1 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of max hosey [max@townhallsf.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:55 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:54 S ubmitted values are:

Name: max hosey Email: max@townhallsf.com Comments: Hello EPA, Coal and gas- fired power plants hurt our communities and our climate. They are one of the worst sources of climate pollution in the United States, and until now, they've been allowed to pollute without limits. Carbon pollution is the main cause of climate problems, which means more droughts, wildfires, and storms. This costs Americans over $140 billion a year. Each family's share is over $1,00 0 per year. Fossil fuel companies are getting rich, but our families and communities pay the bill. Carbon pollution is also linked to dangerous air pollution like the smog that triggers asthma attacks. If the clean air protections are strong enough, then rich fossil fuel companies will no longer get a free pass to pollute. They won't be able to dump unlimited amounts of climate pollution into our air anymore. These safeguards will also protect families from dangerous air pollution like toxic mercury, dirty soot and the smog that triggers asthma attacks. We can’t give a free pass to natural gas -- more gas in the electricity sector just means more fracking and more pollution. We need strong standards that limit pollution from coal AND natural gas-fired power plants, and we need a commitment to true clean energy like wind and solar. Polluters can't balance their books on the backs of the poor. We need protections that make sure pollution doesn't disproportionately hurt America’s poorest and most vulnerable communities. Strong standards will hold polluters accountable. We can get rid of more than a third of the climate pollution from power plants so that we hit our nation's climate goals - what scientists say we need to do to stop runaway climate change. It's a win-win - we can modernize and clean up our communities and create new jobs at the same time.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards2 From: Heldt, Rodger [RHeldt@PeabodyEnergy.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:49 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### WE HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN TO USE OUR MOST ABUNDANT RESOURCE AND PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT. THIS CAN BE D ONE BY WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. PEOPLE DO CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO SACRIFICE THEIR FAMILIES WAY OF LIFE TO MEET OUR GOALS.



### E-mail Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail, and in any accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for the delivery of the message to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system.3 From: Sandy Atkinson [sandyatkinson45@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:23 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: put the brakes on power plant emissions



### To All of you at the EPA,

P lease continue to do your job and protect our air, land and water, from the dangers of continued polluters, especially from power plants. The clock is already running out on saving our planet from self destruction.

Thank you for taking action!

Sincerely,

Sandy Atkinson 7580 Navigator Cir, Carlsbad, CA 920114 From: Polly Reetz [polly_reetz48@live.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:18 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon pollution standard for existing power plants



### To the Environmental Protection Agency:

A lthough I was able to speak at the National Public Listening Session in Denver, Colorado on October 30, 2013 I would like to embellish my comments and put them, in writing, on the record.

These comments are made on behalf of the Audubon Society of Greater Denver (ASGD), a grassroots conservation organization with approximately 3,000 members in the Denver metro area. Our Society is an autonomous Chapter of the National Audubon Society.

We at ASGD believe climate change is the major environmental challenge of our time and that we are already paying the costs of putting tons of carbon in the atmosphere every year, in the form of drought, increased number and intensity of forest fires, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Therefore we support EPA's initiative to impose carbon pollution standards for existing power plants, which contribute 40% of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.

As Audubon Society members, we have participated in citizen science activities such as the Christmas Bird Counts. Through these efforts, we contribute to and receive information indicating that bird distribution patterns, and timing of migration are changing. EPA's website cites data from the National Audubon Society showing that for 305 widespread bird species, the average winter center of abundance moved northward by 35 miles between 1966 and 2005. Birds are showing up on the nesting grounds earlier in the spring. The timing of resources on which these migratory birds depend, such as insect population emergence and seed production, may be out of synchronization with bird breeding cycles, thus reducing food availability. By impacting bird populations, we are impacting ecosystems and economic systems (birds eat a lot of insects which, without this predation, go on to devour human food crops).

Without getting into the technicalities of emission controls, on which we have little expertise, we can cite several actions that have been taken in Colorado to reduce carbon emissions that could certainly become a part of an EPA regulatory framework: 1) Coal-fired power plants can shift to burn natural gas; 2) Some part of the power produced by the owner/utility can be required to be generated by alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power; 3) Utilities can encourage reductions in energy consumption, and thus carbon emissions, by offering rebates to customers for increased energy efficiency in homes and offices.

In Colorado, we have witnessed 43 forest fires, including the extremely destructive Waldo Canyon Fire, in 2012 alone; heat and drought extremes; and rainstorms that dropped nearly a year's worth of moisture in 5 days in September 2013, causing flooding that traveled 140 miles, killed 8 people and destroyed more than 1,000 homes. As can be seen by these statistics, it is the public that is bearing the brunt of the cost of such disasters. We think that the power industry should step up and bear some of the costs as well. Thus we urge you to propose strong carbon pollution standards for existing power plants, to address this major cause of climate change, protect public health and safety, and fulfill the moral obligation we have to future generations to leave an environment cleaner than we found it.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on this initiative.5 

### Pauline P. Reetz, Conservation Chairman Audubon Society of Greater Denver 9308 S. Wadsworth Blvd. Littleton, CO 801286 From: Sondra Napell [yayasondra@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Listening for clean air

It is imperative that we reduce carbon pollution right now! Standards for existing power p lants, both coal and gas, must be set that reduce carbon emissions. We need the EPA to lead the country in protecting health and safety, AND promoting clean energy. Americans just need leadership and direction: the Clean Air Act and the EPA can lead the way.DO IT!

