1 From: Emily Johnston [enjohnston@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources (brief expansion of brief comment at listening session)



## Dear EPA Staffers,

In his article " Gambling with Civilization " in the New York Review of Books two weeks ago, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman joked that he might lose his "economist card" if he didn't support a carbon tax, because efforts to reduce emissions need to take place on so many levels (all of which are effectively reached by a carbon tax). However, he also pointed out that a single effort--that of greatly reducing emissions from coal-fired electric plants--would, by itself, accomplish the great bulk of the work of a carbon tax.

I was at the Seattle listening session tonight, and I know that you're all very clear what the

s takes are: without hyperbole, climate change is far and away the biggest threat humanity has ever faced--an existential threat to civilization, and to uncountable numbers of our sibling species.

I support conservation measures with all of my heart (and my attention, and my wallet), b ut coal-fired electrical plants render individual choices dishearteningly meaningless by comparison. I heard tonight that 100 of our existing coal-fired plants produce as much carbon pollution as every car on the road in the US today. How many light bulbs, exactly, would each of us have to change, to make up for those plants being allowed to keep spewing carbon? How much carpooling would we need to do?

How can we ask every American to do her part and conserve--and we must ask this--if t hese plants are not regulated as stringently as is humanly possible?

As I mentioned tonight, this week an e ight year old girl died in China of lung

cancer attributed to coal pollution. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, tragedies of this extreme nature don't happen in the US. If we'd left it to industry to regulate themselves, though, we all know that there would be no Clean Air Act; our air would be like China's, and acid rain would still be devastating New England waterways; they have fought, and will continue to fight, every step of the way. We must take the clear dangers of GHG emissions--carbon AND methane, at the plant AND at the wells/mines/extraction sites--at least as seriously as the more visible threats of particulates.

Please do everything you can to make the regulations as stringent as the threat is p rofound; this is the most important thing you will ever do.

Many thanks. Emily Johnston23 From: Anthony Marinelli [threemm4me@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:02 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold fro m extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Anthony Marinelli 2320 Mohawk Lane Glenview, IL 600264 From: pamasunshine@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:46 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Dear EPA and Gina McCarthy,

R e: Climate Disruption

The time is NOW for renewable energy - solar, wind and geothermal.

Nuclear, shale gas and "clean" coal should no longer be a part of America's energy policy.

Nuclear has left thousands of square miles of Earth poisoned, toxic and radioactive - Japan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and even in South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Washington state and Idaho to name just a few areas.

Fossil fuels create greenhouse gas emissions from CO2, NOX(nitrous oxide), VOC's (volatile organic compounds), HAP's (hazardous air pollutants), sulphur dioxide, particulates and methane.

Mountaintop removal for coal is heinously devastating to natural systems. Particulate matter, sulphur, arsenic and mercury are additional byproducts of the burning of coal.

Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is destructive to our forests, farmland and towns, as well as to our valuable clean water. The fracking process despoils millions of gallons of water per well. Flowback is a toxic soup filled with carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. Compressor statio ns, transportation and distribution of shale gas release fugitive methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Radioactivity is a component of shale gas with insufficient data or studies on radon content. It is time for a moratorium on fracking!

Greenhouse gas emissions are causing unprecedented warming of Earth's atmosphere. Arctic ice is melting, sea level is rising and the oceans are acidifying - threatening our fragile marine ecosystem. As the ocean warms, methane hydrates are released creating a runaway scenario for global warming.

We have already passed the tipping point in my opinion. It is imperative to act quickly to curb CO2, methane and All GHG's for life to continue on our planet as we know it.

It is one year since the devastating effects of SuperStorm Sandy and today a gigantic typhoon is headed for the Philippines. The west has suffered with wildfires; drought in the south. Bizarre weather events are becoming commonplace. We need to stop adding to climate change by burning fossil fuels.

Renewable energy is the answer. The technology is there. Germany uses 25% and Sweden uses 47% renewables - proof that we can do it too!

We need strong regulations and a heavy fee on all greenhouse gas emissions to protect the environment.

In order for ecosystems, wildlife and humans, as well, to be healthy and flourish, conservation and severe reduction of GHG emissions is necessary.5 PLEASE help our nation and the world to move forward to a sustainable energy future. The health and welfare of Earth is depending on you.

Thank you for encouraging comment. We are all in this together.

Sincerely, Pam Steckler 127 Hoy Street State College, PA 16801 (814) 237- 4029

Sent from my iPhone6 From: Evangelina Mayol [evangelina_mayol@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Evangelina Mayol
300 N State Street Chicago, IL 606547 From: David Rubin [davidirubin@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now cri tical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

David Rubin 423 Addison Road Riverside, IL 605468 From: Wendy Pollock [wendy.pollock@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:19 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment on reducing carbon from existing power plants



### Dear Administrator McCarthy:

Th e United States must move aggressively to cut carbon pollution from all sources. This includes power plants already in use. Our lives, and the lives of those to come, depend on our acting aggressively and without further delay.

The facts are indisputable. Only those motivated by short-sighted financial self-interest continue to deny them.

The implications are clear. Even the conservative IPCC forecasts a bleak future unless we take dramatic action,

now.

My great-grandfather came to this country to work in a coal mine. My grandfather was born in Oil City, Pennsylvania. Like many others, my family has benefited from the use of fossil fuels. But we are no longer living in the past, and the future is already upon us.

My daughter - now of child-bearing age - tells me that that she cannot imagine bringing children into this wo rld, knowing what very likely lies ahead. Could anything be more heart breaking?

How could we, their elders, pass on to our children a world that will be barely habitable, a world in which the consequences of our foolish and repeated failure to act are visited on those least able to defend themselves?

In the memory of all of those ancestors who made life possible for those of us living now, and bearing in mind those generations that will inherit this earth, I plead with you: Be bold. Have courage. Do not be cowed by the forces that continue to fly in the face of reason and evidence.

We are counting on you.

Sincerely, Wendy Pollock

_________________________ Wendy Pollock 1410 Oak Avenue Evanston, Illinois 602019 From: Solve The Climate Crisis [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: New petition to you: EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants



### Dear EPA,

S olve The Climate Crisis started a petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " targeting you on Change.org that's starting to pick up steam.

Change.org is the world's largest petition platform that gives anyone, anywhere the tools they need to start, join and win campaigns for change. Change.org never starts petitions on our own -- petitions on the website, like

" EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants ", are started by users.

While " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " is active, you'll receive an email each time a signer leaves a comment explaining why he or she is signing. You'll also receive periodic updates about the petition's status.

Here's what you can do right now to resolve the petition:

• 

### Review the petition. Here's a link:

o 

### <="" a="">http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissions-from-existing-power-plants

• 

### See the 5 signers and their reasons for signing on the petition page.

• 

### Respond to the petition creator by sending a message here:

o 

### http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissions-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Sincerely, Change.org

There are now 5 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.10 From: Deak, Veronica G [Veronica.Deak@Honeywell.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:34 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### I am unable to attend the Public Listening Session in Chicago on 11/8/13, but I would like to register my opinion in

w riting.

I am extremely concerned about climate change. The UN's recent report on climate change should be a strong impetus for the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution. Even if all American households drastically reduced our driving and lowered our thermostats, which my family and millions of others already have done, it won't be enough to curb global warming.

We need corporations and utility companies to do more. And as we've seen over the past 2 decades, as the calls to slow global warming went largely ignored, these companies are not motivated to make changes on their own. The new EPA rules could and should be a powerful way to drastically reduce climate pollution in the coming years.

Americans like me and my family are counting on the EPA to create and enforce tough rules that will curb greenhouse emissions, and eliminate coal-fired power plants, which are the dirtiest and most harmful for the planet.

We absolutely need to transition from coal to clean energy as soon as possible. These EPA rules can help make that transition happen. The coal industry is blowing off mountain tops to mine coal, creating terrible environmental repercussions for those ecosystems. And, coal-fired power plant emissions poison the air, creating high rates of respir atory diseases and cancers. Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate.

How can this be justified? It's 2013, and we are using technology that's been in place for more than 150 years!

In addition, climate change will have huge effects on our GDP, our economy, coastal cities (anyone remember Hurricane Sandy?) and inland areas alike (the drought in Illinois a few years back caused crops to fail and put stress on farmers). How much money and productivity has been lost by unpredictable weather and extreme storms over the last decade? And that will only continue.

The coal companies and their supporters will counter that they create jobs and cheap energy. But we can create so many more jobs and equally if not cheaper energy sources if we develop new, sustainable energy sources--without all the costs that come with environmental devastation.

I want our country to build a robust green energy infrastructure. Let's stop supporting coal and replace it with solar, wind and other sources of renewable, clean energy. My family is counting on us to do this, for the good of the planet and the next generation. We can't do this soon enough.

Sincerely, Veronica Deak 2338 N. Southport Ave Chicago, IL 6061411 From: Ray Spitzer [r.spitzer@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:33 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

We, Raymond and Christine Spitzer, have lived in Arizona since 1994. We are concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

r equires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Raymond and Christine Spitzer

Taxpayers of ARizona12 From: James Arneberg [jamesarneberg@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:19 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants Public Listening Session



### According to a 2010 Harvard University study, Fu ll cost accounting for the life cycle of coal , published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, the yearly and cumulative costs stemming from coal pollutants associated with the mining, processing, transport, and combustion of coal add as much as 27 cents to the cost of a kilowatt-hour of energy produced by coal, costing the United States over half-a-trillion dollars a year, far in excess of the amount that coal contributes to the economy. So a ton of coal from the Powder River Basin that costs 2.58 cents per kilowatt-hour actually costs almost 30 cents per kilowatt-hour to society. A 2011 study, Environmental accounting for pollution in the United States economy , in the American Economic Review states that the external costs of burning coal are 2.2 times more costly to the U.S. economy than any economic benefits derived from coal. And these are just two examples of an overwhelming amount of evidence that burning coal is much more expensive to the United States than any other form of energy. And the former study reports that in 2005, 25,000 premature deaths were caused by coal. In 2010 it was 34,000. Averaging 25,000 coal-related deaths per year means that more people died from coal in the last 25 years than from combat deaths in all of America’s wars.

Coal is a 19 th 

### century source of energy and may have been appropriate when the population of the U nited States was 40 million; but now with a population of 312 million, using coal for 40% of our energy is economically unfeasible merely in terms of its affect on health and environmental degradation, let alone climate change. The only reason that coal is still in use is because it’s cheap for energy companies and it’s profitable for coal producers. It’s also profitable for politicians because the corporations who run the energy companies and the rich guys who produce the coal bribe our politicians through campaign contributions and money to political action committees (PACs). Politicians in turn, subsidize coal with taxpayer money. So taxpayers pay for coal twice. Coal wouldn’t be economically viable to the energy companies or the coal producers without subsidies provided by politicians. And even with subsidies, coal’s external costs in the form of health care costs and lost work and school is appalling.

Coal needs to be taxed like cigarettes, at a rate that will discourage the use of coal. And we shouldn’t tax coal emissions but coal extraction. You dig up a ton of coal; you pay a tax – an onerous tax. That will prevent coal exports to other coal-burning countries.

