## Summary	of	Region	5	Public	Listening	Session **on	111(d)	for	Power	Plants** November 8, 2013

– Chicago, IL On November 8, 2013, EPA Region 5 held a public listening session to obtain input on how EPA can craft carbon pollution standards from existing power plants

. 

### More than 550 people from all six Region 5 states (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH and WI) attended this listening session. Approximately 300 speakers addressed three different panels operating simultaneously throughout the day. A high

- level summary of the meeting is provided below. 

### Overview: Regional Administrator Susan Hedman gave opening remarks and provided the overview of Section 111(d), ground rules and logistics. Speakers included and represented environmental organizations, unions, industry a ssociations, faith

based organizations, students, coal miners, energy cooperatives, community organizations, public officials, elected officials, concerned citizens and members of Congress. Approximately 80 percent of the speakers were clearly supportive of the development of standards on the President’s timeline, while approximately 16 percent were clearly opposed to the development of standards. Remaining speakers were difficult to categorize as either supportive or oppositional, with many in this catego ry recommending significant delay in imposition of requirements or stating that they supported regulations only if done “sensibly.” **Impacts of C**  **limate C**  **hange:** Among those expressing support for EPA action, most expressed concerns about the impact of cl imate change on present and future generations. Common themes among these speakers were concern about impacts of carbon emissions on extreme weather, air quality, agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems and oceans. Several speakers noted the potential impacts of increased storm events on water quality and the cost impacts of storm water planning in a changing climate. A large number of speakers talked about general air quality concerns, frequently making the case that reduced fossil fuel consumption would have air quality co

- benefits in addition to climate benefits. Others discussed non

- air impacts of fossil fuels related to issues such as mountain

-top removal mining, fracking and pet coke storage. Concerns about both local and international impacts were express ed, with a number of speakers noting the impacts on environmental justice (EJ) communities and developing countries. Several speakers stated that U.S. leadership in the development of carbon standards would demonstrate international leadership and give the U.S. a strong basis for international negotiations on climate. A significant number cited religious faith as a reason for protecting the environment. Among opponents of EPA action, a small number questioned the validity of climate science, some stating t hat CO 2 is not a pollutant, and others stating that impacts are overstated. Others noted that U.S. utilities represent a small percentage of global greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions and , therefore , thatregulation would impose costs without producing real benefits, given emissions from other parts of the

world. **Economic Impacts:** Some supporters of EPA regulation expressed sympathy for workers who might be impacted by regulation, and called for adjustment assistance for them. Others stressed the economic b enefits of shifting towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, including the jobs that would be created in these sectors but also the reduction in economic “externalities” from fossil fuels. Some stated that they are willing to pay higher energy costs in order to address the climate issue, with a small number saying that regulation should be done without concern for economic consequences. One speaker stated that carbon emissions standards for autos have spurred innovation and revitalization in this Ame rican industry, providing a good model for what carbon regulations could do for the Midwestern utility industry. Most of the opponents of EPA regulation stressed potential economic harms caused by carbon regulation, especially in the coal, utility, manufacturing and rail transport sectors, and claimed that significant harms have been caused by existing regulatory req uirements already. Many stated that the regulations would shut down many coal plants and prevent the construction of any new ones. Many also stressed the economic importance of cheap energy and of jobs in the coal and related sectors, and some complained of the lack of listening sessions in “coal country.” Some speakers stressed the impacts that regulation would have on rural communities. Some speakers stated that EPA should consider the impact of regulations on recent utility investments that were expected to last for 30

-40 years; new carbon regulations could force some of those facilities to close, wasting the value of those investments. A rail association representative noted that reduction in coal shipments would be a major hardship for the rail industry, particularly in the Chicago area. **Timing/Strength of Regulation :**  Among those expressing support for EPA action, many stated that we are at a tipping point where action on climate is required urgently. Many stated that EPA regulations should be impleme nted “as soon as possible.” A large number also stated support for “the strongest possible” standards. A smaller number of supportive speakers recommended using cost