Drs Sondra and Herbert Napell

Sent from my iPad7 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Will Davis [davis.away@live.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:25 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Will Davis Email: davis.away@live.com Comments: I think we are taking the right steps to reduce amount carbon in the air by added scrubbers and bag houses. I hope we continue this trend forward. Coal is our main source of reliable and efficient power. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards8 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Amy Allen [theinkstainedwretch@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:19 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:18 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Amy Allen Email: theinkstainedwretch@gmail.com Comments: As a young person concerned about her future, I urge you to enact the strongest possible standards for existing power plants. I am 22 years old, and a masters’ student at Stanford University, studying civil engineering with a focus on building energy efficiency. I am originally from Springfield, Illinois, and have witnessed the impacts of coal mining and burning in the form of farmland subsidence and bodies of water irreparably damaged by coal ash. Like everyone, I have witnessed the impacts of climate change in the form of increasingly frequent extreme weather. I will attend the listening session in San Francisco tomorrow to make these comments in person, and represent many others --I know former classmates of mine at the University of Illinois will be speaking at the hearing in Chicago, and many others from my generation.

Specifically, I suggest you adopt standards similar to the ones recommended by the Natural Resources Defense Council, with a limit equivalent to 1,500 lbs/MWH for coal, and 1,000 lbs/MWH for gas. But most importantly, some standard needs to be put in place to set a precedent that existing coal plants no longer have a license to pollute unabated. I want to secure a future for my own generation and that of my children that is not irreparably damaged by climate chaos: droughts, wildfires, natural disasters, and conflicts over water, land, and other essential resources. CO2 emissions to date have locked in a certain about of climate disruption, but we must act now to avert the worst impacts. Please enact the strongest standards possible for existing power plants.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards9 From: Jane Stoever [janepstoever@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:07 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### Dear EPA,

I spoke at this evening's listening session in Lenexa, KS, and am sending this summary of my comments.

I'm Jane Stoever, a Board member of PeaceWorks, Kansas City. Also, I'm retired from editing for the American Nurses Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Finally, I belong to the Thomas Hart Benton Sierra Club, based in Kansas City, Mo.

Please enact strong requirements to prevent carbon dioxide emission. Decreasing carbon in the atmosphere is crucial to our health and protection of the environment.

I'm remembering that about 5 years ago, Austin knocked on the door of our home. He w as about 6 years old, his older sister (she was about 13) was babysitting him, and he needed help. He wasn't speaking much but I understood he was concerned about his asthma. He let me know he didn't need to go to the hospital, I phoned his sister that he was with me, and he soon relaxed and was fine. This was my closest encounter with asthma. Since then, reading about the effect of coal plant emissions on people with asthma and other respiratory diseases always brings Austin to my mind. We can't keep on polluting our world without concern for the illness we're spewing out of our smokestacks!

We're in Kansas this evening, and Kansas ranks 3rd among the states in wind. But it ranks 14th in conversion of wind to usable electricity. We can do better! We can improve our use of solar and wind resources and rely less on fossil fuels. Strict requirements from the EPA will help push coal companies to convert to other energy

sources.

Many thanks for trying to protect people's health and safeguard our environment!10 From: John Donaldson [johnd@mail.fresnostate.edu] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:48 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: CO2 from power plants



### It is essential that our nation get serious about reducing CO2 pollution. Changes, most of them harmful, are h appening very quickly, and our CO2 emissions just keep rising. I am convinced that the best solution is a simple tax on CO2 emissions; I do not believe such a tax has any chance of passage by Congress, yet. Therefore, EPA rules to reduce the emissions are the best, the only, powerful measures we can presently take to reduce the danger hanging over us. Therefore, please do your best to enact powerful limits on CO2 emissions from all existing plants. It must become harder and harder to use coal, which is just too dangerous a source, to produce our power.11 From: Merlin Ring [ringmerlin@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Region 7 comment

Change is difficult. We can manage change and transition to renewable energy sources in an orderly manner. Or we can wait to have change forced upon us (when we run out of readily available fossil fuel or suffer the effects of climate change) with resultant chaos and dislocations. I see the EPA role of implementing limits on carbon emissions as a way to manage and force needed change in a timely manner.

Industry will not change on their own without regulations as the driver. Methods of carbon sequestration are unproven and will remain unproven until industry is motivated to come up with a viable process. EPA regulations on carbon emissions will provide the driver to industry to find and implement the needed new technology. For example, see "The One-Stop Carbon Solution", Scientific American , Nov 2013.

