**FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY** COMMENTS ON EPA RULE
- MAKING FOR GHG EMISSIONS

FROM ELECTRIC UTILITY STEAM GENERATING UNITS

. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the conference call with EPA on May 23, 2011, and to submit these comments as a follow

- up to that conference call. As you are aware, the Forest County Potawatomi Community (“FCPC”) is very

concerned about the effects of climate change on its reservation, Indian Country in general, and the world as a whole. Because of this, FCPC has been very engaged in efforts to help address the causes and effects of climate change. This has included FCPC’s involvement as the onl y tribe on Governor Do yl e’s Task Force on Global Warming, which resulted in development of numerous policies in the state of Wisconsin to help address climate change issues. In addition, the Tribe has undertaken significant efforts to reduce its own carbon profile. These efforts have included energy auditing of all of its major energy

- using facilities, implementation of num erous energy efficiency

and renewable energy

efforts, and developing a quarterl y carbon and energy report for all of the Tribe’s energy

- using facilities. Because of these efforts, the Tribe has been able to significantly reduce its carbon profile by appro ximately

20% per gross square foot of building space over the last three years. The Tribe has also obtained renewable energy

certificates to cover all of its electricity usage, and is presently

implementing several renewable energy projects, including sol ar and biogas facilities. Because of the Tribe’s significant concerns and efforts to address climate change, it is very interested in having EPA develop broad and stringent rules regarding GHG emissions from electric utility

facilities, as well as other si gnificant sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingl y, FCPC believes it is very important that EPA develop rules that cover a broad range of sources, set stringent GHG levels, and encourage the development of renewable, carbon

- free or carbon

- neutral energy

resources. Based upon the above, FCPC makes the following specific comments regarding EPA’s rule making for GHG emissions from electric utilities steam

- generating units: 1. Need for broad inclusion of sources . FCPC believes that EPA should include as broad an array

of sources as possible in its rule

- making. It is especially important not to limit sources solel y to electric utilities steam generating units, since that would exclude very large GHG emission sources just because they are somewhat below 25 megawatts of electricity or even if they

are above 25 megawatts because they do not sell their output to the utility power distribution system. 2. Especiall y if EPA allows for flexibility in average emissions between units, EPA should not apply

lesser standards or allow sources to avoid regulation . Since EPA can, and it appears likel y will, allow for flexibility and averaging between sources, there should be no reason to set lesser standards based upon the particular characteristics of individual sources or2

categories of sources. Instead, EPA should utilize any emission averaging to ensure that the most stringent possible standards are set. 3. When considering costs and other factors, EPA should recognize the reduced costs that will result from any averaging or trading that EPA allows . EPA indicated that in setting the standards it is to consider the degree of emission limitations achievable, costs, and environmental impacts. In evaluating the costs of the standards that it sets, EPA should clearl y recognize the likelihood of substantially lower costs from allowing averaging among units, especiall y if averaging is allowed over the large number of units. For example, if EPA allows emission trading such as that allowed under the Western Climate Initiative and th e Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, EPA should recognize that the costs of achieving CO 2 emission reductions will be dramatically less than they

would be if standards were set on an individual source - by

- source basis. 4. EPA should not set standards based on sizes or t ypes of sources if averaging or trading is allowed . If EPA allows emission averaging or trading, it should not set differing standards based on sizes or ty pes of classes of facilities. Rather, in order to create a robust market for emission re ductions, EPA should set the same standards for all sources. 5. EPA should require state plans for emission reductions for existing units be due as soon as possible . EPA noted that state plans are generall y due with nine months after publication of the final emissions guidelines, but that other time frames may be set by EPA for specific standards. In this case, given the critical importance of implementing reductions as soon as possible, EPA should ensure that the state plans are in place as soon as legally possible. 6. EPA should not allow states to adopt less stringent standards or longer compliance schedules if emission averaging is allowed . If EPA allows emission averaging, especiall y among a larger number of sources or throughout geographic regions, there should be no reason for allowing states to adopt lesser emissions standards or longer compliance schedules. In general, EPA should develop the most stringent standards possible and provide for averaging and trading as needed to allow those standards to be implemented in a cost

- effective manner. 7. In setting standards, EPA should consider fuel switching, coal

- firing, and combined heat and power . EPA should consider all mechanisms for sources to reduce their GHG emissions, not just energy efficiency

at partic ular plants and post

- production technologies. This is especially

true if EPA allows for any averaging and especially if it allows for wide

- scale averaging/trading, since in that case, the market will encourage comprehensive changes such as fuel switching, coal

- firing, and combining heat and power s ys tems that will dramaticall y increase the options available for GHG reductions and thereby lower the price of those reductions. This is what happened under the acid rain program, which allows for averaging/trading, and resulted in emission reductions that were substantially less expensive than anticipated before the program was put in place. 8. EPA should set standards based on an output rather than input basis . In order to maximum efficiency

in production of elec tricity , and thereby decrease both overall energy costs and emissions, EPA should set standards based on kilowatt hours of electrical energy output3

rather than BTU of heat input. Only if output

- based standards are applied will units be encouraged to maxim ize energy efficiency

and therefore lower both pollution and energy costs. 9. EPA should move as quickly as possible to fuel

- neutral standards . FCPC agrees that EPA should set GHG emission standards based upon fuel

- neutral standards. This will encourage the movement to the most cost

- effective and GHG

- efficient electricity production. Moreover, it will allow for setting standards that are appropriatel y stringent based upon emissions from non

- coal resources. Fuel

- neutral standards should occur right away . H owever, if they do not occur right away , EPA should at least move rapidly toward such standards. 10. In setting standards, EPA should recognize the potential for retirement of existing high

- GHG sources . In setting emission standards, EPA should not worry about whether those standards may

result in closure of some older, more polluting sources. Rather, the EPA should allow market forces to result in the most efficient and effective emission reductions and should recognize the important benefits of setting appropriately stringent standards to achieve needed emission reductions. 11. EPA should set a generation performance standard that accounts for all ty pes of energy sources, including renewables . In setting its standards, EPA should set GHG emission standards that reflect the abilities for renewables to be an important component for offsetting emissions of traditional fossil

- fuel sources. Therefore, EPA should allow for emissions trading with carbon

- free or carbon

- neutral renewable resources to allow them to offse t GHG emissions of coal

- fired and other fossil fuel sources. This will allow EPA to set more stringent GHG standards, while creating a robust trading market that encourages for more efficient GHG reductions and therefore lower costs. This is especially i mportant for Indian Country , where significant renewable resources exist and where encouraging the development of those resources will help our country

meet its need for effective clean

- energy resources.

6424163_1