Now you’re going to hear testimony from slick lawyers and charlatan scientists from the fossil fuel companies and groups like the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute who are going to try and dissuade you from doing the right thing. Don’t let their lies distract you because that is what they are peddling – lies. Their concerns are only with lining their pockets with taxpayer money. Instead do the right thing by those 25,000 people who die prematurely every year. Stop the mining and burning of coal.13 

### -- Jim Arneberg jamesarneberg@gmail.com14 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of James Arneberg [jamesarneberg@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:09 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 21:08
S ubmitted values are:

Name: James Arneberg Email: jamesarneberg@gmail.com
Comments: According to a 2010 Harvard University study, Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal, published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, the yearly and cumulative costs stemming from coal pollutants associated with the mining, processing, transport, and combustion of coal add as much as 27 cents to the cost of a kilowatt-hour of energy produced by coal, costing the United States over half-a-trillion dollars a year, far in excess of the amount that coal contributes to the economy. So a ton of coal from the Powder River Basin that costs 2.58 cents per kilowatt-hour actually costs almost 30 cents per kilowatt-hour to society. A 2011 study, Environmental accounting for pollution in the United States economy, in the American Economic Review states that the external costs of burning coal are 2.2 times more costly to the U.S. economy than any economic benefits derived from coal. And these are just two examples of an overwhelming amount of evidence that burning coal is much more expensive to the United States than any other form of energy. And the former study reports that in 2005, 25,000 premature deaths were caused by coal. In 2010 it was 34,000. Averaging 25,000 coal-related deaths per year means that more people died from coal in the last 25 years than from combat death in all of America’s wars.

Coal is a 19th century source of energy and may have been appropriate when the population of the United States was 40 million; but now with a population of 312 million, using coal for 40% of our energy is economically unfeasible merely in terms of its affect on health and environmental degradation, let alone climate change. The only reason that coal is still in use is because it’s cheap for energy companies and it’s profitable for coal producers. It’s also profitable for politicians because the corporations who run the energy companies and the rich guys who produce the coal bribe our politicians through campaign contributions and money to political action committees (PACs). Politicians in turn, subsidize coal with taxpayer money. So taxpayers pay for coal twice. Coal wouldn’t be economically viable to the energy companies or the coal producers without subsidies provided by politicians. And even with subsidies, coal’s external costs in the form of health care costs and lost wor k and school is appalling.

Coal needs to be taxed like cigarettes, at a rate that will discourage the use of coal. And we shouldn’t tax coal emissions but coal extraction. You dig up a ton of coal; you pay a tax – an onerous tax. That will prevent coal exports to other coal-burning countries.

Now you’re going to hear testimony from slick lawyers and charlatan scientists from the fossil fuel companies and groups like the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute who are going to try and dissuade you from doing the right thing. Don’t let their lies distract you because that is what they are peddling – lies. Their concerns are only with lining their pockets with taxpayer money. Instead do the right thing by those 25,000 people who die prematurely every year. Stop the mining and burning of coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards15 From: Solve The Climate Crisis [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:07 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: New petition to you: EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants



### Dear EPA,

S olve The Climate Crisis started a petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " targeting you on Change.org that's starting to pick up steam.

Change.org is the world's largest petition platform that gives anyone, anywhere the tools they need to start, join and win campaigns for change. Change.org never starts petitions on our own -- petitions on the website, like

" EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants ", are started by users.

While " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " is active, you'll receive an email each time a signer leaves a comment explaining why he or she is signing. You'll also receive periodic updates about the petition's status.

Here's what you can do right now to resolve the petition:

• 

### Review the petition. Here's a link:

o 

### <="" a="">http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissions-from-existing-power-plants

• 

### See the 5 signers and their reasons for signing on the petition page.

• 

### Respond to the petition creator by sending a message here:

o 

### http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissions-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Sincerely, Change.org

There are now 5 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.16 From: Tracy DeMarco [silveryfir@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Tracy DeMarco 7620 N Eastlake Terrace Chicago, IL 6062617 From: Kirk Miller [kirkmiller@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: kirkmiller@juno.com Subject: Re: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495, Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants



### Comments on the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants must reference Docket ID: EP A-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

Re: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495, Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants

I am concerned about the air pollution that has poured over us like toxic soup for many years. My mother died from respiratory problems, and some of my family members suffer from respiratory problems.

For a long time, we have known that carbon pollution harms our health, and power plants are the top source of this pollution. Every year, emissions from power plants cause tens of thousands of deaths, and hundreds of thousands of heart attacks, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and lost workdays. Pollution in 2010 from just one source -- coal fired power plants -- caused more than 13,000 deaths, 20,000 heart attacks, almost 10,000 hospitalizations, costing more than $100 billion.

It is time to clean up the air. We need to do something, or else we will have more deaths, more heart attacks, more asthma attacks, more chronic breathing problems.

Estimates made by the EPA show that we could prevent thousands of deaths every year, and also reduce many health problems, by reducing air pollution. We have the knowledge and the means to address these problems. Choosing not to reduce carbon pollution is unconscionable.

Coal fired power plants pollute a lot, and so do natural gas fired power plants. Please set standards to reduce pollution from natural gas fired power plants in addition to coal fired power plants.

I want to thank the EPA for working to clean up the air. And I urge the EPA to take strong action to protect our citizens from dangerous air pollution that causes deaths and myriad respiratory problems. You can't get much more basic than the need to breathe clean air

.

Kirk Miller 517 Cap Rock Drive Richardson, Texas 7508018 From: Barbara Harrison [twobara@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers wi ll also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Barbara Harrison 5550 South Shore Drive Chicago, IL 6063719 From: Milt Clark [mclark-59@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:10 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

U.S. EPA's proposals on existing sources, as well as future sources, are inadequate to

a chieve the carbon reductions necessary to protect public health and the environment. U.S. EPA should develop a phased strategy that reduces carbon pollution from existing sources by 90% or more by 2050.

The science is very clear that human induced climate change has been occurring since the 1980s. To maintain a livable, but impacted plant, a 80%- 95% reduction in carbon emissions is needed by 2050. Even under this scenario there will be sustained impacts for hundreds of years until atmospheric carbon levels begin to decline. Future generations will be subjected to a degraded planet and will have to cope with the consequences of rising oceans, drought, floods, fires, and reduced agricultural yields. In a decade or two, the economic impacts of climate change will exceed the costs of conversion to a non-carbon based energy systems. There is limited time to act before climate change becomes irreversible (IPCC, 2013). Given our knowledge of climate change, our failure to aggressively act now, could only be viewed as unethical.

All existing coal fired power plants should be phased out within 10 years, unless they can achieve a 50% or more reduction in emissions by conver sion to natural gas, biofuels or carbon sequestration. By 2035 all fossil fuel plants should be required to achieve a 75% reduction in carbon emissions and a 90% reduction by 2050. The U.S., as the largest historical contributor to carbon emissions but with only 4% of the world/s population, must demonstrate significant leadership if carbon pollution is to managed world wide, particularly from large sources such as China and India. Current U.S. EPA proposals are simply not sufficient to demonstrate meaningful leadership on climate change mitigation.

Milton Clark, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences University of Illinois School of Public Health20 From: bobby cummings [www.cyruszeus123@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:09 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input



### Dear Sirs, My name is Bobby Joe Cummings. I first wish to apologize for waiting so close to the deadline. I'm interested in the clean air act, and for the past 30 years I have been working on a technique which I call " O Technology". This technology consists of zero emissions. This technology would bring a quick change industrially, residentially, and reduce our carbon emissions.

I am very interested in helping protect our environment and resolving the problem that face us environmentally. I will be looking forward to hear from you or being invited to a session. Please find below all of my information.

Bobby Joe Cummings 1244 Oregon Road Green Pond, SC 29446 Email: www.cyruszeus123@yahoo.com

Respectfully,

Bobby Joe Cummings21 From: Bill Copeland [wcopeland916@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 7:39 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Please stay the course and regulate carbon pollution as stringently as possible.

H . William Copeland, MD22 From: Dolores Pino [dcpino@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 7:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flo oding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Dolores Pino 7200 Wilson Ter Morton Grove, IL 6005323 From: Sandra Bykowski [smbykowski@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 7:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon pollution standards



### I'm writing to voice my concern that the EPA enact strict pollution standards to existing power plants. While it's laudable that the EPA can ensure that any new plants adhere to clean air and pollution standards, the bulk of the power plants in this country are aging facilities that are contributing enormously to greenhouse gas emissions. It's imperative that these plants meet 21st century standards.

CO2 emissions are rising higher than ever, and are already well above the recommended standard of 350ppm. We need to do everything we can to reverse this trend, and pushing strict limits on our power plants is an important place to start. If the plant owners decry that such regulations would be cost prohibitive, ask how costly are these measures compared to the cost of superstorm cleanups, healthcare costs due to the rising rates of asthma, cancers and other pollution-related illnesses? The costs of increased floods and droughts due to climate change? We need to place the burden of those costs on the shoulders of those who have created them.

Thank you for including my opinions in your consideration.

Regards, Sandra Bykowski 773.419.611024 From: Donald Zeigler [zeiglerdw@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 6:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now cri tical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Donald Zeigler 1430 Elmwood Avenue Evanston, IL 6020125 From: Mary Shesgreen [marysedrop@att.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 6:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Our statement on carbon pollution for the EPA Listening Tour



## Our planet is becoming a perilous environment for humans and other living things. It is becoming toxic. Our air, water, land, food, and animals are being contaminated daily: toxic water from fracking, overflowing landfills, the destruction of the earth through coal removal and processing, depleted topsoil through monoculture crops, methane about to be released from the thawing of the permafrost in the Arctic, overfishing of our oceans, GMOs in our food, bees dying from pesticide use. The list goes on. Most urgent is global climate change caused by our use of fossil fuels.

We must change our economy and our culture. We must disengage from the current economic model which requires constant growth and which stimulates artifi cial "needs" while not fulfilling genuine human needs. We must move away from our consumerism and materialism. We must stop rewarding greed and extraction. 

## We must build community by doing such things as encouraging local self-reliance in food production. It will all end soon if we don't.

Some of these goals are beyond the direct purview of the EPA. But the EPA can influence the administration and Congress and other government agencies in ways that we citizens cannot. We thank the EPA for labeling carbon emissions as pollution that can be regulated. We thank it for its critique of the State Department’s Environmental Review of the Keystone XL pipeline. Please hold firm on those stances and expand them. Please don’t give in to pressure from the fossil fuel industry. We want the EPA to take an aggressive stand to fight for our planet and reject the powerful lobbies of the money-hungry corporations that will let us all die for a dollar.

We propose that the United States Adopt a Carbon Tax, as described by the Citizens Climate Lobby: 

## http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-tax/

Submitted by Fox Valley Citizens for Peace & Justice PO Box #3, Geneva, IL 60134 847-742-1406 www.fvc4pnj.org26 

## marysedrop@att.net27 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mary Shesgreen [marysedrop@att.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 6:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 18:21
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Mary Shesgreen Email: marysedrop@att.net
Comments:

Our planet is becoming a perilous environment for humans and other living things. It is becoming toxic. Our air, water, land, food, and animals are being contaminated daily: toxic water from fracking, overflowing landfills, the destruction of the earth through coal removal and processing, depleted topsoil through monoculture crops, methane about to be released from the thawing of the permafrost in the Arctic, overfishing of our oceans, GMOs in our food, bees dying from pesticide use. The list goes on. Most urgent is global climate change caused by our use of fossil fuels.

We must change our economy and our culture. We must disengage from the current economic model which requires constant growth and which stimulates artificial "needs" while not fulfilling genuine human needs. We must move away from our consumerism and materialism. We must stop rewarding greed and extraction. We must build community by doing such things as encouraging local self-reliance in food production. It will all end soon if we don't.

Some of these goals are beyond the direct purview of the EPA. But the EPA can influence the administration and Congress and other government agencies in ways that we citizens cannot. We thank the EPA for labeling carbon emissions as pollution that can be regulated. We thank it for its critique of the State Department’s Environmental Review of the Keystone XL pipeline. Please hold firm on those stances and expand them. Please don’t give in to pressure from the fossil fuel industry. We want the EPA to take an aggressive stand to fight for our planet and reject the powerful lobbies of the money- hungry corporations that will let us all die for a dollar.