I support the President's "all of the above" energy policy. All of the above includes "clean coal". We can't and should not stop the use of coal immediately. Coal will provide reliable energy as we make the transition to renewables. I don't accept the statement that clean coal is a oxymoron. With regulations on carbon emissions EPA can create the push for innovation in clean coal technology.12 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Anita Wertz [tom.anita.w@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:26 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Anita Wertz Email: tom.anita.w@gmail.com Comments: I am a private citizen who is very concerned about the impact of the output of existing power plants. I have no suggestions, but want to express my support for efforts to reduce carbon emissions as soon as possible. Our voracious use of fossil fuels has already caused significant damage to our fragile, yet resilient planet. The sooner we adopt reasonable, effective regulations to accelerate the inclusion of all polluters in emission controls, the better. Our generation should take responsibili ty to leave our children with a planet that is cleaner than when we received it as stewards from our parents. It can be done with clear, reasoned leadership from EPA and its partners. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. I attended the Region 7 listening session in Lenexa this afternoon and felt it was an important outreach to the public for ideas and input. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards13 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Roger W. Papler [rwpapler@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:26 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Roger W. Papler Email: rwpapler@sbcglobal.net Comments: Retrofit the existing plants to be more efficient energy extractors and improve the filtering of their exhaust with some 'out of the box' scrubbing technology such as some sort of watery medium rather than solid air filter. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards14 From: John de Forest [johndeforest@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:07 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Your job

Dear EPA:

It is well known that the greatest amount of air pollution comes from carbon. Isn't it your responsibility to p rotect the environment ?

John de Forest

2534 Lake Street San Francisco, CA 9412115 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Gregory Howard Gebhart BA ABD MBA MEd [greghgebhart@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:54 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 21:53 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Gregory Howard Gebhart BA ABD MBA MEd Email: greghgebhart@yahoo.com Comments: Two of my three comments were about converting power plant CO2 emissions into ethanol. Billions of gallons of ethanol would be produced. What about the blend wall? Make more E85 and manufacture more flex fuel vehicles and export gasoline from the US. The result will be a reduction of ca rbon emissions by 80% or more, more Detroit big three profits and jobs, and a dramatic decrease in the US Balance of Payments deficit. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards16 From: Dan Richman [danrichman@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal



### Dear EPA People, No one is paying me to write this. And my job does not hang on my holding one

o pinion or the other. I'm just a human being and a father and a wannabe grandfather. And I'm mighty worried about the future. The planet is sick and getting sicker, and one great cause of the sickness is the coal-burning electrical generating plant. It poisons the air we breathe and adds greatly to the greenhouse effect. And just mining the stuff wreaks havoc on the land. I hope and pray you will force corporations to spend money and employ stringent measures to clean up what emerges from their smokestacks. In truth, I look forward to the day when coal will cease to be profitable to those to whom profit seems to take precedence over every single thing, and they will drop it as an enterprise.

Thank you,

Daniel Richman17 From: William Cusick [billc12321@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: power plants.



### Dear EPA, The USA needs to modify its carbon emissions and energy production balance. There are cleaner alternatives. The status quo is the irresponsible and destructive path toward global climate change. The choice is simple. Make as much money as possible for the coal burning power plants or preserve the future of humanity. Thank you, William Cusick18 From: mark mesle [markmesle@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:39 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution and the EPA

I for one believe the 97 percent of climate scientists who say that in order to protect our planet and our loved ones we need to take dramatic steps to reduce the amount of carbon we dump into the atmosphere. I am convinced that this will soon be everyone's number issue and the more you can do now to regulate the coal industry and regulate greenhouse gas emissions the better off my daughter will be.

Sincerely, Mark Mesle Chicago, IL19 From: joellen@youngcanine.com [joyoung@dslextreme.com] on behalf of Jo Ellen Young [joellen@youngcanine.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: carbon emissions

Reducing carbon emissions is critical to staving off climate crisis, preserving our quality

o f life, and saving our planet. Please ensure that carbon emissions are reduced in order to address dangerous climate change impacts like drought, wildfires, rising sea levels and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns and super-storms.

Thank you.

Jo Ellen Young Culver City, CA20 From: Climbing Sun [sunclimber1@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Mercury Pollution



### Please require scrubbers on all plants immediately to eliminate mercury release into the atmosphere. And we

m ust get away from the annual dumping of tons of carbon-based compounds into the skies. The climate is changing and it is already effecting our ability to produce food, control ocean levels, and protect reefs and sea life. Very truly yours,

Climbing Sun,

Civil Engineer and Building Designer21 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of David Liu [dtliu@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 20:11 S ubmitted values are:

