1 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of sven thesen [sventhesen@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:15 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 03:14 S ubmitted values are:

Name: sven thesen Email: sventhesen@gmail.com Comments: I support strong CO2 emission standards for new power plants and MACT standards for old ones. Similar to "no net loss of wetlands" there should be no net increase in our carbon footprint as a result of any new power plant. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards2 From: Ann Suellentrop [annsuellen@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 12:18 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal-fired power plants cause asthma and heart attacks, early deaths, and neurological and developmental disabilities in children.

Coal-fired power plants are the leading global warming culprit in the U.S., accounting for more than 30 percent of our nation's carbon dioxide emissions. They also are one of the nation's largest sources of air pollutants that damage cardiovascular and respiratory health and threaten healthy child development. Particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and more than 50 other air toxics are among the dangerous mix of pollutants spewed from the smokestacks of coal plants. Despite this poor environmental record, energy companies have proposed building more than 100 new coal-fired power plants across the country.

Coal proponents say that new technologies can turn coal into a clean, low carbon energy source. Yet many of the new coal plants under consideration would rely on outdated, dirty energy technologies of the past. Virtually none of the new coal plant proposals include plans to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from day one of operation. If built, these coal plants, with a lifespan in excess of 50 years, would gravely diminish the prospects of slowing global warming, while exacerbating air pollution-related disease and death.

PSR calls on the medical and public health community to help stem the tide of coal plant construction around the country. Given the clear and growing threats to public health posed by these plants, physicians, nurses and other health professionals must work to halt this dangerous nationwide "coal rush." Until energy companies agree to install the most effective air pollution control technologies, and until new plants are able to capture and sequester CO2 emissions, a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants must be enacted. Together, we can build a healthier energy future, a future in which energy demand is met not by dirty fossil fuel, but instead by a combination of conservation, efficiency and truly clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.

A Serious Global Warming Culprit

Within the electricity sector, CO2 emissions from coal-fired electricity generation comprise nearly 80 percent of the total emissions, but the share of electricity generation from coal is only 50 percent. This disproportionate carbon footprint is due to the high carbon content of coal relative to other fossil fuels like natural gas. Without the ability to capture and safely store CO2, emissions from the fleet of new coal plants proposed across the country will make it virtually impossible to prevent the worst impacts of global warming. As global temperatures increase, public health will suffer as a result of increased heat waves, more severe storms, worsening air pollution and the spread of vector borne diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus. Sea level rise will severely disrupt the lives of the more than 150 million U .S. residents living in and around our nation's coastal cities and towns. Across the U.S., the poorest and most vulnerable individuals those least able to adapt will be disproportionately affected as the U.S. public health infrastructure becomes overburdened by the impacts of global warming.

For more, read: The Medical and Public Health Impacts of Global Warmi ng

Dirty Power, Dirty Air

In addition to massive CO2 emissions, coal combustion produces a slew of harmful air pollutants. Every year, particulate matter pollution spewed by coal-fired power plants triggers hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and causes tens of thousands of hospitalizations, heart attacks and early deaths. Coal plant emissions of nitrogen oxide also contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, or smog, which itself is associated with asthma attacks, new onset asthma, heart attacks and angina pain. Coal-fired power plants are also the single largest source of mercury emissions in the U.S. Pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of mercury, exposure to which occurs primarily from consuming contaminated fish. As many as 600,000 children are born each year with d angerous levels of mercury in their bodies, putting them at heightened risk for developmental disabilities. This is particularly concerning given the increasing incidence of autism and other neurological problems among U.S. children.

For more, read:

•

Coal's Assault on Human Health



### Ann Suellentrop M.S.R.N. cell 913-271-7925 Physicians for Social Responsibility - Kansas City3 From: Monica Briggs [polarbear.briggs@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 10:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Limit Carbon NOW!



### As a volunteer for the aptly named 350.org (the target of 350 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere that will sustain life on this planet,) I am writing to advocate for policies to limit carbon production.

We need new rules to regulate coal-fired power plants and reduce climate pollution in the coming years.