We propose that the United States Adopt a Carbon Tax, as described by the Citizens Climate Lobby: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-tax/

Submitted by Fox Valley Citizens for Peace & Justice PO Box #3, Geneva, IL 60134 847-742-1406 www.fvc4pnj.org marysedrop@att.net28 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards29 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mary Shesgreen [marysedrop@att.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 6:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 18:19
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Mary Shesgreen Email: marysedrop@att.net
Comments:

Our planet is becoming a perilous environment for humans and other living things. It is becoming toxic. Our air, water, land, food, and animals are being contaminated daily: toxic water from fracking, overflowing landfills, the destruction of the earth through coal removal and processing, depleted topsoil through monoculture crops, methane about to be released from the thawing of the permafrost in the Arctic, overfishing of our oceans, GMOs in our food, bees dying f rom pesticide use. The list goes on. Most urgent is global climate change caused by our use of fossil fuels.

We must change our economy and our culture. We must disengage from the current economic model which requires constant growth and which stimulates artificial "needs" while not fulfilling genuine human needs. We must move away from our consumerism and materialism. We must stop rewarding greed and extraction. We must build community by doing such things as encouraging local self-reliance in food production. It will all end soon if we don't.

Some of these goals are beyond the direct purview of the EPA. But the EPA can influence the administration and Congress and other government agencies in ways that we citizens cannot. We thank the EPA for labeling carbon emissions as pollution that can be regulated. We thank it for its critique of the State Department’s Environmental Review of the Keystone XL pipeline. Please hold firm on those stances and expand them. Please don’t give in to pressure from the fossil fuel industry. We want the EPA to take an aggressive stand to fight for our planet and reject the powerful lobbies of the money- hungry corporations that will let us all die for a dollar.

We propose that the United States Adopt a Carbon Tax, as described by the Citizens Climate Lobby: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-tax/

Submitted by Fox Valley Citizens for Peace & Justice PO Box #3, Geneva, IL 60134 847-742-1406 www.fvc4pnj.org marysedrop@att.net30 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards31 From: Eve Gutman [egutman@haverford.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Listening session comments



### To whom it may concern; I will not be at tomorrow's listening session, but I would like to submit comments. I am very excited about the possibility of increased regulations on coal-fired power plants by the Environmental Protection Agency. If we want to prevent a global temperature increase of more than a 2 degree Celsius and unlivable conditions that come with that, our nation must act comprehensively and swiftly. Using regulations on coal to shift to a clean energy economy is exactly what the EPA's responsibility should be. Thus, I urge you to support stronger regulations on coal-fired power plants. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Eve Gutman 370 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 1904132 From: Laurie Arends [slsgds.la@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:46 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input



### I absolutely support tough legislation on Coal fired plants, and I would like to see us off of coal entirely as soon

a s possible...

Laurie Arends Worth, IL slsgds.la@gmail.com33 From: Shirley fastner [shirleyfastner@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:17 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now cri tical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Shirley fastner 1460 North Sandburg chicago, IL 6061034 From: Marcia Rutan [mersong@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:01 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal facilities and terminals



### Burning and transporting coal makes people sick and is unhealthy for the planet. It's like a huge cigarette polluting the lungs of life. It is not a the right way to get energy for human endeavors. Please stop this terrible trail of efforts that can only l ead to ruined landscapes, polluted air, more children sick with asthma, and devastated oceans.

Thank you.



### Marcia

Marcia Rutan

May my heart be open in gratitude For the beauty of you, the amazing World we dwell in together, surprising Possibility each and every day.35 From: Michael Rahaman [mr0520@outlook.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 5:01 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Testimony for EPA Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants



### Hi - My name is Michael Rahaman and I would like to submit my written testimony to the EPA concerning

se tting carbon pollution standards for power plants.

First, a little about myself. I immigrated to this country from Guyana , South America, in 1985, coming first as a student of the University of Illinois, from which I graduated in 1988 with a B.Sc. in Accounting. That same year, I also sat and passed the CPA exam. I later attended De Paul University in Chicago, where I obtained professional qualifications to become a computer programmer. I have worked in the IT industry as a Senior Application Developer for over 15 years.

I don't want to preach but nothing can be more important than preserving a healthy, habitable environment to ensure the continued existence of present and future generations of humans and all other living things on this planet. We must always follow the science, since science is the the only reliable, objective tool we have to inform our actions. If the science is a little ambiguous about certain important matters as it relates to the environment, because of current limited knowledge, we must always act on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt to the environment.

However, as it relates to carbon pollution and its harmful effects, mainstream science is unambiguous. Just yesterday, the WMO (World Metereological Organization) announced that carbon dioxide and the other gasses that drive global warming increased to a record high in 2012. The harmful effects, such as rising ocean levels, are already being felt in the country of my birth, Guyana, which lies about a foot or more below sea level and where sea defenses such as dykes and seawalls are beginning to prove ineffective as over topping and flooding by the rising oceans are now occurring more frequently.

Science has told us that mass extinctions of life have happened more than once on Earth in the distant past. We must do everything in our power to prevent another mass extinction of all life, including our own, from happening because of the effects of human activities.

US power plants account for 40% of carbon pollution. We need standards desperately to limit this pollution. With smart thinking, the standards can be set in a way that it can be a win-win situation for both private industry and the environment at once.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Michael Rahaman 5420 N Sheridan Rd., Unit 304, Chicago, IL 60640 Tel.: 630-687-139336 From: Michael Rahaman [Mijazrahaman@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:57 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer

sum mers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Michael Rahaman 5420 N Sheridan Rd Apt 304 Chicago, IL 6064037 From: Tad Anderson [tadand99@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:32 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Tad Anderson Subject: I support regulation of CO2 emissions



### I am a PhD Atmospheric Scientist, recently retired from a 25-year career as a researcher and professor at the U niversity of Washington.

I strongly support the regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants in the U.S. Specifically, I urge the EPA to adopt policies that will (1) dramatically reduce emissions of CO2 from U.S. power plants within the next few decades and (2) recognize the necessity for the U.S. to leave most of its current coal reserves in the ground . I expand upon these points below.

(1) I urge the EPA to enact regulations that will rapidly and dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from U.S. power plants. Left unchecked, these emissions will increase the Earth’s greenhouse effect causing planetary warming via well known physical processes, and will do so for centuries to come. Emissions may be reduced by (a) energy conservation, (b) switching to non-fossil-fuel power sources such as wind or solar, (c) switching to fossil fuels with higher energy content per unit of CO2 (e.g. replacing coal with natural gas), or (d) power plants that capture the CO2 prior to emission and permanently sequester it underground.

Of these options, methods (a) and (b) are the best, since the technologies are readily available, safe, and sustainable for generations to come. These approaches appear expensive only when the costs of CO2 emissions associated with long-term climate disruption are ignored.

Method (c) is potentially problematic since the fugitive methane emissions from natural gas extraction is highly uncertain and may actually result in a higher CO2-equivalent impact than coal. I urge the EPA to closely follow research in this area -- see, e.g., Karion et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 4393-4397, doi: 10.1002/grl.50811, which reports fugitive methane emissions by an independent, top-down method that are higher than previous estimates by more than a factor-of-two.

Method (d) would mean using power plants with so-called “carbon-capture-and-storage” (CCS) capability. While CCS is an active area of engineering research, this technology has yet to prove practical on a large scale. As such, it would be inappropriate, at this time, to rely on this method.

(2) It is particularly important to reduce the use of coal and, in fact, to ensure that most of our current coal reserves remain in the ground. This can be demonstrated by considering the following question: Would it be safe for humanity to mine and burn our existing, proven coal reserves? Using the best available science, it is remarkably easy to show that the answer to this question is “no”. First, scientists have established that global warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius must be avoided in order to prevent calamitous disruption of the Earth’s climate system. Almost every country (including the United States) has accepted this 2 degree Celsius threshold. Second, in order to have a reasonable chance of staying below this threshold, the maximum amount of CO2 that can be emitted into the atmosphere is about 550 billion tons. Third, the world’s proven coal reserves, if burned, would release about 2000 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere -- almost four times more than would be safe with regard to climate stability.

The implication is clear: the vast majority of the world’s existing coal reserves must be left in the ground (or burned in CCS-equipped power plants, which do not currently exist) if we are to avoid climate calamity. The38 

### United States has a special responsibility to lead in this area since the U.S. possesses more coal reserves than any other country. Therefore, I urge EPA to adopt policies which recognize the fundamental scientific fact that the world cannot safely exploit more than a small fraction of its current coal reserves.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Respectfully yours,

Theodore L. Anderson, PhD

2807 NW 68 th 

### St / Seattle, WA 98117

email: tadand99@gmail.com39 From: Bob Randall [YearRoundGardening@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Re: Comment on Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Dear EPA

I want to support in the strongest terms efforts to reduce and stop carbon emission pollution in the US.

I believe I have studied the problem of climate change extensively and am convinced that those polluting the world atmosphere with greenhouse gasses should not be allowed to change the climate and cost of living in major ways without being required to pay the full cost to future populations of what they are doing. As an agronomist, I am deeply concerned about the future of our food system under unpredictable and novel weather events and am frightened by the general lack of awareness in the population about the likely consequences for taxes, cost of living, quality of life, and living standards generally, if emissions are allowed to proceed past a tipping point to amplifying global warming feedbacks.

Bob Randall 10601 Bassoon Drive
77025 Houston TX

"Share What You Grow and What You Know!"

Bob Randall, Ph.D. YearRoundGardening@comcast.net http://yearroundgardening.me home/office: 713-661-9737 cell 832-317-898340 From: Laurie Casey [laurie@chicagocasey.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### I am unable to attend the Public Listening Session in Chicago on 11/8/13, but as a resident of a nearby suburb of Chicago, I would like to register my opinion in writing.

I am extremely concerned about climate change. The UN's recent report on climate change should be a strong impetus for the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution. Even if all American households drastically reduced our driving and lowered our thermostats, which my family and millions of others already have done, it won't be enough to curb global warming.

We need corporations and utility companies to do their share. And as we've seen over the past 2 decades, as the calls to slow global warming went largely ignored, these companies are not motivated to make changes on their own. The new EPA rules could and should be a powerful way to drastically reduce climate pollution in the coming years. 

### Americans like me and my two young daughters are countin g on the EPA to create and enforce tough rules that will curb greenhouse emissions, and eliminate coal-fired power plants, which are the dirtiest and most harmful for the planet.

We absolutely need to transition from coal to clean energy as soon as possible. These EPA rules can help make that transition happen. The coal industry is blowing off mountain tops to mine coal, creating terrible environmental repercussions for those ecosystems. And, coal-fired power plant emissions poison the air, creating high rates of respiratory diseases and cancers. Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate.

How can this be justified? It's 2013, and we are using technology that's been in place for more than 150 years!

In addition, climate change will have huge effects on our GDP, our economy, coastal cities (anyone remember Hurricane Sandy?) and inland areas alike (the drought in Illinois a few years back caused crops to fail and put stress on farmers). How much money and productivity has been lost by unpredictable weather and extreme storms over the last decade? And that will only continue.

The coal companies and their supporters will counter that they create jobs and cheap energy. But we can create so many more jobs and equally if not cheaper energy sources if we develop new, sustainable energy sources--without all the costs that come with environmental devastation.

I want our country to build a robust green energy infrastructure. Let's stop supporting coal and replace it with solar, wind and other sources of renewable, clean energy. My daughters are counting on us to do this, for the good of the planet and the next generation. We can't do this soon enough.

Sincerely, Laurie Casey 645 N Kenilworth Oak Park, IL 6030241 From: Christine Nannicelli [christine.nannicelli@sierraclub.org] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:16 PM To: Michael Rahaman Cc: Carbon Pollution Input; kady.mcfadden@sierraclub.org Subject: Re: Testimony for EPA Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants



### Hi Mike,

Th is is fantastic. I made one edit below. I think leaving out the SC affiliation will be more effective. What time are you planning on arriving tomorrow?

Christine

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Michael Rahaman < mr0520@outlook.com > wrote: Hi - My name is Michael Rahaman, a proud resident of XXXXXXXXXXX and I would like to submit my

wr itten testimony to the EPA concerning setting carbon pollution standards for power plants.