Name: David Liu Email: dtliu@hotmail.com Comments: Hello, as I'm sure many of the comments you are receiving will reflect, I am in favor of acting swiftly to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. The quickest way to change behaviors in our market-based economy is of course to make a behavior costly or otherwise unjustifiably costly. To that end, requiring equipment to sequestrate carbon from new power plants is a good first step. A carbon tax, or fee, if one prefers, would easily be the simplest and far-reaching initiative the administration could put forth in order to make major cuts to our current levels of fossil fuel consumption at power plants. Such taxes or fees could be directly redistributed to citizens so that any argument of rising prices become a moot point. Keep up the good work and know that it is helping to protect the future of untold generations to come.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards22 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Sharon Murphy [paiwf@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:37 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 19:36 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Sharon Murphy Email: paiwf@aol.com Comments: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 - Because Coal-fired power plants are responsible for 40% of our country's CO2 emissions, as well as a large part of the mercury and other toxic air pollution in our air and rivers, causing cancer and other severe health risks, IT IS CRITICAL THAT CO2 REDUCTION STANDARDS BE PUT IN PLACE, FOR OUR SAKES AND THOSE OF FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards23 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Sandi Garrison [slandra.garrison@kcenergy.org] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 19:26 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Sandi Garrison Email: slandra.garrison@kcenergy.org Comments: I have worked at a non-profit entity Metropolitan Energy Ctr that promotes energy efficiency for almost 3 years. What I have learned is education is of utmost importance to teach people within their homes and the commercial industry to tighten up their buildings so they do not need so much energy to live comfortably. We are a very wasteful country and we need to fight the war of poverty and get homes safer for it's inhabitants. Insulating and tightening up buildings so people need less electricity is what needs to happen. Teach people to be mindful of using less energy. Educate energy efficiency in churches, schools and at the lunch table at work. Why not insure that people who are so concerned about job loss with tighter environmental laws will be put in and trained to learn new skills in the sustainable energy fields that are in dire need of being developed that are healthier for our country and citizens. Educate people, get rid of the good old boys that don't want to change. Business is not as usual. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards24 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Joseph E Long [joweldsalot@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:17 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 19:16 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Joseph E Long Email: joweldsalot@gmail.com Comments: all standards need upgraded funding provided to upgrade all emisions on every burning unit no matter the product that is burned

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards25 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Maria Kline [pflrecords@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:14 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 19:14 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Maria Kline Email: pflrecords@yahoo.com Comments: I just want to make sure what ever the choice EPA makes just know it's about our future which are our children. We can't take jobs away but we got to make more jobs with these choices that is made. The health of the people is so important as the cost is to for many families are of living on a very low income. We have to make choice that going to move the county forward for all and not for just same. Clean air is needed more so now then it ever have been for there is more people living on earth but don't take the people to th e poor house doing this. Important to live with clean air,important to be able to feed our families with safe food but most of all important for jobs for the future of our children that we leave behind. coming after u Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards26 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Gary Blankers [gary@mjbpr.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 19:11 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Gary Blankers Email: gary@mjbpr.com Comments: I urge the EPA to make strong rules to cap the amount of polutates into the atmosphere. The price arguments do not recognized the breaks given to the Coal and Oil industries currently. Strong restriction will give clean energy a chance. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards27 From: vao2@comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:55 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: need a strong carbon pollution rule



### Dear Sir:

W e cannot afford the costs any longer – the health costs from illnesses related to carbon pollution in the air; the costs related to climate change such as those we are still experiencing from the storm a year ago in Sandy Hook. We need a strong carbon pollution rule for power plants. We must pay the full cost of the energy we use and that includes the cost to produce it in a way that does not make the world worse. We only have 1 world.

Sincerely,

Ed and Vickie Oles28 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Shirley Ingalls [ingallssk@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:39 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 18:38 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Shirley Ingalls Email: ingallssk@yahoo.comComments: Please do everything you can to impose environmental controls on existing coalfired power plants which will make them too expensive to continue using, thus spurring the development of environmentally friendly alternatives. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards29 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of diane morgan [diane.morgan@tmcmed.org] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:37 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 18:36 S ubmitted values are:

Name: diane morgan Email: diane.morgan@tmcmed.org Comments: We depend on you, the EPA, as a crucial part of our Federal Government, to set policies and laws that will protect the US population. Most of us do not have the finances to try to influence policy for further short sighted financial gain such as many of the Utility companies have been able to do. My main concern is that they have not always been held to the strict guidelines to protect the public as is expected to be put in place by our government. I truly respect and hold the EPA as a higher dept. of our govt in this manner and truly expect and hope you will cont. to put in place the strongest carbon pollution rules and guidelines, especially with the old power plants. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards30 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Trevor Hawkins [Trevor@Mammothmedia.tv] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:36 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 18:35 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Trevor Hawkins Email: Trevor@Mammothmedia.tv Comments: I don't know why so many of you have been speaking only about local issues. Pollution is not a local issue. It's not a money issue, it's not a power issue, it's not a jobs issue, And it's definitely not an "it's too hot to walk my dog now" issue. It's a world issue. It's a human issue. And it's a problem for every species on Earth. The problem is SO much bigger.

Fluctuations in temperature and climate are natural throughout earths geological history. The earth's climate heats up and cools down regularly and we just happen to find ourselves in a particularly comfortable time. That being said, right now through pollution from these unnecessary factories we are doing more than our fair share to make sure the earth is uninhabitable as soon as possible. Yes global warming is real despite what Fox News tells you, and we are currently destroying our home at an unrepairable rate. Unregulated pollution will literally kill the human race, and we will die out taking everything living along with us. But make no mistake, the earth would actually survive. It would eventually bounce back, and move on without us. We just won't be around to enjoy it because we ruined it for ourselves.

Right now, the technology exists to supply the world with clean power. And if everyone worked together, imagine what we could achieve if we all invested our money together for the long term sustainability of the human species, instead of short term financial gain. The ignorance of these pollution supporters is remarkable. Who cares how much it costs to save the world? Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards31 From: Rachel Gita Schiff [rachelgita@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: public listening session in San Francisco



### Hello,

I will be unable to make it tomorrow, but I am writing to urge you to use these rules

to reduce climate pollution in the coming years. The US really needs and I really want tough new stricter regulations on coal plants.