Coal-fired electricity is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions in the US. We need to make a just transition to clean energy as soon as possible and invest in renewable sources immediately, creating green jobs to replace the outdated, unsustainable oil, gas and coal industries. These EPA rules can be the first step.

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.

Here's my community input!!

Sincerely,

Monica A. Briggs

17 Lourdes Avenue, Unit 3

|Jamaica Plain, Ma 021304 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Sharon Tan [sharontanxh@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 9:52 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 21:51 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Sharon Tan Email: sharontanxh@gmail.com Comments: I can't make it to the San Francisco listening session, but I care very much about responsible standards for existing power plants. I would like the organizers of these listening sessions to consider that fossil fuel companies have the resources to pay their employees to represent their interests, but the average citizen struggles with a host of commitments. Please plan judiciously to ensure that their voices are not drowned out. Thank you. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards5 From: Jan Galkowski [empirical_bayesian@ieee.org] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 9:50 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495



## Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013- 0 495

Comments from Jan Galkowski
, Westwood Statistical Studios, practice limited to environmental statistics 320 Dover Road Westwood, MA 02090 607.239.1834 (mobile) empirical_bayesian@ieee.org

This kind of rule is an important rule, and, in my opinion, is long overdue. I applaud its issuance, and look forward to promulgation of new standards for existing stationary fossil fuel plants. My comments and concerns are listed below.

1. Regarding, pages 16-17, quoting: "Therefore, based on the analysis presented in Chapter 5 of the RIA, the EPA projects that this proposed rule will result in negligible CO2 emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022. These projections are in line with utility announcements and Energy Information Administration (EIA) modeling that indicate that coal units built between now and 2020 would have CCS, even in the absence of this rule." Should not EPA be leading the industry in regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, not simply sanctioning what industry is already doing? 2. EPA's affirmation of CCS as a technology for mitigating emissions from fixed fossil fuel plants is commendable. However, it is disturbing that pages 27-28 indicate "the projects will sell or use the captured CO 2 

## to g enerate additional revenue". What regulations or measures are considered, implied, or implemented for assuring the storage mechanism of these processes is permanent, able to last centuries without leaking CO 2 

## or other GHGs? The IPCC, in their 2010 report on CO 2 

## capture and

s torage remarked with respect to use of CO 2 

## in Enhanced Oil Recovery ( EOR) that "CO 2 

## injection for EOR is a mature market technology, but

w hen used for CO 2 

## storage, it is only economically feasible under specific

c onditions". In fact, page 31 admits as much, where it says "Because6



## these 'full capture' CCS costs without EOR are significantly above the price range of potential alternative generation options, the EPA believes that full capture CCS does not meet the cost criterion of BSER." Have certifications been developed for EOR use? Have monitoring measures been devised to be sure EOR burial of CO 2 

## does not leak? Further, the Carbon Capture and Storage Institute also suggests conversion to biomass as an option for captured CO 2 

## , whether as algae or other purposes. This biomass will either decompose, or be burned, releasing most of the CO 2 

## stored in the first place. The EPA rule discusses leakage of stored CO 2 

## on pages 228-232, but the supporting studies have not ascertained stability of these reservoirs on the century-long timescales required to mitigate climate change. At the very least, all storage should be at the level of EPA UIC Class VI wells.(See U.S. DOE's Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations – 2012 Update for details

. It is not at all clear use of CO2 injection for EOR is compatible with these requirements.) Mechanisms for storage as, e.g, soda ash are commendable, as long as these do not release the sequestered CO 2 

## during their own life cycles. I acknowledge EPA addressed some of the limitations of its ruling in this regard on pages 280-281. 3. Page 30 remarks in a footnote that "The proposed CO 2 

## emission standards would only apply to new fossil fuel-fired EGUs. New EGUs that primarily fire biomass would not be subject to these proposed standards." Why is this so? CO 2 

## released from biomass burning is just as damaging to atmospheric balance as is coal-derived CO 2 

## . Arguments that biomass represents CO 2 

## captured from atmosphere are not sound. They depend upon accounting for portions of the carbon cycle which are hardly monitored, such as the amount of natural cover which is felled to support fuel biomass production, or use of petroleum-derived fertilizers and accelerators. Are these the matters being considered for separate regulation as described on pages 85-86, pertaining to "biogenic CO 2 