First, a little about myself. I immigrated to this country from Guyana , South America, in 1985, coming first as a student of the University of Illinois, from which I graduated in 1988 with a B.Sc. in Accounting. That same year, I also sat and passed the CPA exam. I later attended De Paul University in Chicago, where I obtained professional qualifications to become a computer programmer. I have worked in the IT industry as a Senior Application Developer for over 15 years.

I don't want to preach but nothing can be more important than preserving a healthy, habitable environment to ensure the continued existence of present and future generations of humans and all other living things on this planet. We must always follow the science, since science is the the only reliable, objective tool we have to inform our actions. If the science is a little ambiguous about certain important matters as it relates to the environment, because of current limited knowledge, we must always act on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt to the environment.

However, as it relates to carbon pollution and its harmful effects, mainstream science is unambiguous. Just yesterday, the WMO (World Metereological Organization) announced that carbon dioxide and the other gasses that drive global warming increased to a record high in 2012. The harmful effects, such as rising ocean levels, are already being felt in the country of my birth, Guyana, which lies about a foot or more below sea level and where sea defenses such as dykes and seawalls are beginning to prove ineffective as over topping and flooding by the rising oceans are now occurring more frequently.

Science has told us that mass extinctions of life have happened more than once on Earth in the distant past. We must do everything in our power to prevent another mass extinction of all life, including our own, from happening because of the effects of human activities.

US power plants account for 40% of carbon pollution. We need standards desperately to limit this pollution. With smart thinking, the standards can be set in a way that it can be a win- win situation for both private industry and the environment at once.

Thank you.42 

### Sincerely,

Michael Rahaman 5420 N Sheridan Rd., Unit 304, Chicago, IL 60640 Tel.: 630-687-1393

--

Christine Nannicelli IL Field Organizer Sierra Club (c) 508-740-9202 (o) 312-251-1680 x11543 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Shaun Dakin [sdakin@usa.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:10 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 16:10
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Shaun Dakin Email: sdakin@usa.net
Comments: My comments

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12KSdSKkaQUn4RqQo7 j9NwTyOrwdv3MV6LVYhlemJm7w/edit?usp=shar ing

Testimony of Shaun Dakin Digital Director, Moms Clean Air Force Carbon Pollution Standards EPA Public Listening Session November 7th, 2013 EPA Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton East Building, 1201 Constitution Ave NW

Good afternoon, I’m Shaun Dakin. I live in Falls Church, VA. I am speaking today as a representative of Moms Clean Air Force and a Dad. My Son is 9 years old.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak with you today in support of EPA’s proposed carbon standards.

Moms Clean Air Force is a community of Moms and Dads who are united by concern over the effects of air pollution on our children.

We read the health research on air pollution, and we have learned a lot about the health effects of breathing dirty air. We know that in its many forms, air pollution has been linked to the major health problems of our time. We see that asthma attacks, heart attacks, heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, premature death, emergency room visits, hospital admissions– all of these health problems have been linked to air pollution.

Many of these problems harm our children in particular. We at Moms Clean Air Force think that’s unacceptable.

Moms Clean Air Force has over 180,000 Moms, Dads, Grandparents and concerned citizens that are working for a clean air future for all of us.

I’m a Dad and I care about the future of our planet. But I really care about the future of our planet for my son.

We are lucky. My son has grown up going to the beaches of Rhode Island and Maryland enjoying the sun, water and sand and collecting sea glass.

I worry about what will happen to those beaches as he grows up. Will climate change increase the sea levels so that all that he knows now will soon be under water? Will he be able to bring his children to these same beaches?44 Right now the house that we go to each summer in Rhode Island is surrounded by water on almost all sides. The road that leads to the house was washed out during a recent storm, making it almost impossible to get to the home.

I want to be able to tell my son that this home will be there forever. But I can’t. Due to climate change, there is a good possibility that this summer home will no longer be reachable.

I’m here to ask that the EPA take action.

The EPA should propose a strong carbon pollution standard for existing power plants, so they are no longer allowed to dump unlimited amounts of dangerous carbon pollution into the air.

In fact, Addressing climate change is our obligation to our children and future generations, and the EPA can take the largest step our country has ever taken in that effort by limiting carbon pollution from power plants.

Thank you.

Shaun Dakin dakinshaun@gmail.com

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards45 From: Twila Slind [twislind@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:00 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: air pollution



### Scientists are warning that if we do not do something about co2 we will pass 1 billion tons in 15 years and won't be able to breathe. Protecting our air is the EPA's most important job. Please fight for us! Sincerely, Twila Slind, Gig Harbor, WA46 From: Stelzer, Steve - HPC-PWE [Steve.Stelzer@houstontx.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:00 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### TO: United States Environmental Protection Agency
R E: Comment on Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

To whom it may concern:

I live in Harris County, Texas, approximately twenty miles from the Sugar Land Power Project - a coal plant. I under stand that you are in a public comment process on proposed regulations for existing power plants. I strongly support regulations that will properly assign the price of emissions to the source as well as measures to help plants reduce
emissions.

I believe that the continued perversion of the marketplace by the power plants is egregiously enabled by the US Government neglecting its role to regulate externalities of power generation and causing a negative effect on my family's health, the Texas economy, and that of the planet. The children of the Houston region suffer too much at the hands of this market perversion through current real negative effects, such as rates of asthma, and the long term risk to their ability to sustain the region in the face of climate change.

The emissions of this plant - and all such existing coal power plants - are likely contributing to climate change, along with various other obvious negative effects, including local agricultural and health impacts. As a consumer who probably g ets some of my electricity from this plant, I wish I was paying the full price for my electricity, based on the assumption that properly efficient and non-polluting power generation would result in higher consumer prices. The ongoing federal perversion of the marketplace is manipulating consumer decisions, making consumers waste more energy, and making substitute goods, such as solar, relatively more expensive. Inadequate information and perversion in a market leads to inequality, inefficient decisions, and long term loss to the economy.

Please act now to correct this situation.

teve Stelzer S t eve Stelzer AIA LEED AP  Program Director Ci ty of Houston Public Works & Engineering Code Enforcement Green Building Resource Center 1002 Washington Avenue H ouston, TX 77002 **832-394-9050 steve.stelzer@houstontx.gov** 
www.codegreenhouston.org Facebook.com/HoustonGBRC Twitter.com/HoustonGBRC To receive periodic emails from Mayor Annise D. Parker and the City of Houston on topics of interest to you and your neighborhood, please visit

w ww.houstontx.gov and register with CitizensNet. CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This email and any attachment is confidential. It is intended solely for the use by the intended recipient (s), and any

u nauthorized disclosure, reproduction, distribution, use, or retention of its contents is strictly prohibited. Please consider the environment before printing this email.47 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kyle Murphy [IamSpam514@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:55 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 15:54
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Kyle Murphy Email: IamSpam514@aol.com Comments: Please put forth the strongest possible carbon pollution standards. CO2 emissions, primarily from coal power plants threaten all life on the planet, including your children and my children. Let's set the world on a better course for future generations, not cower before powerful corporate interests. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards48 From: William & Dolly Byrne [Thepitstopbase@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:54 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flo oding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

William & Dolly Byrne 3959 W 105th Street Chicago, IL 6065549 From: Phyllis Groff [pgroff2@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:33 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Groff 39 N Warrington Rd Des Plaines, IL 6001650 From: Iona Park [ionapark@me.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:28 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: listening session Seattle

To the EPA,

W e are a family of four living in Seattle, WA, and we support action to reduce coal plant emissions. For the future of our planet, and our children, we need to create higher standards and better regulations - there are other options, better ones, for cleaner energy consumption. We support the EPA rules that insist on reductions of climate pollution.

Best, David Taber, Iona Park, and family51 From: Jeff Tangel [jeff.tangel@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Jeff Tangel 2028 W 101st Pl Chicago, IL 6064352 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Michelle Marinelli Prindle [marinelli.michelle@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 14:48
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Michelle Marinelli Prindle Email: marinelli.michelle@gmail.com
Comments: As a mother to two delightful young children, and an early childhood educator and private music teacher, all of the time I spend is with children. I care so deeply for their future - and had hoped to offer them one full of promise, and the chance to see their dreams fulfilled. In the light of decades worth of climate science, and new studies that confirm scientists' worst fears, how can I hope to look them in the eyes when I speak of their bright futures? How can I hope to do that at all unless you, our trusted public servants, boldly act to make real change. Do not cave to the self-serving interests of powerful industry lobbyists, who care only for their own investment returns and bottom lines. I urge you to look deeply into the eyes of two and four year-old little boys, as I do each day, and ask your conscience, "What is the right thing for us to do, at this historic moment in history?"

Now is the time for you, our trusted public servants, to act, to save this planet from disaster and preserve our hope for a better tomorrow. I urge you to make bold, sweeping changes to emission regulations. Stand up for something that really matters. The future of my two young sons, and all the other children like them, around the world.

Thank you for your time. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards53 From: Sara Via [svia@umd.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: comments



### To the EPA:

Th e EPA regulations for new coal-fired power plants are a big step forward, and I thank you for those.

But, to have a real impact on toxic emissions, these standards need to be extended to EXISTING coal-fired plants.

As a scientist and a parent, I’m here to strongly support STRINGENT regulations for existing coal-fired plants.

Burning coal has two disastrous impacts on Americans:

First, coal combustion has well documented and serious health effects.

- These plants emit acid-forming gases, cause serious respiratory problems.

- They also emit large amounts of mercury, lead, arsenic, heavy metals and about 75 other poisons.

- Many of these compounds adhere to the tiny pieces of soot emitted, and are easily breathed deep into lungs – where they enter the bloodstream, causing sickness and even death.

- In fact, as of 2005, Baltimore residents could expect over 800 deaths/year from toxic emissions, mostly from

c oal plants within the city.



### S econdly, climate change from fossil fuel combustion is a scientific fact, and coal combustion accounts for 40% of all US CO2emissions

- Data show that the 50 dirtiest coal-fired plants emit 12% of ALL CO2 in US!

- What an opportunity!! If we cleaned up or closed these 50 plants, we would be long way toward our 2020

e missions target!



### B oth the National Resource Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists have released comprehensive roadmaps for carbon reduction . These plans combine stricter emissions standards with increased efficiency and use of renewable energy to get the deep emissions reductions we need by 2030. This54 

### type of multifaceted approach is necessary, and regulation of coal emissions through the Clean Air Act is a key aspect!!

Coal advocates say regulations will cost consumers too much.

- But given the huge health costs of coal emissions and the $188B taxpayers spent for disaster relief in just 2011 and 2012, we are already paying!

- And this kind of uncontrolled spending will only increase

—



### Please adopt strict standards for emissions from existing coal-fired plants!

Thank you,

Dr. Sara Via Department of Biology and Department of Entomology University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 svia@umd.edu55 From: Monique Howard [Bmhoward2004@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:34 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and prote cting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Monique Howard 847 Juniper Lane Northbrook, IL 6006256 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Lisa [genielisa@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:19 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 14:19
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Lisa Email: genielisa@yahoo.com Comments: Please, please regulate current, existing power plants. I live next to one of the biggest polluting plants in the nation, Luminant's Martin Lake Plant. They have not lived up to their promises to install new technology on their plant. Meanwhile, those of us who live close continue to have our health compromised. They are even opening a new strip mine right across the road from my house and putting in a coal crushing/loading station withing 2500 feet of my residence. Their out of compliance diesel engines will be pulling their coal trains into this station to load up, pull out and spread not only coal dust but diesel emissions into our front and back yards. They should not be able to get away with endangering the public health. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards57 From: Marcy Gustafson [moosegustafson4@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: From Children (2nd grade to 8th grade)



### The bad guys in most children's books are the greedy, the mean, and most of all those who won't hear the

a udience yelling a positive directive that could make the story come out positively.