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,

Rachel Gita Schiff32 From: Faith Clifford [fmclifford@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 5:45 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal-fired Power Plant EPA Public Listening Session

I am unable to attend this public session, but want the EPA to continue with its new rules on the Coal-Fired Power Plants. It is important for all of us to have cleaner air.

Thank you. Faith Clifford33 From: Jennifer Roche [jenniferroche@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 5:28 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments on Carbon Pollution



### Dear Members of the EPA,



## “We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. . . Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, ‘Too late.’"

--Martin Luther King, Jr.

As a concerned citizen of our shared planet, a never-miss voter, someone who cares very much about my community, country, and our natural world, a Chicagoan and a loving mom of two children, I feel compelled to speak out strongly in favor of reducing carbon emissions from all power sources as drastically as possible as soon as possible.

The planet is indisputably in peril from carbon emissions. History will judge us by the actions we take now. That is why I call on you to begin requiring immediate zero carbon emissions from all power plants or shut them down permanently. Solar and wind, among other renewables, have proven their ability to contribute to the planet's carbon-free energy and can make up for this lost power. They simply need the same govenrmental support fossil fuels had at the onset of that industry.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my point of view. I also thank you in advance for your courage and excellent stewardship of our country’s resources. I trust you will do the right thing and act before we all must bear hearing the pathetic words, “Too late.”

Sincerely yours,

Jennifer Roche Chicago, IL 60657 JenniferRoche@yahoo.com



### Jennifer Roche34 From: duane niatum [niatumd@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 5:14 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal fire power plants

My wife and I are both against the continued use of these filthy plants. Let us see you f inally do something for our health and the planet's.

Sincerely,

Duane Niatum and Martha Spencer

Sent from my iPad35 From: Angela Smith [smithang1@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 4:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Clean Air Act and Existing Power Plants



### To Whom It May Concern:

I live in rural Minnesota and am a member of an electric cooperative (People's Energy Cooperative/PEC) there. A few weeks ago my family received their quarterly newsletter which contained a letter from JoAnn Emerson, CEO of the Natioanl Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) that was highly critical of the Obama administration's instructions to the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. According to Ms. Emerson's letter, regulating GHG emissions from existing fossil-fuel burning power plants will raise electric prices for consumers while doing little to actually curb carbon dioxide emissions.

I would just like to weigh in that I am strongly in favor of using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and I am in complete disagreement with the NRECA. Although I receive my electricity from a cooperative that is a member of the NRECA, I am one of the few in the PEC who pays extra for wind energy precisely because I think that our country ought to do something about curbing climate change. No matter what happens from here on out, it is clear that the United States' decades of inertia on this issue will force us to pay more in one way or another. I work in agriculture and in public health, and the costs of inaction (in the form of reduced food security, flooding, storms, spreading diseases, national security, etc.) greatly outweigh any additional monies that will need to be spent to reduce emissions by power plants should we continue to do business as usual. I reali ze that these costs will be passed on to me, as the consumer. However, this is more than about money. I believe that we are responsible to future generations and the billions of other people who live on this planet who have not enjoyed our standard of livi ng but who are now dealing with rising sea levels and other ecological problems because we have been doing little to nothing on our end. We must also be mindful of the other species with whom we share this world and who are in peril thanks to climate change.

It is unfortunate that in these economic times, there will be those among us who will have some financial difficulty with even a small increase in their electric bills, and we must also consider them. Ms. Emerson's letter makes it a point to talk abou t how regulating the industry will be a hardship to the rural poor. I do not pretend to know how to ease increased costs for them, especially given the cuts being made to Food Stamps this week, but I do know that poor people will - ultimately - suffer the most and have the least means available to adapt to climate change as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

I urge you to make complete use of the Clean Air Act to regulate existing power plants. You do have residents in the rural heartland who believe that this is much needed and will fully support such efforts.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Angela Smith36 From: Paul Smith [waddysmith@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal fired power plants

Hello, i am writing to state my opposition to coal fires power plants. They are bad for the

e nvironment, you know. And there are alternatives, you know. Please consider your legacy and vote against coal-fired power plants. thank you. Paul Smith

Sent from my iPhone37 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Joseph Elcock [joe_elcock@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 15:25 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Joseph Elcock Email: joe_elcock@yahoo.com Comments: To the EPA:

I would like to applaud you for the new proposed rules for carbon from new power plants. It is long past the time that we should be addressing the horrible impacts that carbon pollutio n is having on our habitat.