## emissions"? 4. How does EPA plan to regulate CO 2 

## emissions from so-called energy cogeneration facilities? These are stationary and, while they each emit less per site per unit time, they are potentially more numerous than large energy generators. 5. While EPA's reconstruction of arguments in Section II.A for the risks posed to climate and health by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is proper and laudable, as well as its recounting of its authority to regulate these, such regulation is improper if it does not achieve its intended objective, namely, the collective and substantial reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases. Moreover, the same science which EPA cites also says that greenhouse gas emissions must stop altogether , since7



## damage to climate is due to cumulative emissions not rate of emission. While there may be some areas where this is not possible, e.g., incidental production of greenhouse gases during agriculture even if zero emission engines and harvesters are used, these too will demand offsets. Globally, we are limited to 750 GtC within 2010-2050 if we are to meet requirements for keeping global warming belong the mean 2o C. Given that the U.S. and other OECD produce -- and have produced -- a substantial portion of CO 2 

## emissions, and can afford to reduce these more than many, it there appears to be a strong dissonance between the stated objective of the regulation and its methods and implementation. I would like to see a reference to the determination of level of acceptable harm from the standards for emission of 1000 and 1100 lbs CO 2 

## /MWh, and that report. In particular, I'd like to see a defense of why it should not be less. 6. In a particular case, the assessment of climate impacts on (e.g.) page 50 of the ruling draws upon the NRC 2011 report ("climate stabilization targets"). However, the NRC report, for the purposes of projection, adopts the "AR4 A1B" scenario which assumes a global balanced use of energy resources, one far more aggressive than either the United States or other countries are actually demonstrating. In fact, the globe's performance is in practical violation of Kyoto, and is actually following what is designated the "AR4 A1FI" scenario, a far more fossil fuel intensive pathway well beyond the conservative assumptions on emissions used in the NRC report. Thus EPA is downplaying impacts to climate, as their warnings are based upon scenarios which not only assume their own ruling is in place, but that far more aggressive measures are already containing emissions. 7. Much of the complexity of implementing the goals of ≈1000 lbs CO2/MWh as described arises because the means of calculation depend upon the nature of site operations, the type of fossil fuel combusted, and aspects such as downtime, consideration of malfunctions, the degree to which a plant is connected to the grid, and so on. To achieve the strongly sought protection of the at mosphere, a more direct technique is requiring emissions to be measured directly, for example, using techniques to detect and measure CO 2 

## as reported in the EPA's own December 2011 report, EPA Handbook: Optical Remote Sensing for Measurement and Monitoring of Emissions Flux. CO 2 

## has many absorption lines suitable for detection and monitoring. Such direct monitoring, perhaps by licensed third parties hired to perform randomized, blind weekly sampling by site operators, would simplify paperwork and enforcement. These are also discussed in U.S. DOE's Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations – 2012 Update.8



## 8. Page 424. Why are "municipal waste combustors" excluded from this ruling? Not only is a significant percentage of materials burned in these combustors ultimately derived from petroleum, but excluding this outlet for power generation from GHG regulation incentivizes the construction of more of these facilities, and aggrandizes the need for waste to fuel them, reducing prices for waste-to-energy disposal, and thereby discouraging recycling and producer responsibility. Are these ultimately to be considered emitters of "biogenic CO 2 

## " because of their high organic feedstocks?

Respectfully submitted,

Jan Galkowski, Westwood, MA.

-- Jan Theodore Galkowski (o°)

607.239.1834 [mobile] 607.239.1834 [home]

320 Dover Road Westwood, MA 02090

empirical_bayesian@ieee.org http://hypergeometric.wordpress.com

Westwood Statistical Studios

member, http://www.amstat.org, http://www.bayesian.org, http://www.ieee.org, http://www.agu.org, http://http://www.ametsoc.org/

... American Statistical Association ... International Society for Baysian Analysis ... Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ... American Geophysical Union ... American Meteorological Society

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented auto matic download of this picture from the Internet. [Znippets]9 From: Brian Ettling [b.green.ettling@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 9:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Lexena EPA Public Listening Speech



### This is the address I hope to give in Lexena, Kansas at the EPA listening session:

" My name is Brian Ettling. I am 45 years old. I am a lifelong native resident of south St. Louis County, Missouri and a 1992 William Jewell College graduate, which is located in the Kansas City

area.