Almost every child believes climate change (global warming) is real. Can you imagine how it feels to be them as they watch the inaction and sometimes pretense of the adults that they see in power.

Ever think about all the anger we have seen: ask a child why! They will tell you the truth. For a while we answer to what we know is fair and even noble; then something happens and we are swept away by all kinds of special interests.

Stand up (real tall) for children.58 From: Michael Rahaman [mr0520@outlook.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:17 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: kady.mcfadden@sierraclub.org; christine.nannicelli@sierraclub.org Subject: Testimony for EPA Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants



### Hi - My name is Michael Rahaman, a proud member of the Sierra Club, and I would like to submit my written

t estimony to the EPA concerning setting carbon pollution standards for power plants.

First, a little about myself. I immigrated to this country from Guyana , South America, in 1985, coming first as a student of the University of Illinois, from which I graduated in 1988 with a B.Sc. in Accounting. That same year, I also sat and passed the CPA exam. I later attended De Paul University in Chicago, where I obtained professional qualifications to become a computer programmer. I have worked in the IT industry as a Senior Application Developer for over 15 years.

I don't want to preach but nothing can be more important than preserving a healthy, habitable environment to ensure the continued existence of present and future generations of humans and all other living things on this planet. We must always follow the science, since science is the the on ly reliable, objective tool we have to inform our actions. If the science is a little ambiguous about certain important matters as it relates to the environment, because of current limited knowledge, we must always act on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt to the environment.

However, as it relates to carbon pollution and its harmful effects, mainstream science is unambiguous. Just yesterday, the WMO (World Metereological Organization) announced that carbon dioxide and the other gasses that drive global warming increased to a record high in 2012. The harmful effects, such as rising ocean levels, are already being felt in the country of my birth, Guyana, which lies about a foot or more below sea level and where sea defenses such as dykes and seawalls are beginning to prove ineffective as over topping and flooding by the rising oceans are now occurring more frequently.

Science has told us that mass extinctions of life have happened more than once on Earth in the distant past. We must do everything in our power to prevent another mass extinction of all life, including our own, from happening because of the effects of human activities.

US power plants account for 40% of carbon pollution. We need standards desperately to limit this pollution. With smart thinking, the standards can be set in a way that it can be a win-win situation for both private industry and the environment at once.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Michael Rahaman 5420 N Sheridan Rd., Unit 304, Chicago, IL 60640 Tel.: 630-687-139359 From: Ian Magargee [ian.magargee@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:39 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulating Carbon Emissions from US Power Plants



### Dear EPA Representative:

I have first-hand experience with extreme weather events associated with climate change. I lived in New York for both tropical storm Irene and hurricane Sandy. Shortly after Sandy dissipated, I spent my days cleaning out the basements and first floors of businesses in lower Manhattan and saw the incredible amount of damage and loss resulting from Sandy’s record setting 32-foot-plus waves. Neighborhoods were flattened in the Rockawa ys where people lived without power or permanent shelter for months. Redhook, Brooklyn was under water, as were traffic and subway tunnels. Now, a year later, local economies are still struggling to recover. Computer simulations reveal the particular track of hurricane Sandy to occur only once every approximately 714 years. If that’s the case, then why did we have such enormous storms travel similar courses up the East Coast in 2011 and 12? I think a likely culprit is CO2 pollution.

Prior to industrialization, the earth’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 never exceeded about 280ppm. We’re currently at about 394ppm, with a record setting 400ppm measured just this year in May. At the same time we’re setting such records, nearly 40% of carbon emissions in the US come from our under-regulated power plants. China and the US lead the world in global CO2 emissions, the US alone responsible for just over 20%, China responsible for 21%. Russia comes in at a distant 3 rd 

### with only 5.5%. In emissions per capita, we lead

t he world by far. For a country as wealthy and innovative as ours, this is shameful.

While global surface temperatures have risen almost 1 degree Celsius in the last century, America is showing no significant leadership. With enormous global population growth, rapid industrialization of the third world, and slow progress in moving away from fossil fuel dependence in the developed world, we’re headed quickly toward a climate bubble. The symptoms are already showing, and within our next generation this bubble will burst with cataclysmic effect – a massive, runaway warming of the planet. Something needs to be done. We need strong carbon emission standards imposed on our power plants, now. And we need stronger support for wind and solar, shifting those energy sources to fill the primary, not supplementary, role in our energy production. Clean, renewable energy sources now account for 25% of Germany's power generation. We must follow their example. We need to flank the highway system in solar panel arrays to create a decentralized, abundant energy source that can almost single-handedly power our nation. We need to harness wind power in the Great Lakes. We need sharp regulations that can steer wealthy power-generating companies to reinvest, embracing clean energy production using their vast financial and mechanical capital. And as members of the federal government, we need action and activism on your part , as well as ours. Thank you.

Sincerely,60 

### Ian Magargee

450 W Melrose St

Apt 538

Chicago, IL 6065761 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Liz Mednick [EMednick@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:39 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 13:38
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Liz Mednick Email: EMednick@gmail.com
Comments: Dear EPA,

Thank you for your proposed carbon pollution regulations. I am sure that you will hear complaints from energy providers and others that these regulations will raise the price of energy. I'd like to make two points:

First, the price of carbon pollution to the environment, our collective health, and the health and well-being of future generations who will have to live with the consequences of climate change, are incalculably large.

Second, I am the owner of a 2359 square foot condominium apartment. My monthly electricity bill is around $34.00 a month, and that is using the most expensive renewable blend on offer from the Energy Coop. According to PECO, which delivers my electricity, I use 21 percent less than "efficient similar homes" and less than one third the energy typically used in "similar homes" nearby. I've done this without making big alterations or expensive purchases, just small, incremental changes such as using LED and flourescent bulbs, lowering the thermostat, cooking more efficiently, and air drying some of my clothes. We can all make these changes, but most people will not bother while energy companies and their customers receive what amounts to a subsidy in the form of cost-free damage to the air, the water, West Virginia's mountaintops, and the earth's climate.

Please put all of your Carbon Pollution Standards into full force and effect as quickly as possible. We will all learn to cope.

Thank you for your kind attention,

Liz Mednick Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards62 From: Marti Cockrell [marti.cockrell@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:10 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment on Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### Please limit carbon emissions from power plants! We have two people in our family with asthma, who have a

t errible time breathing at certain times when they have to work outside. This must depend on the wind condtions, etc, and limiting the carbon emissions is vitally necessary! Also, the US needs to LEAD when it comes to making the world a better, healthier place for future generations, NOT in the direction of making it worse! Thank you for your consideration, Marti Cockrell 2814 Mintwood Place Arlington, TX 7601663 From: Jay Crossley [jcrossley@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:54 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Luke Metzger, Environment Texas Director; David Crossley; Lawrence Spence; Brandt Mannchen; Jaime Gonzalez; Paul Schechter; Matthias Jung; Jaime Lawson; Jody Blazek; Bob Randall; Lisa - MYR Lin; Nan Hildreth; Nancy Edwards; Steve - HPC-PWE Stelzer; Lisa Gray Subject: Comment on Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

TO: United States Environmental Protection Agency
R E: Comment on Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

To whom it may concern:

I live in Austin County, Texas twenty miles from the Fayette Power Project, a coal plant. I understand that you are in a public comment process on proposed regulations for existing power plants. I strongly support regulations that will properly assign the price of emissions to the source as well as measures to help plants reduce emissions.

I believe that the continued perversion of the marketplace by the US Government neglecting its role to regulate externalities of power generation is having a negative effect on my family's health, the Texas economy, and that of the planet. The children of the Houston region suffer too much at the hands of this market perversion through current real negative effects, such as rates of asthma, to the long term risk to their ability to sustain the region in the face of climate change.

The emissions of this plant - and all such existing coal power plants - are known to be contributing to climate change, along with various other negative effects, including local agricultural and health impacts. As a consumer who probably gets some of my electricity (through the Fayette Electric Cooperative) from this plant, I wish I was paying the full price for my electricity. The ongoing federal perversion of the marketplace is manipulating my decisions, making me waste more energy, and making substitute goods, such as solar, relatively more expensive.

This continued market perversion is also a threat to the Houston energy economy and the State of Texas. Inadequate information and perversion in a market leads to inequality, inefficient decisions, and long term loss to the economy.

Please act now to correct this situation.

Sincerely,

Jay Blazek Crossley

2583 Witte-Schmid Road New Ulm, TX 78950 jcrossley@gmail.com
713-244-474664 From: Wendy Jo Harmston [srednew@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Wendy Jo Harmston 3928 N Kenneth Avenue Chicago, IL 6064165 From: Patty Graham [patjanet59@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:47 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer

summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Patty Graham 2315 N. 77th Ct. Elmwood Park, IL 6070766 From: Eva Lange [eval006@epix.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:43 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution Limits

It has been a long standing conflict of interest between public health and safe use of technology versus profits of powerful industry. The way our environment has been degraded and polluted by the industry became a bold proof that industry's profits ARE a priority and public safety means nothing or very little to the top game players. I have always wondered where those polluting people would live if there is NO LIFE left on our planet as a result of their actions. Have they secured other planets of our solar system or beyond for future living there? Or there is no planning or ability of foreseeing the results of massive destruction of our environment that has been taking place in ever increasing pace?????????????
W hat sense does it make to maintain any regulatory agencies if they are rendered powerless by big $$$$$$$$$$ ? It is a very sad state of our human affairs, for we don't know how to function in harmony with the rest of life on our planet. We only know how to destroy it!!!

Eva Lange M.D.,Ph.D.

Sent from my iPad67 From: Daniel Dolan-Laughlin [ddolanlaughlin@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mol d from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Daniel Dolan-Laughlin 326 W. Seminary Ave Wheaton, IL 6018768 From: Joy Perlman [legallink1717@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:35 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now cri tical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Joy Perlman 711 Lakeside Circle Drive Wheeling, IL 6009069 From: Mary Hagele [mchagele@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:32 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Mary Hagele 9236 Harding Ave Apt. 1 Evanston, IL 6020370 From: Peggy Willis [methowpeggy@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Carbon Listening Sessions Input

Dear EPA Administrator,

T hank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding carbon pollution. I urge adoption of a strong EPA policy regulating carbon emissions, especially from existing power plants which are responsible for 40% of current carbon pollution.

Carbon pollution is increasing global warming and climate changes that impact future generations. Changes in habitat and growing seasons, impacts on mankind and other living creatures and predicted extinction of US polar bears within 50 years are a few examples of why the US needs to change direction and adopt a strong carbon pollution policy.

We protect public health from mercury, lead, soot and other air pollution, but there are no public health safeguards from carbon pollution.

Increased air pollution caused by carbon pollution results in thousands of premature deaths each year. It is estimated that 35,000 premature deaths could be prevented by implementation of strong carbon pollution standards. Elderly, children and other vulnerable populations are especially at risk from health effects of increased air pollution due to climate change.

More than 120 organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Lung Association are on record stating that climate change is a serious public health issue.

We need a strong carbon pollution standard for existing power plants that will reduce carbon pollution by 35-40%.

Peggy Willis Twisp, Washington 98856
509 393-6797 Sent from my iPhone71 From: Tim Riley [teriley162@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment on Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### As a resident of one of the regions producing both coal and energy through coal power plants (Carbon and Em ery Counties, Utah), I am writing to express my support for higher standards on carbon pollution from coalfired power plants. We need to limit these emissions not just for global climate change, but also because of the impact on local communities. Please stand up for science and the average person in the face of some of the most powerful industries in the world.

Dr. Tim Riley, Helper, UT72 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of David E Steele [dvd.steele@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:56 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 11:56
S ubmitted values are:

Name: David E Steele Email: dvd.steele@yahoo.com
Comments: I am a voter strongly supporting EPA's proposed revised standards for carbon emissions from coal fired power plants.