As we move into the new century, it is important to embrace clean technology, and I support EPA efforts 100%

Thank you,

Joe Elcock Dedham, MA 603.568-5666 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards38 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mark A. York [mark_y48@msn.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 15:18 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Mark A. York Email: mark_y48@msn.com Comments: We need to phase out coal as fast as possible. Coal plants should be converted to natural gas in the interim as a bridge to more alternative energies such as solar and wind. Reducing carbon from electrical generation is where we get the biggest bang for the buck as it were. We must do this in a significant way. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards39 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jon Ghilino [jghilino@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 2:53 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 14:52 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Jon Ghilino Email: jghilino@hotmail.com Comments: I agree with increasing the carbon pollution standards to reduce carbon emissions. It will produce cleaner air and create many new jobs / temporary jobs benefiting our economy. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards40 From: Alana Tartaro [atartaro@haverford.edu] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 2:51 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: My Carbon Input



### To whomever it may concern, I will be unable to attend the public session on Friday to voice my opinion in person, but I hope you seriously consider my written message. I urge you to stand strong against the coal industry. The coal industry may have more money on its side, but we have right on our side. The fight against coal is a fight for a livable future and present. We talk about the effects of fossil fuels as if they were distant, but in actuality people are developing asthma and cancer from the effects of coal mining, and burning today. Anything that can be done to limit the effects of coal is a step in the right direction, as it will force us towards cleaner, greener forms of energy and away from the sickness of dirty air and water. It is for these reasons and many more that I will be deeply appreciative of any effort on the part of the EPA to reduce the impact of coal.

Thank you for your time, Alana Tartaro41 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Robert Ruskin [robert.ruskin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 2:36 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 14:36 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Robert Ruskin Email: robert.ruskin@gmail.com Comments: Continue closing coal fired plants starting with the most polluting. Promote new gas fired plants, wind and solar. Consider nuclear with the latest safety precautions. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards42 From: Judith Ross [judithar321@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 2:34 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Reducing Carbon pollution



### To whom it may concern,

I made the following statement at today's listening session in Boston.

Good morning.

Two years ago, a friend and I drove to Vermont to help clean up the wreckage left by Hurricane Irene. What I saw there was something out of a post-apocalyptic movie. One house had been pushed off its foundation and severed in half. The top floor sat on the ground like a disembodied head, and the rest of the home was nowhere in sight.

Later, I met the home’s owner. She told me that they had lost everything. Their garden, their cars, and the two businesses that she and her husband had run from inside their home, all swept away in a powerful surge of water. She said she was grateful to have escaped with her life.

This past June, the health impacts of climate change hit even closer to home. We were in Brooklyn visiting our son to celebrate his 30 th 

### birthday. It was a good visit, except for his terrible coughing jags. He may be an adult, but I’m still his mother. I gave him no peace until he agreed to see a doctor.

The diagnosis? “ Co ugh-variant asthma, which is likely triggered by allergies,” my son told me. “It's not permanent, it'll probably go away .” And then he said, “The doctor gave me an inhaler and some pills.”

Allergies, asthma, an inhaler? While these words are a ll too common in many households — and on a permanent basis — this is a startling diagnosis for a normally healthy adult with no history of either seasonal allergies or asthma.

And he wasn’t alone. According to allergists, h eavy rains the previous fall, combined with standing water left by Hurricane Sandy triggered a surge in pollen and mold problems that resulted in an intense allergy season, introducing many of the area’s residents to nasal congestion, watery, itchy eyes, and, yes, persistent coughs.



### T he fact is that rising Co2 levels are hurting all of us. Superstorms like Irene and Sandy are more likely to

occu r if climate change and carbon pollution are left unaddressed.

As a mother, a concerned citizen, and someone deeply in love with this planet, I urge EPA to propose a strong carbon pollution standard for existing power plants. We cannot allow them to continue dumping unlimited amounts of dangerous carbon pollution into our air.43 

### My sons are old enough to have grown up with nearly the same natural cycles that I did. I want the same experience for my grandchildren. The phrase “new normal” is really just code for chaos and illness across our planet.

Addressing climate change is our obligation to our children and future generations. I urge the EPA to take the largest step our country has ever taken in that effort by aggressively limiting carbon pollution from power plants.

My name is Judith Ross. I am a life-long resident of Massachusetts, and a member of Moms Clean Air Force.

Thank you for listening.

-- Judith A. Ross www.judithaross.com

Follow me on twitter @judithaross44 From: ICDesk R1 [R1.Icdesk@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 12:35 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Public Listening Session Comment

November 4th Public Listening Session

I appreciate this opportunity to comment as a caring citizen. According to a recently released report by the EPA, 55% of

o ur rivers & streams are in poor biological condition. You have a mandate under the Clean Water Act to fix this problem, which is directly related to public health, since drinking water can easily be polluted and from a moral standpoint, people no matter where they live deserve and need clean healthy water. Therefore, Federal standards must be upgraded to capture and treat rainwater where it falls to keep polluted runoff out of lakes, rivers and streams in a proven cost effective way.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is due by June 2014 to propose guidelines for existing power plants. The standard you p ropose should be strong and flexible to allow renewable energy like wind and solar, and energy efficiency to play a significant role in achieving deep carbon emission reductions at an affordable cost. Power plants are our largest source of carbon emissions at 40% of the carbon that causes climate change and there are numerous health concerns associated with climate change. Worsening ozone pollution is causing respiratory and lung ailments, heat waves are increasing in number along with illness and deaths, and more occurrences of extreme weather events is increasing injuries and deaths. Public health should be your primary concern; I emphasize that "protection" in the title of your organization's name needs to be your top priority. You can act to save lives.