- benefit analysis to guide the standards that EPA sets. Among opponents of action, as well as some of those who could not be categorized as either opponents or supporters, a common the m e was that EPA should either delay regulation or phase it in over a very long time, because of concerns about jobs and economic impacts. Concerns about the immat ure status of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology were also cited as a reason to delay action. **State Flexibility :**  A relatively small number of speakers discussed state

-federal interaction on carbon regulation. Among those who did, some sup porters of strong regulation expressed that while significant carbon reductions should be required in every state, states should have flexibility in how reductions are achieved. A few supporters spoke for a strong national regulation with little state flex ibility. Some speakers suggested that different standards should be set for different states depending on each state’s existing endowment of energy resources. Other speakers stated that EPA should not act at all and that carbon regulation should be left to state discretion.**Energy Policy :** 

A significant number of supporters argued in favor of regulations that would shift electricity production away from fossil fuels, relying on renewable energy and energy efficiency rather than on natural gas and carbon se questration to achieve reductions. One speaker encouraged EPA to discount arguments about the impacts of regulation on electric reliability, stating that FERC has developed the tools necessary to accommodate major growth in renewables without compromising reliability. One speaker stated that the regulations should be written in a way that supports not only end

- use energy efficiency but also the development of combined heat and power and waste energy recovery systems. Another speaker noted the existence of h armful energy

- climate feedback loops: As temperatures warm, the efficiency of electrical transmission decreases ; more air conditioning is needed, leading to more energy use and emissions, and rivers run dry, preventing the energy

- efficient shipping of comm odities in barges. A common theme among opponents of carbon regulation was that such regulations would represent a “war on coal” that would be contrary to an “all of the above” energy policy. Opponents also expressed concerns about the impact of regulatio ns on electric reliability and expressed doubts about the viability of an electricity system based on renewables. **Comments on the Structure of the Regulations:** A small number of commenters provided guidance about how the regulations should be structured, or suggested factors that EPA should consider in structuring the regulations. Several speakers stated that there should be serious consequences for sources that do not comply with regulations and for states that fail to develop adequate state plans. One s peaker stated that EPA should not allow emissions averaging, because of potential disproportionate impacts on communities. Several speakers expressed support for a carbon tax or a cap

- and

-trade system. Several other speakers indicated that CCS is not a sufficiently

- proven technology and should not be a requirement of any proposal. One speaker stated that the standards should be structured so that they can be achieved by existing, unmodified, supercritical plants. EPA should base the existing source require ments on actions that can take place within an individual plant, rather than considering system

-wide actions. The speaker noted that owners of a single coal

-fired power plant do not have other resources to use for averaging. Moreover, they do not control dispatch nor do they have direct retail customers, making it hard to use energy efficiency or demand

- side management for compliance. Another speaker offered three “key principles” to keep in mind when deve loping regulations: 1) set emissions targets “based on what is legally defensible and achievable at the power plants, probably based on improvements in plant efficiency”; 2) defer achievement of the targets to the states, who can work with the power sector to establish plans that incorporate state clean energy strategies, plant retirements, renewables, and energy efficiency programs ; 3) allow states to credit early emissions reductions achieved through state clean energy programs developed in the last ten y ears or more. One speaker stated that EPA should base the Best System of Emission Reduction on plant

- specific CO 2 emissions from “within the fence” of a power plant, rather than on groups of power plants or the entire sector. Once the guidelines are estab lished, then states can develop plans that provide flexibility in meeting those guidelines, “reaching into the broader array of CO 2 emissions mitigation measuresavailable within the electric utility sector.” In addition, the speaker stated that states sho uld receive

credit for actions already taken. Another speaker stated that 1) states should have primacy to implement standards in a way that reflects the regional economy; 2) early adopters should not be punished for taking early action; and 3) there should be a transition period for phasing out existing generation resources to prevent excessive stranded costs. It was also stated that the regulations should incorporate generation efficiency, and that they should allow states to credit regulated utilities for reducing emissions at industrial and commercial facilities through supply

- side efficiency measures, including combined heat and power and waste heat recovery. The speaker also encouraged EPA to think broadly about additional tools that could be used to remove barriers to deployment of efficient generation technol ogy.