David E Steele 8 Clarewood Mall Oakland CA 94618 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards73 From: Aarati Kasturirangan [aarati.kasturirangan@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:55 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Set strict limits for carbon emission



### Dear EPA,

I am writing as a mother of two young children, a concerned citizen of Philadelphia, and a person who lives on this planet and sees the direct impact carbon emissions is having on our climate. I want my children to be able to breathe clean air, and I want to increase the chances that they will have long healthy lives on this planet. This will not happen if we do not cap carbon emissions now! We need strict standards for existing power plants and limits on the development of new power plants. We need bring the carbon in the atmosphere down to 350 parts per million in order to restore balance to our climate. We are all at risk and so we must all act.

I appreciate the opportunity to express my views.

-- In peace, Aarati (Arthi)

Dr. Aarati Kasturirangan Community Psychologist 773.307.9120 aarati.kasturirangan@gmail.com Check out my blog: aarati.kasturirangan.wordpress.com "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you are right."74 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of James Stillwell [fjstillwell@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:39 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 11:39
S ubmitted values are:

Name: James Stillwell Email: fjstillwell@gmail.com
Comments: Reducing carbon pollution from existing carbon plants is an urgent necessity. Anything the President and the EPA can do by executive order would be appreciated!

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards75 From: Lisa Zaenger [lzang@pulmonaryexchange.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:37 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Lisa Zaenger 1601 Westminster Dr Apt 107 Naperville, IL 6056376 From: Eileen Lowery [elowery@lungchicago.org] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:22 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now cri tical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Eileen Lowery 1502 Mulford St Evanston, IL 6020277 From: Margo Tuite [margoht@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:21 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer

summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Margo Tuite Sandburg Chicago, IL 6061078 From: Linda Harth [lharth@kr-law.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:18 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Linda Harth 5237 W Dakin Street Chicago, IL 6064179 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of George Seielstad [g.seielstad@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:17 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 11:17
S ubmitted values are:

Name: George Seielstad Email: g.seielstad@gmail.com Comments: The new standards are overdue and, if anything, are too timid. Coal- burning is harmful to the entire planet, both because of its emissions of carbon dioxide and its mercury deposition. The world needs to tap renewable sources of energy. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards80 From: Northa Johnson [northajj@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:15 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, mak ing action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Northa Johnson 445 E Ohio St
1105 Chicago, IL 6061181 From: Judy Devine [jdevine818@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:13 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Judy Devine 3184 Teal Bay Ct. Aurora, IL 6050382 From: Colleen Bransfield [colleenbransfield@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:12 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also w orsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Colleen Bransfield 2020 N Lincoln Park W Chicago, IL 6061483 From: Dorothy Williams [dorwil16@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:10 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Dorothy Williams 15916 Minerva Ave. South Holland, IL 6047384 From: Chris Gronkiewicz [cgronkiewicz@rcn.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:10 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now cri tical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Chris Gronkiewicz
652 W. Buena Ave. Apt. 4 Chicago, IL 6061385 From: Mary Mathews [timmary747@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:54 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Mary Mathews 1111 Waukegan Rd Lake Forest, IL 6004586 From: Teresa Safron [tsafron@soldinger.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:53 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now cri tical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Teresa Safron 151 South Walnut Street Palatine, IL 6006787 From: Sean Maloney [Maloney88@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:53 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Asthmatic urging strong carbon standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

I have asthma and air quality is of particular concern to me.

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Sean Maloney 9533 S Clifton Park Avenue Evergreen Park, IL 6080588 From: Laiah Factor [laiah.factor@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:48 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Laiah Factor

Laiah Factor 800 Sherwood Rd La Grange Park, IL 6052689 From: Jeff Weiss [jeffreyw360@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:47 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Jeff Weiss 360 W Illinois St Apt 416 Chicago, IL 6065490 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Desiree Fleck [greenearthalive@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:14 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 10:13
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Desiree Fleck Email: greenearthalive@gmail.com Comments: The biggest problem is that we are still using power plants. They are obviously threatening our environment in a very negative way. There's no question about it. The whole backbone of power plants is greed and insanity. Can we just stop using these horribly destructive energy sources and utilize much safer methods like solar, wind, and the many other sources that have been found? Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards91 From: Tim Hesterberg [enviro@timhesterberg.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:12 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Need action on climate change



### I am writing today in support of strong action to reduce global

w arming emissions, from power plants and otherwise.

I am a statistician. I remember the old so-called "uncertainty" about whether smoking causes cancer. There was good science and clear statistical evidence for the harm, but tobacco companies and a few hired scientists managed to delay action by spreading doubt, and people kept dying.

Now we have good science and data and overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change due to human activity is happening, causing harm, and accelerating. Don't let a few deniers delay action. The only uncertainty left is just how bad it will be, and that is no excuse for inaction. If you're driving too fast and are about to plow into a crowd of schoolchildren, do you keep going full-speed ahead because you don't know how many of them you'll kill?

Oysters are dying. Trees are dying. Coral is dying. Polar bears are dying. Crops are dying. And people are dying.

It is time to act. We need to get off coal, and replace it with energy conservation and renewable resources.

A personal note - at my mom's farm in Iowa, our old family farm, she couldn't get anything planted this year because of weather; that has never happened before. It is time to act.

Tim Hesterberg, Ph.D. 2628 31st Ave W Seattle, WA 9819992 From: Gaytan, Jackie [Jacqueline.Gaytan@trane.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:05 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: **********Im not the only one I promise******



### Please please please bring back clean airಹಹಹ.nothing ಹNOTHING is more important to our survival. We

d epend on others to be our voice ದ please be the voice we need to hear.

CO2 emissions rose from about 415,000 metric tons in 2011 to close to 525,000 metric tons last year in
Dallas/Fort Worth. We donಬt have another planet to move to. I should be fighting for a better education 

### for my

children not clean air



### for them in their future.

Thank you for reading!!

The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and attachments.93 From: nancy hansen [nancy@glenwood-gardens.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:52 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Concerns and comments re Carbon Pollution Standards:

I , and many others, are concerned to a point of disbelief when we see "business as usual" going on in industry and government re the issue of the extreme amounts of carbons being released into the atmosphere. This is, wish I could think of better words, b ut it is insane, having the amount of information and facts available today.

I am concerned because if we do not act now, today, it will become a much worsened situation to control.

Scientific studies are numerous. I can quote what I've read, but I believe you know all of these. We do know species are dying at an alarming rate, soon it will be humans along with these other species. In fact, that is happening already, particularly in undeveloped areas, due to pollution and a world unfit to live in.

My biggest concern is that the people who represent us are not standing up and saying "NO" I am older and have seen enough to know that even in a period of difficult times earlier, the sentiment was not the same. Reason was more prevalent. Today, facts are presented and lawmakers and government are pushed so hard away from the truth that maybe they don't know the difference anymore.

I see that "big oil" will have a difficult time without revenue, so why not help them to move towards alternate energy solutions? They could be given incentives to do this. We know the money to do this is there. So, why not try giving up some of the technology to them, if they will, in turn, help to create a better planet?

Major power companies could certainly be instrumental in a process such as this. Not easy, but I am trusting that there are some out there who use reason to make their judgments. Giving up the norm of a century could not be easy. And, we've all been just as guilty in the use of so much carbon.

Higher penalties need to be put in place for any pollution caused by exports. Selling to other countries and polluting in the process does not make any sense at all.

Thank you for listening.

Nancy Hansen nancy@glenwood-gardens.com 15015 Owl Place SW Port Orchard, Wa 98367 mailing address:
PO Box 692 Burley, WA 9832294 From: kim feil [kimfeil@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:47 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: comments for Dallas Listening session for Co2



### I have dedicated the last 4 ys of my life w/o pay to report my findings of fracking harm on my blog....but alas I couldn’t stop Chesapeake from drilling 2 blocks from my home and now my husband got cancer and my teen has adrenal tumor biomarkers

.

Making Coal go away for NG is not the answer to avert global warming...we need a paradigm shift away from ALL fossil fuels...

1) We need to KILL THE GRAND FATHERING of EXISTING COAL plants for starters because reducing the NEW plant’s C02 by 39% while ignoring existing plant’s CO2 is wreckless to our economy now that health care costs will now be paid for by the government through Obamacare.

2) We need to start measuring economic growth as a NEGATIVE because industrial & manufacturing processes is a zero sum game to the environment.

3) Because power plants will switch back and fourth from NG to Coal due to which ever is currently cheaper, we must cut off all Gov subsidies to fossil fuel industries and demand payback of 5 times (83%) to correct the disparity of what has been withheld from fast tracking renewables if we are to survive as a species.


### Kim Feil http://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/

TEX LG. CODE ANN. A§ 253.005 : Texas Statutes – Section 253.005: LEASE OF OIL, GAS, OR MINERAL LAND “(c) A well may not be drilled in the thickly settled part of the municipality..”

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A, Rule 101.4, Environmental Quality, Nuisance

No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation, or property.95 From: Ryan K [wrench_one@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:12 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Capture



### I am employed by a coal mining company in OHIO, I work hard everyday to support my family.
W E have no need for government assisance via food stamps or REGULATONS that could someday negatively affect my livelyhood. We the coal miners are hard working, TAX PAYING AMERICANS.

The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the economy. That arbitrary assignment does not make any true economic sense and is simply wrong, false, and improper.

The poorest people in America spend the largest percentage of thier income on energy, i.e., heat for thier homes, gas for thier cars, and electricity for lights and refridgerators. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyones best interest.

Cheap afforable energy is one of the key factors that has made our Country great. The great American way of life, and all of the freedoms that go with it, is now in great danger from over regulation of government.

You, who have been kind enough to read this message, are also at risk. Let me ask you, Can you afford higher gas prices? higher electric bills? Do you worry about the future of your children? Or Grand children.

Let US BURN COAL AND BE FREE.

Ryan Keesey Cadiz, Ohio96 From: Laurie Cummings [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:47 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I just signed "EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants"



### Dear EPA,

I just signed Solve The Climate Crisis's petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " on Change.org.

I strongly support strict limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants is vital if we are going to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Sincerely, Laurie Cummings norwich, New York

There are now 2 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.97 From: Environmental Law and Policy Center [elpcinfo@elpc.org] on behalf of John Rhyne [rhynej@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:27 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time for strong carbon standards

N ov 7, 2013

U.S. EPA

Dear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow citizens like myself to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. I was pleased when President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan in June, and I hope U.S. EPA follows through with aggressive carbon pollution reduction standards that will make a difference in our fight against climate change.

This is especially important in the Midwest, where we have a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce a lot of air pollution that contributes to our climate change problems and that affects our health.

Climate change impacts are already starting to hurt people in the Midwest. More days of extreme heat are hard in old cities like Chicago, where lots of folks have asthma and other respiratory issues and where lots of folks don't have access to air conditioning. It's also very hard on Midwestern farmers, who deal with droughts one year and floods the next -- and that, in turn, can affect food prices for everyone.

This is hurting our health and hurting our pocketbooks. And it's only going to get worse unless we do something about it. That's why I hope the U.S. EPA designs STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Mr. John Rhyne 2423 Edison St Gary, IN 46406-2451 (219) 576-271098 From: Mike Vandeman [mjvande@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:28 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Emissions



### Please do everything in your power (no pun intended) to reduce carbon emissions! With the advent of the

e lectric- assist bicycle, there are no longer any excuses for most of the population to get rid of their car and use a bicycle instead. (Yes, it really is that simple!) Insulation can keep homes warm in the winter and cool in the summer. A simple switch (or power strip) can totally eliminate all "vampire power". The U.S. can, and should, reduce its carbon footprint overnight!