We can get back to a low carbon energy future. I stand up with the majority of our leading scientists, in advising that we

r apidly change over our gas as well as our coal plants into places that produce wind and solar. We already have the technology, just listen to our scientists; we must make sure we aren't relying on a natural gas dominated electricity system that possesses significant climate, economic and public health risk and would not be a long term solution to global warming. Remember you are committed to deliver on President Obama's Climate action plan in order to do your duty for a viably healthy future.

Oil refineries, after power plants, are the next largest stationary source of global warming emissions. The EPA should

a lso consider additional standards for cement kilns, fertilizer plants, crude oil and natural gas production, and possibly steel plants and lead smelters.

There are other actions which need to be fully implemented to address health threats from coal fired plants. These include the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard to control hazardous pollution from coal & oil fired plants. These emissions can lead to cancer, heart disease, neurological damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and even premature deaths.

Lastly,I strongly urge you to fully regulate the disposal and management of coal ash, a toxic by-product of coal fired p lants, that can cause ground & surface water contamination. And please make sure the power plant cooli ng water intake structures are meeting the standards you've already set to reduce their harmful environmental impacts. Please listen to your conscience; the planet's future depends on it.

Carol Walker, carwalker@comcast.net

Winthrop, MA 0215245 From: michelle billmaier [michellebillmaier@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 2:00 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Keep coal in the ground!

Please create the strongest possible regulations to help us cut carbon emissions and shut down existing coal plants (including the coal plants from which PSE now gets 30% of the electricity it sells to King County). Burning coal is one of the single biggest contributors in the US to the climate emergency, as well as being extremely harmful locally to human health and ecosystems.

Thank you, Michelle Billmaier46 From: minaconrad16@comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:35 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Air pollution



### Dear one in charge,

P lease think of our pollution as a subject of greed ignorance and lack of education. Greed from the power thirsty companies, ignorance from mass consumers and lack of education of the public to take charge of their environment. As the ones in power you have the responsibility to bring awareness to the public and the big corporations about the importance of clean air. There are not enough trees on the planet to clean the amount of pollution produced by cars and factories. Pollution is suffocating what is left of the trees. Life in this planet is in jeopardy and we are the care takers of this beautiful world which has been given to us as a gift for the time being. Please be considerate with your choices between material profit that is limited and the the fulfillment you get from bettering the world.

Thank you

Mina Webb47 From: Don Fisher [dfisher@secondpres.org] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Nov 4 Lenexa KS hearings



### Dear EPA, as one who cares about the future of the planet and not so much about the profits of the coal industry, I

e ncourage you to put in place and enforce the strictest possible air quality standards. We must, we must, move toward sustainable energy sources, and if regulation (rather than conscience) is what it is going to take to force the energy industries to move that direction, then regulate.

Also, I highly encourage you to ask each person who speaks before your panel to tell his/her home address and to state who it is who provided his/her travel expenses to the event.

Don Fisher 101 W. 109 th 

### St. K ansas City, MO 6411448 From: Lynda Swanson [lyndaswanson@me.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Lynda Swanson Subject: EPA listening tour on carbon reduction from CURRENT plants

Yes...Anything! Do it now! My children, my godchildren, my grandchildren and all the children everywhere must survive this nightmare. Also, spare the oceans, the botanical and agricultural plants, the trees, the enormous aquatic mammals, the food chain...it HAS TO STOP! We have to LEAD! We cannot keep pointing the finger at China and India etc...we have to help curb everywhere.

Give people a scorecard to keep track of their own carbon footprint; show them how a small amount of investment now will yield enormous improvements in 10-30 years.

I, too, am limiting my airplane travel to one trip/year; drive less than 5 miles a week; live in a small house which I keep "cool"; walk as much as I can; and recycle, reduce, and avoid purchasing overly-packaged junk.

DO NOT FAIL US! Lynda Swanson, 571-3 Pointe Pacific Drive, Daly City CA 94014-3439; Lyndaswanson @comcast.net49 From: ICDesk R1 [R1.Icdesk@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 12:37 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Public Listening Session Comment

November 4th Public Listening Session

Thank you for taking action on climate change! As a business person and parent I am very grateful that the Obama

a dministration is taking this important step towards a carbon free future. I'm hopeful that this action will be followed by many other important and positive steps such as denying the Keystone XL pipeline, increasing our investments in renewable energy and transitioning away completely from fossil fuel energy sources over the next several decades.

Quinton Y. Zondervan Executive Director Climate Action Liaison Coalition50 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Stew Plock [kathystew@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 12:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 12:23 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Stew Plock Email: kathystew@comcast.net Comments: As a teenager, I saw all the cigarette ads that motivated me to take up smoking for more than 10 years. During that period, the FDA bravely took on the deception and dishonesty of the cigarette industry as science proved the link between smoking and lung cancer. In the same way, the EPA now has the opportunity to listen to the vast majority of environmental scientists and stop or severely limit the harm to our atmosphere by burning coal. The impact on the quality of life of Americans and peoples around the world depends on drastic fossil fuel reductions, and the most effective way is to limit coal power plant emissions over the next 20 years. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards51 From: ICDesk R1 [R1.Icdesk@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Public Listening Session Comment

November 4th Public Listening Session

Global climate disruption has become a reality for Americans across the country we have seen first hand the effects. I am

a Veteran of the USA. and feel that we as humans need to do more to hold the corporations accountable that do not abide the environmental law and fined very heavily so it hurts them financially and start a trust and the fine money should be used to help fund the EPA to help correct the damages that have been done by negligent corporations and to be used only for that cause.

