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 only tribe on Governor Doyle’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 numerous energy efficiency and renewable energy efforts, and developing a 

quarterly 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 approximately 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 solar 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 significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Accordingly, 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 solely 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. Especially 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 likely 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 or 
2

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 clearly 

recognize the likelihood of substantially lower costs from allowing averaging among units, 

especially 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 the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative, EPA should recognize that the costs of achieving CO2 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 types 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 types of classes of facilities. Rather, in order to create a robust 

market for emission reductions, 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 generally 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, 

especially 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 particular 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 systems that will dramatically 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 electricity, and thereby decrease both overall energy costs 

and emissions, EPA should set standards based on kilowatt hours of electrical energy output 
3

rather than BTU of heat input. Only if output-based standards are applied will units be 

encouraged to maximize 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 appropriately stringent based upon 

emissions from non-coal resources. Fuel-neutral standards should occur right away. However, 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 types 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 offset 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 important 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