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 

Submitted 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 Standards 
2

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 Yet many of the new coal plants under consideration would rely on outdated, dirty energy technologies of the past.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 Warming

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 

dangerous 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 City 
3

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 02130
4

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 

Submitted 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 Standards 
5

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-

0495 

 

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 CO2 to 

generate 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 

CO2 or other GHGs? The IPCC, in their 2010 report on CO2 capture and 

storage remarked with respect to use of CO2 in Enhanced Oil Recovery 

(EOR) that "CO2 injection for EOR is a mature market technology, but 

when used for CO2 storage, it is only economically feasible under specific 

conditions". In fact, page 31 admits as much, where it says "Because 
6

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 CO2 does not leak? Further, the 

Carbon Capture and Storage Institute also suggests conversion to 

biomass as an option for captured CO2, whether as algae or other 

purposes. This biomass will either decompose, or be burned, releasing 

most of the CO2 stored in the first place. The EPA rule discusses leakage 

of stored CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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? CO2 released from biomass burning is just as damaging to 

atmospheric balance as is coal-derived CO2. Arguments that biomass 

represents CO2 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 CO2

emissions"? 

4. How does EPA plan to regulate CO2 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, since 
7

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 CO2 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 CO2/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 atmosphere, a more direct technique is requiring 

emissions to be measured directly, for example, using techniques to 

detect and measure CO2 as reported in the EPA's own December 2011 

report, EPA Handbook: Optical Remote Sensing for Measurement and 

Monitoring of Emissions Flux. CO2 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 CO2" 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 Ettling
11

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 

webinar 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 plan 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 

we 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 

pay 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 

renewable 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 60614 
13

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 

Submitted 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 Standards 
14

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 

Submitted 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 Standards 
15

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: 

As 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 Shumway 
16

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 

Submitted 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 responsible 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 Standards 
17

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 

environment 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: 

We 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 94611 
19

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 

kill 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 iPhone 
21

From: bhorne@juno.com

Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 3:21 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: stop carbon pollution!

Barbara Horne 

Washington 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 

in 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 20001 

 
23

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: 

Due 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 Proverb
24

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 

Submitted 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 Standards 
25

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 

21st century, or even the 20th century for that matter. 

Sent from my iPhone 
26

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! 

Please 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, CA 
28

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&T 
29

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. 

There 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 Holtzman 
30

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 

emmissions; 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" 

as regards implementation:

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

energy 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, IL

 
31

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