My concerns are for the fundamental recreational activities that all Americans should have and enjoy like Hunting, F ishing, Swimming and enjoyment of all Nature and State parks.

So that's why I support a strong carbon pollution protection plan from the EPA.

Sincerely,

Gerald Slade 635 26th Ct. Vero Beach, Fl 32962 veteran1960@att.net52 From: Paul and/or Cindy Wackerbarth [phwchw@erols.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Stop coal now.



### D ear EPA,

As a person who suffers from asthma, I really need clean air. As a teacher, I know that there are more and more children with asthma. It is your duty to protect the public by continuing to support and enforce clean air initiatives.

With great dismay, I see destruction that occurs to mountain tops, streams, and habitats as a result of mountain top removal for coal. I realize there is an employment/ economic issue here. The long range plan has to include reduced use of coal and enforcement of penalties to those who do not comply with laws.

Thank you for what you do. Keep on!

Sincerely yours, Cynthia Wackerbarth Falls Church VA53 From: Windows Live Team [ch_a_alex@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input



### I support placing the strongest possible standards re: carbon pollution on power plants. They are responsible f or 40 percent of carbon pollution in the U.S., which is driving very damaging environmental change. Soon, if we do not act in the strongest possible way, this change will be irreversible. For this reason alone, the strongest possible action is necessary. Economic costs to the dirty power industry is not nearly as bad as economic losses that wouls come about as the result of permanent climate change.

Sincerely,

Charles Alexander54 From: Pam Drew [drew.pam@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:41 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Standards for power plants

I endorse strong carbon pollution reduction by new power plants and existing power plants, p articularly regarding coal power production but also for all types. This is long overdue.

Pam Drew55 From: Justine Tenzeldam [eastbayjustine@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:54 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Fwd: Tuesday in SF: Coal lobbyists don't want you to come.



### I am writing to oppose any sort of coal operations in California, or the world for that matter. I cannot understand why coal is still being used today, when there are so many options that are much safer and cleaner. As a Grand Mother, and Mother of a Daughter with Asthma, it has hit home for me. But, remember -- we're all connected to each other and the environment. Science proves it. Don't you want YOUR air and water to be clean? Do the right thing folks. Thanks for allowing the input. Justine tenZeldam 1600 E. 31st Street Oakland, CA 94602 510-230-8270

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Justine Tenzeldam < eastbayjustine@gmail.com > Date: Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM Subject: Re: Tuesday in SF: Coal lobbyists don't want you to come. To: 350@350.org

, cmahan@audubon.org

Is this on Facebook? Would you like me to post it, if not?!

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Anna Goldstein - 350.org < 350@350.org > wrote:

Friends,

Sorry for the short notice on this one, but we've got a rapid-response moment on our hands.

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency is holding a public listening session in San Francisco about their new rules on coal-fired power plants. These new EPA rules could be a powerful way to reduce climate pollution in the coming years -- and these hearings were designed to gather community input.

Predictably, the fossil fuel industry is pulling out all the stops to weaken, block, or delay these rules. We've heard reports that they're flying in coal lobbyists and corporate shills to make the EPA think that the public doesn't really want tough new regulations on coal plants. We can't let that happen -- and that's where you come in.

Will you join us in San Francisco this Tuesday November 5th for the EPA public listening session on coal-fired power plants? Together, we can prevent corporate polluters from hijacking this event.

Here are the details:

What: Rally and Public Listening Session on coal-fired plants

Who: You, your friends, and people representing a diverse coalition of climate activists.

When: Tuesday, November 5th, 9:00am-4:00pm

Where: U.S. EPA Region 9 Offices, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco ( Click here for a map )

Sign Up: Click here to register with the EPA

.

We know that coal-fired electricity is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions in the US, and that 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.

Hope you can join us on Tuesday,

Anna Goldstein for the 350.org team

P.S. If you can volunteer to take notes, help with hand-outs, and hold signs, please email Connie Mahon at cmahan@audubon.org

.

P.P.S. Can't make it? If you are unable to attend the listening session in person, the EPA is also accepting input by email at carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

.56 

### 350.org is building a global movement to solve the climate crisis. Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter

, and sign up for email alerts . You can help power our work by getting involved locally, sharing your story , and donating here. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here.

To stop receiving emails from 350.org

, click here.

-- 

# Justine

Justine tenZeldam and Slimm Buick

@JustinetZ @BicycleArtSalon

Oakland, California 510-230-8270 (voice/sms) 510-356-5665 (message)

- - 

# Justine

Justine tenZeldam and Slimm Buick

@JustinetZ @BicycleArtSalon

Oakland, California 510-230-8270 (voice/sms) 510-356-5665 (message)57