Thank you for allowing me to express my support to you to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. We appreciate this event to listen to our input.

I am very concerned about my health and my family’s health living in south St. Louis County. My family lived less than 4 miles from the Meramec Coal Power Plant for 36 years. Unfortunately, the air pollution released from the Meramec power plant is not scrubbed or regulated for carbon and other pollutants, such mercury or sulfur dioxide, a leading cause of respiratory illnesses.

So what, Brian? Why should I care?

This SO2 plume from the Meramec coal power plant is a dangerous health threat to you and your family. In June 2012, an Environmental Integrity Project report concluded, “Sulfur dioxide pollution causes asthma attacks, severe respiratory problems, lung disease, and heart complications.”

Even worse, this report, authored by Boston University School of Public Health professor, Dr. Jonathan Levy, states that the Meramec power plant causes upwards of 1,000 asthma attacks and 57 to 110 premature deaths each year.

This past winter, my dad was diagnosed with cancer below his kidney. The doctor asked if my dad was a smoker. My dad never smoked in his life. Now my dad is going through cancer treatments with chemotherapy. I deeply worry the air pollution emitted from the Meramec power plant contributed to his illness.10 

### Even worse, I am worried for my nieces and nephews about the carbon pollution coming from the unregulated Meramec Coal Plant and all the other fossil fuel power plants in the United States.

Scientists have known for over 100 years that burning fossil fuels, especially from power plants, is warming our planet’s atmosphere and triggering a potentially dangerous climate change.

For the past 21 years, I worked as a park ranger in our national parks. I have personally witnessed faster sea level rise in Everglades National Park, Florida and a decreasing snow pack in Crater Lake National Park, Oregon.

With the evidence I have witnessed in the national parks, I am very worried what the future holds for my nieces and nephews with climate change. Scientists warn us that we must act fast to reduce the threat of climate change. Otherwise, our children could carry the burden of more severe droughts, floods, food shortages, mosquito borne diseases, runaway sea level rise, etc.

To stabilize our global climate for my nieces and nephews, we support you, EPA, to eliminate all the pollution coming from our power plants, especially carbon dioxide.

Thank you for hosting this event today so I can honor my dad.

Brian Ettling

b.green.ettling@gmail.com 4891 Stanhope Drive St. Louis, MO 63128

Home: 314-892-3119 Cell: 314-882-9249

"Think Globally, Act Daily." - Brian Ettling11 From: Lisa Shearer Cooper [lisa@sc3.net] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:34 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Dear EPA,

Thank you for providing this forum for people to comment on the proposal of new coal regulations. I really appreciated the

w ebinar explaining climate change and how coal fired power plants contribute 40% of the greenhouse gases causing the warming of the earth. It made it clear to me why you are choosing to work on this specific area first. As I read your website and then ventured out to other websites, I was able to see that the answer to eliminating the negative impacts of burning coal was simply to stop burning it. I know this sounds naive, and I so I sought to find out if this was even something that we can do with current technology and energy supply and demand.

I was excited to learn that Sandy Mc Donald, the director of NOAA has a p lan for a National Renewable Energy Grid using 80-90% renewables. He has presented his plan to Senator Mark Udall and Representative Jared Polis. It is a doable plan and the economics of it are not outrageous. I would encourage the EPA to hear from our own government scientists who can help with feasible plans for reducing our greenhouse gases.

I was also please to see Dr.Mark Jacobsen of Stanford University on David Letterman. According to Professor Jacobsen

w e can have the whole planet to 100% renewable energy in 20 years. He said we have enough wind and solar energy to power the entire earth 30 times over! It is not expensive to do it. It is not hard to do it. It does require policies that remove subsidies for fossil fuels. We need to see the true cost of using fossil fuels.

