peabgtq 

Submitted Testimony by Fredrick D. Palmer 

Peabody Energy Senior Vice President of Government Relations 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule 

i01/ashington, D.C. 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 

July 29, 2014 

Peabody Energy 

701 Nlarket St. 

St. Louis, IVIO 63101 

314-342-3400 
My name is Fred Palmer. I am Senior Vice President for Government 

Relations at Peabody Energy. Thank you for allowing me to submit 

testimony. 

Using coal for electricity enables people to live longer and better and 

drives the lowest U.S. electricity costs for any major fuel. l 

Peabody has a profound disagreement with EPA's approach on carbon 

under the Clean Air Act. We are opposed to any proposal that would 

punish electricity consumers, have no material benefit under climate 

theory and act outside the bounds of the law. 

This proposal must be withdrawn. 

Access to clean, affordable energy is essential at a time when a record 

115 million Americans qualify for energy assistance2 and 48 million 

Americans live in poverty. 3 

Last week the Washington Post put a face on this very real daily struggle. It 

brought to light the story of a single mother of five children from Pueblo, 

Colorado, struggling to pay for power.i4 

And I quote: 

"Why do you need to turn the lights off?" Sharon Garcia asks her son. 

"Because otherwise there's no money," he replies. 

"And when there's no money?"... "You can't feed us..." 

IVo matter how deep she rations, Sharon can't get ahead of rising costs. A 

major cause of the state's increase in energy costs is attributed to the 

shutdown of coal plants and an aggressive transition to renewables. 

~ U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 2014. 

zU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, September 2011; 

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 

3U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. 

4The Cost of Climate Change: Flow Not to Shut Down Coal Plants, Washington Post, July 24, 2014. 

0711 
Yet perhaps the most extreme and disturbing example is California, a state 

the EPA lauds as its energy model. California has exacerbated energy 

inequality and turned away business based on high renewable mandates 

and energy taxes. 

California power prices are 40% higher than the U.S. average, 5businesses 

are exiting at a 3:1 ratio, and 700,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost 

since 2000. 6Is this really our model? 

EPA's proposal is symbolic at best and would have no significant benefit 

under climate theory. An entire shutdown of America's coal fleet — which is 

not proposed — would result in a 1/20thof one degree temperature change.' 

EPA also shows deep misunderstanding about the relationship of states to 

the federal government under the Clean Air Act. 

The proposal is outside the bounds of law and, if finalized, is likely to be 

heavily litigated. Widespread opposition is evident by actions in the 

people's House, opposition in the U.S. Senate and state legislative actions. 

® In mid-July, the House Appropriations Committee passed a spending 

bill prohibiting EPA from using funds for carbon standards. 

® In March, the House passed Whitfield-Manchin to repeal the 

proposed new source rule and stop 111(d) without Congressional 

approval. $ 

® Forty-one Republican Senators have asked EPA to withdraw the rule, 

and seven Democratic Senators have written the President about 

new plant standards. 

' U.S. EIA, 2013 data March 2014. Average retail electricity prices per kWh. 

6 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Manufacturing Jobs, California." 

7 American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, "'Climate Effects' of Carbon Regulations for the U.S. Electric Sector," 

May 2014. 

° H.R. 3826 prohibits a 11(d) rule or guideline for existing facilities from taking effect unless Congress has passed a 

separate law setting an effective date. 

3 
® Over 20 states passed legislation or resolutions stating greenhouse 

gas emissions can only be regulated on a plant-by-plant basis "inside 

the fence." 

® Citizen and business groups are activating, led by the Partnership for a 

Better Energy Future, a business coalition representing 80% of the 

U.S. economy. 

Peabody proposes a better path that calls for investing in efficiency 

improvements; deploying advanced supercritical coal plants and supporting 

greater R&D toward next generation technologies, including carbon capture 

and storage. 

More and more nations are pushing back against flawed carbon policies. 

Australia's Prime Minister called the former carbon tax a"useless, 

destructive tax, which damaged jobs, hurt families' cost of living and didn't 

actually help the environment." 9 

Japan has stepped up support for coal fueled power plants both 

domestically and overseas, saying it would rather break a promise than 

its economy. 

We must reject the Administration's harmful carbon proposal and put in 

place a technology path for long-term improvement in carbon emissions. 

This is a far better path for a clean, secure energy future. 

Thank you. 

9 Australia Becomes 1=irst Developed Nation to Repeal Carbon Tax, Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2014. 

s