--

I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://mjvande.nfshost.com99 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Sharon Larson [ms06rn64lsv65@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:03 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 00:02
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Sharon Larson Email: ms06rn64lsv65@sbcglobal.net
Comments: Hello: I favor the use of clean coal technology in the production of electricity. It has a record of reducing carbon pollution while providing affordable electricity. There is no other comparable source of electricity production which would not bankrupt American citizen users. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards100 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of David Borglum [borglumdavid50@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:55 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 22:55
S ubmitted values are:

Name: David Borglum Email: borglumdavid50@gmail.com Comments: Please do everything possible to significantly reduce carbon pollution-- your stand will be a blessing to my children and all children. Also, please discontinue allowing hydraulic fracturing off the California coastline, which puts marine life as well as humans at risk. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards101 From: Gail Mershon [gaildmershon@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:45 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulating GHG emissions



### Thank you for reading my comments.

I work in Philadelphia with young children (ages 3-5), visiting them in their homes, pre- schools, Headstarts, etc. any of these children suffer from asthma. They are frequently ill with asthma attacks, which I have noticed correspond with "high" pollution alerts in the news. On the day after an asthma attack I have noticed these children are frequently hyperexcitable, have difficulty concentrating, and cannot sit still, which is related to the medication (side effects) given during asthma attacks. As these children enter elementary school, it is important that they do not have frequent absences and are able to attend to learning, in order to have the best opportunity to succeed. I am asking you, on their behalf, to impose the strictest standards on GHG emissions. It is simply unconscionable for corporations to profit from the suffering of children and the pollution of our one and only planet.

In addition, I have seen firsthand how parents of these children are affected by time lost from work when they must stay home to care for a sick child. In the past year, I know personally 3 women who have lost their jobs due to absences related to caring for their children during and after asthma attacks. The cost to our economy of lost work days is another serious consideration. For these economic reasons, I am asking you to impose the strictest standards possible.

Finally, I am an asthma sufferer. Since moving to the Philadelphia area 4 years ago, I have had more frequent attacks, have lost days to work due to complications from asthma, and am restricted in the number of days each year that I am able to enjoy being outdoors for my health and well being. On my behalf, I ask you to impose the strictest standards on GHG emissions. from existing power plants.

Thank you for the work you do and for caring about the health of our children and families.

Sincerely, Gail Mershon 940 E Pleasant St Wyndmoor, PA 19038102 From: Environmental Law and Policy Center [elpcinfo@elpc.org] on behalf of Alexandra Davila [agnoske@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time for strong carbon standards

N ov 6, 2013

U.S. EPA

Dear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow citizens like myself to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. I was pleased when President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan in June, and I hope U.S. EPA follows through with aggressive carbon pollution reduction standards that will make a difference in our fight against climate change.

This is especially important in the Midwest, where we have a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce a lot of air pollution that contributes to our climate change problems and that affects our health.

Climate change impacts are already starting to hurt people in the Midwest. More days of extreme heat are hard in old cities like Chicago, where lots of folks have asthma and other respiratory issues and where lots of folks don't have access to air conditioning. It's also very hard on Midwestern farmers, who deal with droughts one year and floods the next -- and that, in turn, can affect food prices for everyone.

This is hurting our health and hurting our pocketbooks. And it's only going to get worse unless we do something about it. That's why I hope the U.S. EPA designs STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Alexandra Davila 5031 N Bernard St Chicago, IL 60625-4915103 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Sonya Myers [sonyamyersdvm@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 22:21
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Sonya Myers Email: sonyamyersdvm@yahoo.com Comments: We need to do everything we possibly can to reduce carbon emissions if we are to have any chance of mitigating environmental and resource damage caused by global warming and climate change caused by carbon pollution. Please be as strict as possible in limiting carbon emissions of current power plants. If we don't act now and act strong, we will be paying the price later. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards104 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Denis Martynowych [denismarty@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 22:16
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Denis Martynowych Email: denismarty@gmail.com Comments: 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 harming f workers and the planet -- and it's past time to move our country and our planet beyond fossil fuels. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards105 From: Wanda Ballentine [wsb70@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:00 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Hello, EPA:

W e should, of course, cut fossil fuels way, way back - like 20 years ago, as we are now experiencing what greenhouse gases were released back then. We should cut back to nothing - ha, ha - but maybe it will help people further down the line. But now, of course, we have methane hydrates coming up from Siberia and other parts of the ocean - which is terrifying.

Yet, still, the oil companies are still digging and drilling, though the big ones have enough to fry the planet right now. We look at tar sands and fracking as a "bridge" to cleaner fuels, when they should stop. We have to keep the economy going, despite the fact that it is in many, many ways killing all species - so one would think that a planet without this wonderful "economy" i s somehow better than a dead planet. The environment can get along just fine without a healthy economy - the reverse is not true.

I have been studying climate change for at least ten years, and from all I can gather we've already passed the tipping points. My grandchildren - all grandchildren of all species have nothing to look forward to.

However, if you can reduce fossil fuels a little, please, please do.

Wanda S. Ballentine 1181 Edgcumbe Rd., #314 St. Paul, MN 55105- 2833
651-200-3093106 From: Diane Simpson [simpsond65@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:29 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Please Put in Stronger Rules Against Carbon Pollution!



### Good morning,

I 'm sorry I was unable to go to the public listening session in Boston about your new rules on coal-fired power plants. These new EPA rules, if done well, could be a very useful way to reduce climate pollution in the coming years. I hope you read the story in last week's Globe about a 2% expected drop worldwide in food production due to climate change! Stopping or reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants could go a long way to mitigating this crisis.

Thanks for listening and I hope you can implement those new rules ASAP.



# --Diane(:^]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DIANE SIMPSON BOARD ADMINISTRATOR-HARVEST CO-OP MARKET SECRETARY-TREASURER BROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 617-522-2209 | S IMPSOND65@GMAIL.COM107 From: Becky Burmester [becky.burmester@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no more dirty power plants

I support the EPA's regulating the carbon pollution from existing power plants and want more b old actions like it to transition to a renewable future. We can't afford dirty air.

Becky Burmester Sent from my iPad108 From: Koehn, Ashlie [ashliekoehn@ku.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 7:48 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal Standard Inputs

To whom it may concern,

After attending the EPA public hearing in Lenexa, Kansas, I would like to vocalize how climate change is effecting people in the Midwest to which, I myself, can give testimony. I come from a small, rural Kansas town of 260 and my friends and family, farmers and ranchers, have already been increasingly concerned with the recent droughts that have scorched their lands and damaged their crops. These concerns multiply when looking to my relatives that live in Western Kansas who face increased concerns of water depletion from the aquifer on which they rely. If nothing is done to curb climate change, I fear that the people I love who desire to carry on their family’s traditions of growing wheat, milo, corn or beans will instead be cultivating rock gardens in a desert.

Climate change has already begun to displace people and lead to environmental disasters such as Hurricane Sandy. We in the United States have seen the devastating harm to communities, homes and lives in situations like the Colorado wildfires. As for myself, I eventually hope have a career in global health and, despite climate change dramatically increasing my job security, America, an international leader in the production of CO2, should take the lead on reducing these impacts starting now. I ask the EPA to expediently implement new and harsher regulations on both existing and future coal power plants.

Best, Ashlie Koehn109 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Barbara Gaman [bgaman@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 7:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 19:20
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Barbara Gaman Email: bgaman@hotmail.com
Comments: I feel it is past time to put our focus on renewable energy sources. Coal is not a good idea, fracking an environmental disaster and oil is limited in scope. Let's devote ourselves to clean, green sources of energy from here on out. Thank you. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards110 From: Gerilyn Denny [gdenny@sonic.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:57 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Thoughts on Carbon Pollution

Hello there: I'm a Managing Director and Head of Platform Sales at a Big Data Analytics

s tart up here in the Bay area and I'd like to provide my thoughts on your efforts to curb carbon pollution and keep our air clean. I believe it is incumbent upon regulators to put in place the most stringent regulations possible by placing a carbon tax or implementing a fee and dividend policy on carbon emissions polluters immediately. Over the past several years I've learned about Climate Change, the efforts of the Fossil Fuel industry to fund a denial campaign about the existence of AGW and have become more and more aware of the fact that the denial campaign is winning. We MUST implement a tax on carbon pollution immediately because giving the subsidies we have to the Fossil Fuel and Utilities industries and industrial polluters have caused them to pollute with impunity. We are already seeing the impacts of a too high concentration of Carbon pollution in the way of droughts, wildfires, more extreme weather events, health problems among our population etc. The profit motive behind the fossil fuel industry is tanking the planet and making it uninhabitable for many species including increasingly humans. The longer we wait to implement strong measures to reduce carbon emissions, the more costly is will be to halt the nasty feedback loop. New clean technologies will not be funded until a tax is placed on carbon pollution and we must move toward investments in clean energy in order to transition completely off of fossil fuel based electricity. It's up to the EPA to implement tough measures on existing power plants and industrial polluters since our Congress has become so dysfunctional and are only interested in near-term solutions that will get them elected again. Please be the heroes of our future and do the job you are charged to do!

Thank you!

Sincerely

-- Gerilyn Denny111 From: Environmental Law and Policy Center [elpcinfo@elpc.org] on behalf of charlene pollard [charleypollard2010@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time for strong carbon standards

N ov 6, 2013

U.S. EPA

Dear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow citizens like myself to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. I was pleased when President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan in June, and I hope U.S. EPA follows through with aggressive carbon pollution reduction standards that will make a difference in our fight against climate change.

This is especially important in the Midwest, where we have a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce a lot of air pollution that contributes to our climate change problems and that affects our health.

Climate change impacts are already starting to hurt people in the Midwest. More days of extreme heat are hard in old cities like Chicago, where lots of folks have asthma and other respiratory issues and where lots of folks don't have access to air conditioning. It's also very hard on Midwestern farmers, who deal with droughts one year and floods the next -- and that, in turn, can affect food prices for everyone.

This is hurting our health and hurting our pocketbooks. And it's only going to get worse unless we do something about it. That's why I hope the U.S. EPA designs STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Ms. charlene pollard 134 Collier Ave Shelbyville, TN 37160-2408 (931) 685-1530112 From: Donald Necessary [dnldnecessary@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: 111(d) Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants testimony



### Hello,

M y name is Don Necessary. I am 61 years old and remember when the Edwards Plant was built. I lived in Morton, Illinois and lived there until 1977. So, maybe I'm fortunate to have spared my lungs until I returned to Central Illinois in 2010. I remember when I was going to college at ICC and I took photos of the Sulfer Dioxide spewing from the plant to have as backdrop to the silhouette of the transmission towers East of Pekin. The plumes were brown and ugly as they trailed off to the north east. While I was away from Illinois and the pollution here, I worked at the Central Intelligence Agency. There, we used modern technology and science to make sound judgment calls. I realize that when the early settlers lived in the Midwest, they had no knowledge modern technology to rid themselves of pollutants. So, they buried them, dumped them in the river or burned them. Back then the world seemed large and unaffected by the scale of their ignorance. Today, We now know you cannot bury or dump garbage in rivers without affecting water resources, nor can you burn coal without putting everyone around you at risk or killing the plants with the Sulfuric Acid formed in the water
vapors. So, it astounds me that in this day and age, the EPA even considers an appeal to give a variance to a energy company that wants to continue burning coal in Illinois. Solar and Wind turbine technology is being used finally and should be promoted we dismantle the old obsolete and dangerous technology over 100 years old. Electricity produced by coal fired plants is no longer worth the health risks it creates as the facts show. I urge all those who are responsible for the public well being act like it and refuse any variances. I had to be responsible when I was protecting your well being.