According to Harvard University's Public Health website the true cost of burning coal is 2-3 times more than what people p ay on their fuel bills. If fuel bills were calculated to absord the costs of the damage they do to the environment and to the health of people, suddenly renewable energy would be much cheaper. There is a higher capital cost for starting the solar and wind energy, but after that, the fuel itself will be free, and clean, forever.

I know you are getting lots of feedback from folks whose econmies and jobs depend on coal mining and burning. My heart goes out to them, it really does. Not least of all because they suffer more than anyone the health effects of mining and burning coal. It is sad when an industry's time comes to an end. But I plead with you to remember who you are- the ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. It is your job to protect the environment- not the coal industry or any other industry. You are not the jobs protection agency or the cheap electric bill agency. You are the EPA and I beg you to protect our environment. For all of our sakes. Please put an end to mining and burning coal in the United States.

Sincerely,

Lisa Shearer Cooper

ps I do not represent any group. I am not a scientist. I don't work for anyone in any part of the government or the

r enewable energy industry or any other industry. I am a mom and a gardener and a preschool teacher and a writer. My concern is for the future of human beings on this planet. What is our legacy to the generations to come? How can you, as a worker for the EPA, change the outlook for the future?12 From: Alexander Hartray [a.hartray@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 7:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA - Coal !

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

EPA - Coal !

It is the EPA's job to safeguard our health not corporate profits. The use of coal fired electric plants is a fossil of the industrial revolution with its devastating health consequences. We need to reduce all pollution and global warming NOW.

Thank you,

Alexander Hartray 2019 N. Sedgwick St Chicago, IL 6061413 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of steve eittreim [eittreimcs@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 7:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 19:16 S ubmitted values are:

Name: steve eittreim Email: eittreimcs@gmail.com Comments: I have grandchildren and I fear that they will be losing the mellow climate that I have enjoyed and that has been enjoyed by humans for the last 10,000 years. I believe that waiting to phase out coal over many more decades is too long to wait. Please do what you can for the future health of Americans who are young today. Our Congress is paralyzed to act today. It is up to the Executive branch, through, you to protect our nation and the world. We need to get beyond our fossil-fueled economy, quickly, not at a leisurely pace. Thank you for all you have done so far. Keep up the good work. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards14 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Pierre Delforge [pedelforge@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 7:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 19:15 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Pierre Delforge Email: pedelforge@gmail.com Comments: Dear EPA Administrators and Staff,

Coal- fired power plants are immoral: their toxic emissions kill people, the mercury they emit gets into our streams and oceans and ultimately in the seafood we eat, causing serious health risks, and most consequently, the CO2 emitted by power plants, and the methane released by coal mines, are irreversibly transforming the planet, warming its climate beyond control. This is dramatically reducing the planet's carrying capacity so that the collision of demography, reduced agricultural yields and reduced fresh water availability will create a security nightmare in the near future.

The impacts of climate change are already being felt today, and should serve as a stark warning of the folly of continuing on the current course.

Coal-fired power plants are disastrous for our health and for our climate, they only serve vested interest of the coal industry. It is time for EPA to do the right thing for our country, and end the license for the coal industry to pollute for free and to wreck our future. It is time to transition to cleaner sources of energy, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and natural gas only as needed and as a transition fuel.

Thank you for freeing the US economy from the tyranny of the coal industry and its lobby.

Best regards,

Pierre Delforge Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards15 From: Anne Shumway [ashumway@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:31 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA rules on carbon producting plants

Dear EPA:

A s a mother, grandmother, and environmentalist, I want to strongly support your new rules on coal-burning plants. You know, and we know, that coal is one of the worst environmental offenders. I am well aware of the immense pressure on you from the industry, and how difficult it is to withstand that pressure, but urge you to stay strong for the sake of our future generations- and the preservation of our earth.

As the daughter of Dr. Roger Revelle, considered the "grandfather of the greenhouse effect" with his early studies of CO2, I have grown up with a deep concern for our environment. Now at 81, and with nine grandchildren, I am more determined than ever to fight for our earth against the fossil fuel industry. I am too well aware that time is running out if we are to continue to have a livable planet.

