed rule are essentially taking the approach of tobacco companies — 

confuse the public about the science and plead that action will hurt short-term 

profits and the economy, while ignoring the greater harms that will result from 

inaction. The tobacco companies essentially argued that for sacrificing the health 

of citizens in order to maintain their profits and the profits of tobacco growers. 

2. EPA's Proposal Needs to Be Strengthened Substantively and Procedurally. 

a. EPA should increase the CO2-reduction requirements in order to achieve 

30% average reduction by 2020 and 35%-40% by 2030. 

i. The world needs to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 

2050; and starting from a higher emissions level, the U.S. may need to 

reduce by more than 80%. 

ii. The 2020 and 2030 goals need to establish a trajectory for the longer term 

goals. 
b. EPA should establish firm compliance dates and an interim schedule for 

submitting and revising draft plans so that the compliance date is met. 

i. EPA should reject arguments by states, fossil fuel companies and utilities 

for delaying the rules or compliance dates. 

ii. EPA should prepare itself for resistance from a number of states which 

will reject or seek to evade anything from EPA and this Administration. 

(This is illustrated by the continuing resistance by a number of states to 

the Affordable Care Act, even at the expense of the health of finances of 

hundreds of thousands of low-income working families.) 

iii. EPA should finalize its rules sooner than June 2015--by March or April 

2015--so states have more time to develop plans and get approval. 

iv. The final rule should set a schedule for submission of draft and revised 

plans in 2015 and early 2016, so that a binding, final plan is ready to be 

approved for each state no later than June 2016. 

v. EPA should not tolerate delays or incomplete plans. 

vi. EPA should beware of extending compliance dates for states that pursue 

multi-state solutions, such as RGGI. Any state that seeks such an 

extension should be subject to a complete alternative plan developed by 

the state and approved by EPA or a federal implementation plan ("FIP"). 

This will discourage gaming and assure that a real plan is ready to 

implement if the state fails to submit an acceptable multi-state solution. 

c. EPA should promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan for each state as 

part of the final rule or by October 2015, at the latest. 

i. Proceedings to adopt FIPs should be initiated now, rather than delaying 

until after the final rule. 

ii. The longer issuance of the back-up FIP plan is delayed, the more incentive 

states will have to delay action, thinking they might get a better deal from 

delaying tactics. 

iii. FIPs should take effect earlier than June 2016 if satisfactory progress is 

not made on developing a state-designed plan, but, in any event, no later 

than June 2016. 

In summary, on behalf of my family, I thank EPA for issuing its proposed rule. I urge EPA to 

strengthen the rules CO2-reduction targets and the procedural steps to assure that an effective 

plan is in place for all states by no later than June 2016. 

tted, 

William 

2007 Upper Lake Dr. 

Reston, VA 20191 

,N)