I am grateful for the stand that the EPA has taken on these issues, and give you my wholehearted support.

Peace,

Anne Revelle Shumway16 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Bill Hilton [billhilton@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 17:39 S ubmitted values are:

Name: Bill Hilton Email: billhilton@mac.com Comments: I urge the EPA to establish and enforce strict toxic emission limits on coal burning power plants. Such plants are respon sible for 40% of our country's CO2 emissions and substantial proportions of mercury. That strict limits might force some coal plants to shut down or convert to another fuel will be good for the health of people and the planet. In assessing how strict the limits should be, I urge you to consider that such restrictions are virtually the only additional action to be taken to redeem the President's pledges on global climate change without Congressional legislation. Make his words count! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards17 From: TRISH PITTS [pspitts@centurylink.net] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:17 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA rules



### Support tough rules for coal-fired plants. This is one of the things WE can do to help secure a better

e nvironment for the future and now. I cannot attend the meeting as I am 80yrs. old and basically home-bound. This is my option. Thanks for all you do.18 From: Jim Hallock [Jim.hallock@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 4:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Lauren Kahn; Jeff Kahn Subject: stop coal plant pollution



### Dear EPA: W e need tough regulations on coal fired power plants. We are depending on a 19th-century fuel which pollutes, causing health hazards and climate change, while we fail to develop an economic model that acknowledges the heavy toll fossil fuels have on these factors. We need regulations which restrict the development of new coal fired plants and work to minimize the environmental damage existing plants create. And we need to phase out older, less efficient plants which create the most damage. Please step up with regulations to protect the future of our planet.

Jim Hallock jim.hallock@comcast.net Oakland, CA 9461119 From: Stephen Markley [stephen.markley@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 4:14 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Rules on coal-fired plants



### You absolutely must not let the coal lobby delay, weaken, or otherwise hurt the new rules on coal-fired power. I 'm a writer who's been covering climate-related issues for several years now, and I fear that if the world, particularly the U.S., doesn't get extremely serious about limiting greenhouse gas emissions, we're in existential trouble.

Many thanks, Steve Markley

-- Stephen Markley Author of PUBLISH THIS BOOK from Sourcebooks

stephen.markley@gmail.com hatemail@stephenmarkley.com www.stephenmarkley.com RedEye Blog http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/off-the-markley/20 From: Tari [tari543@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 3:53 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Please do everything possible to make the air cleaner in Dallas. We've found a new way to k ill the population! We must make those spewing, belching, smoking to clean up or close. Enough! You are killing my grandchildren. Tari Weisert 4802 McKinney Ave. #105 Dallas, Tx 75205 tari543@sbcglobal.net

Sent from my iPhone21 From: bhorne@juno.com Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 3:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: stop carbon pollution!

Barbara Horne
W ashington County MD

I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell you how to do it. But I do want laws made to stop pollution from any company that makes carbon pollution!22 From: Rita Collins [ritacollins1@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 1:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA / Public listening session



### On Thursday, November 7, 2013 the Environmental Protection Agency is holding a public listening session i n Washington, DC. They will be discussing new rules on coal-fired power plants. The new rules could be a powerful way to reduce air, water & soil pollution & climate warming. As an American Citizen & resident of the District of Columbia , I believe NOW is the time to make a just transition to clean energy. Coal is bad for our health - particularly for our respiratory & cardiovascular systems. Coal is bad for our communities environmental health - air, water & soil. Coal is bad for climate change, it being one of the largest sources of carbon emissions. IT IS TIME to move our country & planet beyond fossil fuels.

Thank you, Rita Collins

ritacollins1@gmail.com Washington DC 2000123 From: cloudanc . [cloudanc@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 1:02 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA public listening session re: coal fired plants



### To Whom It May Concern:

D ue to the fact that I have to work on Tuesday, I am unable to attend the EPA public listening session regarding coal-fired plants. This is an extremely important issue to me, which is why I am writing to
you.

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, and we cannot let the coal industry stand in our 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. "

Let the Bay Area be proactive in reversing climate change.

Thank you, Rebecca Shirley 583 Green Ridge Drive #6 Daly City, CA 94014



### -- "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. " Native American Proverb24 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of John Broomhead [jsrb2012@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 12:56 S ubmitted values are:

Name: John Broomhead Email: jsrb2012@gmail.com Comments: As someone who has had to deal with asthma his entire life and with the asthma problems of his sister, I strongly support a strict standard for power plants. As air in the US becomes more polluted, more and more people develop asthma and other lung diseases; this is a health problem as much as it is an environmental problem, and the EPA needs to help. Thank you. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards25 From: Karl Von Heimburg [Karlvheimburg@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:47 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal fired plants

The dirty coal industry has long lived past it's welcome. The industry has no place in the
2 1st century, or even the 20th century for that matter.

Sent from my iPhone26 From: Karin de Weille [deweille@gm.slc.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:07 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Move forward on regulation!!

Coal belongs to the past. Certainly, tolerating the destruction and human suffering does!
P lease do your job. We're counting on you. Thank you!27 From: Jaan Carter [diggitydog9@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:29 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: The subject of coal

Dear (?) EPA,

If you folks have a shred of goodness left in you, if you're not completely corrupted like most of our govt., THEN STOP COAL.

The filthiest, most horrific "fuel" ever is now passe.

HOW can we continue to befoul our air, destroy our environment, and sicken people, when there are ALTERNATIVES than can be developed?

The only reason is GREED.

Stop the Madness.

Get on the right side for the Earth.

NOW.

Sincerely, Jaan Carter, Human Being Alameda, CA28 From: Dan W. [sawalkdj@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 11:48 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: YES to coal and fossil fuel CO2 regulation.

To whom it concerns;

I am writing to express my strong support of President Obama's plan to regulate coal emissions and the need for the EPA to strongly enforce CO2 emmissions. We can no longer allow the fossil fuel industry to bully the American people an compromise the global climate for posterity. I am also writing this for my two sons, Jim and Mike. The EPA's work is invaluable to the future of our country. Thanks for all you do.

Sincerely, MAJ Daniel Walker

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T29 From: Sue [sueholtzman1@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 11:42 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal

I am writing as a citizen to support the EPA changes in laws regulating the use of coal.
T here is not a good enough reason to continue to allow coal to pollute, shorten lives, and destroy the land.

The proposed changes are over due and reasonable.

We can continue to use coal as a fuel. We can not continue to be so heedless of our planet't health and well being. Yours, Susan Holtzman30 From: michael z [m.zurakov@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 11:39 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment re. carbon pollution from existing plants

Dear Sir or Madam:

Now that we know the global effects of carbon pollution, there can be NO argument about whether or not to limit these

e mmissions; only the details of how to do so can properly be "on the table" at this time. Therefore, a traditional cost/benefit approach can be applied to the matter of "Slow and Gentle" vs. "Quick and Effective"

a s regards implementation: The likely "cost" would seem to be a reduction in the profits of electric generating plants, along with some increase in the

e nergy price paid by electricity consumers. These seem eminently ACCEPTABLE, if the likely "benefit" is to slow the disasterous effects of climate change. So, those who would favor slower, lower-impact approaches have the burden of showing why such would be in the public interest -- since is is not the responsibilty of the government to protect their profits. (And, let's recall the doom-and-gloom warnings, in previous instances -- e.g., acid rain mitigation -- that predicted dire outcomes which never seem to actually occur.)

I say: Full Speed Ahead! We need the strongest , soonest possible reduction of carbon pollution.

michael zurakov, skokie, IL31 From: vince rubino 빈센트 文森特 鲁比诺 [convinceable@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 10:32 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Re: Tuesday in SF: Coal lobbyists don't want you to come.



### Dear EPA,

As a concerned citizen, I write to emphasize that the continued use of coal fired plants in the US is damaging air quality in our nation and altering global climate. Please reduce, restrict and eliminate the use of coal in the generation of electricity.

Sincerely,

Vince Rubino

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

.



### 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.32