Sincerely,

Don Necessary113 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Joe Halvorson [jrhalvor@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:10 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 18:09
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Joe Halvorson Email: jrhalvor@gmail.com
Comments: Incentives for transferable technology

Strategic planning for resource conversion to less carbon-intensive energy methods and phasing out dirty/obsolete programs Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards114 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jesse Hunter [jessehntr@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 5:33 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 17:32
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Jesse Hunter Email: jessehntr@yahoo.com
Comments: For the sake of the health and even survival of the species, we need to implement the now available comprehensive plans for conversion to the least harmful systems of energy production. Namely, a fast and full move away from coal, oil, gas AND nuclear; towards Wind, Water and Solar. The best plan I've seen is by Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson. Here is a concise presentation of his plan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XCYlCF3QuQ Thanks, Jesse Hunter Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards115 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Catharine Carey [cgc57@bresnan.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:44 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 16:44
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Catharine Carey Email: cgc57@bresnan.net Comments: Old, as well as new, coal fired power plants need to meet CO2 pollution standards to reduce global warming and its d ire consequences. Our grandchildren should not have to pay for the short term profits of power and coal companies. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards116 From: Environmental Law and Policy Center [elpcinfo@elpc.org] on behalf of Jerry Mattox [jerrymattox@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time for strong carbon standards

N ov 6, 2013

U.S. EPA

Dear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow citizens like myself to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. I was pleased when President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan in June, and I hope U.S. EPA follows through with aggressive carbon pollution reduction standards that will make a difference in our fight against climate change.

This is especially important in the Midwest, where we have a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce a lot of air pollution that contributes to our climate change problems and that affects our health.

Climate change impacts are already starting to hurt people in the Midwest. More days of extreme heat are hard in old cities like Chicago, where lots of folks have asthma and other respiratory issues and where lots of folks don't have access to air conditioning. It's also very hard on Midwestern farmers, who deal with droughts one year and floods the next -- and that, in turn, can affect food prices for everyone.

This is hurting our health and hurting our pocketbooks. And it's only going to get worse unless we do something about it. That's why I hope the U.S. EPA designs STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Mr. Jerry Mattox 217 E Davenport St Iowa City, IA 52245-2105117 From: Courtney Young [courtney.a.young@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:10 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: My comment

I want the Environmental Protection Agency to serve it's purpose and protect our environment. Coal is responsible for 1/3rd of our greenhouse gas emissions and is also responsible for destroying precious habitats. We will eventually be forced to move completely away from coal into 100% clean energy sources like wind and solar. In the meantime, I think it is a reasonable request to ask for a 25% reduction in CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2016.118 From: joan susman [josusman@tx.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 3:59 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



## Dear Members of the Environmental Protection Agency:
I am writing in favor of reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants in Texas. The most important point I want to make is this: There is no real merit to the opposition’s position because it is short-sighted.
In business, looking 10 – or perhaps, 15 – years out is considered long-term planning. But what is required of your agency now is a much longer perspective. Without that, coal-fired power plant owners, their employees, and suppliers face the same predictable catastrophe as everyone else. They may not personally experience the hardships and illnesses that climate change will bring, but their children and grand children certainly will.
And, as another countervailing argument against opponents of carbon reduction, and with respect to North Texas in particular, I add this: My research indicates to me that illness and air pollution caused or worsened by coal fired power plants near Dallas are perhaps far worse than they are reported to be, due to monitoring and measuring deficiencies

. Regulations to reduce carbon pollution should be stringent and instituted quickly. There really are no responsible alternatives.
I support carbon reduction for all the reasons it has been recommended in the first place – reasons you know well enough.

Do it for the children.

Respectfully,

Joan Susman

6 227 Twin Oaks Circle Dallas, Texas 75240 josusman@tx.rr.com 972-458-2347119120 From: Tom Lalley [tlalley@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 3:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Statement of Tom Lalley



### I'll be speaking at 10:28 tomorrow in Washington, D.C. with my 1-year old daughter Jane.

Statement of Tom Lalley, Washington, D.C. resident, at the listening session on the E.P.A’s proposed regulation on Carbon Pollution from existing power plants.

Tom Lalley, Washington, D.C. resident

November 7, 2013

My name is Tom Lalley. I was born and raised in Washington, D.C. and this is my daughter Jane. Today is her first birthday. She was born at the same hospital in DC that I was and we live with her mother in the Tenleytown house I grew up in.

I’m here today because of Jane, because her generation will suffer greatly from climate change.

I strongly support carbon pollution standards for existing – and new – power plants.

Without them, there would still be no limits on the amount of carbon pollution a U.S. power plant can emit. That doesn’t make sense. We wisely limit other pollutants from power plants but not the carbon pollution mostly responsible for the climate crisis?

These standards must only be a start to prevent Jane from living a world forced to take drastic steps to address climate change like geoengineering.121 

### When I turned one year old, the overriding global threat was nuclear war - every bit as terrifying and potentially apocalyptic as climate change. Although the world came very close on numerous occasions, nuclear war did not happen.

It’s too late for climate change to not happen. Carbon pollution has already caused profound changes and we’re locked into even more drastic change in the future.

But just as we avoided a nuclear apocalypse, I believe we can avoid a climate change apocalypse. Ingenuity, common sense, luck and grace saved us from nuclear war and it can save us again.

Let’s implement these rules and then do much more so that, years from now, Jane’s first birthday story will be about a fun day out with daddy and not about how our generation failed hers when we had the chance to act on climate change.122 From: Jennifer Blando [jenblando@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 3:37 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Support Strong New Source Carbon Pollution Rules

D ear EPA:

Like millions of fellow Americans, I support the draft limits on the carbon pollution that would be allowed to be emitted from new power plants. It is essential to the future of our health, environmental and quality of life that we make the transition from dirty coal- burning power plants to cleaner fuels and sources of energy such as solar and wind power.

That’s why it’s so encouraging right now to see draft rules that would put a cap of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt- hour, a sharp improvement considering the average plant produces an average of 1,768 pounds at that level. This a positive step in the right direction and we must uphold the strength of these draft rules.

I cannot stress enough the critical need for this change. Already, we are feeling the impacts of climate change through more extreme weather. We’ve seen too many stories on the news about droughts, floods and the devastating impacts major storms have had on countless households, small businesses and families throughout our nation.

I applaud the steps taken so far, but these pollution limits are long overdue and so we need to act NOW. Please don’t water down these carbon pollution limits in the final rule and keep this process on the right path toward a sustainable future.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Blando 3855 North Morris Boulevard Milwaukee, WI 53211123 From: Margaret Nelson [mnelson@saic.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 3:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Reduction of air and water pollution from ALL coal-fired plants



### Dear Sirs, dear Ladies:

A s a senior citizen born, raised, and resident in the Midwest, with nieces and growing grandnephews the area, I want strong anti-pollution standards to be applied to all coal-fired industries and power plants, existing or proposed. The power companies' contention that Federal regulations should leave them free to dump carbon, sulphur and mercury-containing coal ash into the air and water is indefensible.

When I was a kid, we fished for, caught and ate bluegills and other small fish from local ponds. Now, the natural resources departments of Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan say fish from shallow surface waters are no longer safe to eat, because their flesh contains high levels of mercury from power plant coal ash.

When I was a kid, extreme weather events were rare: the twenty-five year flood, the blizzard of the century. Now, global warming driven by increased CO2 in the air has driven Midwestern weather patterns all awry. It is difficult even for hobby gardeners such as myself to successfully plant and harvest vegetables, herbs and fruits. For the family and commercial farms on which most Americans depend for food, each successive year's planting is more of a crap shoot.

Please don't allow the power companies to poison the Midwest's air, soil and water any longer. Insist that they install, use and maintain the equipment to clean up their emissions.

Sincerely,

Margaret J. Nelson 2206 Green Bay Road Evanston IL 60201 (847) 425-9412124 From: Shane Cummings [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 2:43 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I just signed "EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants"



### Dear EPA,

I just signed Solve The Climate Crisis's petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " on Change.org.

I strongly support strict limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants is vital if we are going to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Sincerely, Shane Cummings Norwich, New York

There are now 1 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.125 From: Jason A Schwartz [doeo@mail.sfsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: RE: EPA Carbon Rule -- Public Comment -- Jason Schwartz

Dear EPA:

I would like to submit a public comment in favor of imposing regulation on the energy sector to limit carbon pollution in the United States. According the the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), greenhouse gas emission is almost certainly responsible for warming global temperatures. Climate change has been indicated by scientists in an increasing severity of storms and other natural events like wildfires. I live in Northern California and we are seeing already a noticeable increase in the severity of fires and drought. Please see through the influence of the fossil fuel industry and push aggressively for clean energy policy. Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Jason Schwartz 2100 Alemany Blvd. San Francisco, CA 94112 (415) 933 4664126 From: Michele Racioppi [michele.racioppi@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:41 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Clean Air Act Public Comment



### Dear President Obama and EPA Commissioner,

I am sending this email to express my opinion that President Obama and the EPA to come out with the strongest possible protections to crack down on global warming pollution from power plants. Power plants are the nation’s largest stationary source of carbon pollution, responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States. I am very worried about global warming and I support the strongest possible protections for our environment, our health, and our future.

Thank you,

Michele Racioppi Highland Park, NJ127 From: Colby Allerton [gcolby1@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:39 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulating Power Plants



### Dear EPA, W e have a moral obligation to protect the environment and climate, for our health, and the health and sustainability of our children and our children's children. Power plants, coal, and other polluting sources must be more strictly regulated. It's unjust that they pollute so freely, and progress dictates that we change their practices, and allow cleaner less polluting energies their rightful chance at replacing the finite and polluting fossil fuels. Please act strongly and immediately. You have our support.

G. Colby Allerton 235 Main St. #318 Venice, CA 90291128 From: Roberta Dees [rdees@peregrine.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

I couldn't go to a hearing. But I support reduced carbon pollution standards for every energy source. Whether the climate is changing or not, it is necessary that people have clean air to breathe.

Poisons from fossil fuels, including coal, that have been subsidized by my taxes have hurt me and my family and others. It is not right.

Beside the pollution in the air we breathe, the burning of coal and its toxic waste ponds despoil our creeks and rivers and ground water, all of which are used in providing our drinking water. So it is not just the polluted air, but other dangerous trash they leave us. And they refuse to clean up their mess - even refuse that they are liable.

Duke Energy builds wind farms in other states, but no wind farms in North Carolina. Nor does Duke support solar energy. But they are planning to build another coal plant (or more) in North Carolina. This is a slap in the face of every citizen.

Please reduce carbon pollution standards for coal plants and do whatever else you can to help

us.

Roberta Dees 15627 Thomas Road Charlotte, NC.
704-504-3214129 From: Jonathan Tittler [jtittler@camden.rutgers.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:08 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal-fired power plants

Coal may have gotten our society this far, but with CO2 levels in the air, the ground, and
t he seas at record levels, it is time to phase them out and turn toward renewable energy resources. Now that our economy is in recovery, it is time to act in favor of a healthier environment for everyone.

Dr. Jonathan Tittler Professor Emeritus of Hispanic Studies Rutgers University130 From: Roger Judson [rjudson@pma.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:03 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### If you don’t enact strong CO2 controls you are contributing to killing us all!!! Y ou included . Do the right thing.

Roger L. Judson Exhibition Sales Manager Precision Metalforming Association 6363 Oak Tree Blvd. Independence Ohio, 44131
P : 216-901-8800 X 2155
C : 330-388-0533

Mitakuye Oyasin ( Lakota Sioux for “ We are all related “ )

Please consider the envirionment before printing this. Thank you.131 From: David Newton [dsnewt10@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Curbing Carbon Pollution Without Delay



### Of course, we must greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. An important step in these efforts is to clean up the ways

w e generate electricity.

Please take steps to do this.

Unfortunately, I cannot attend one of your listening sessions; therefore, I am offering these comments instead.

Thank you.

David Newton
336 Carter St. Auburn, AL 36830132 From: Chris Crosby [chriscrosby2@icloud.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:36 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Pete Maysmith; Patrick Massaro Subject: Listening Session 10/30/13

Thank you for putting on the listening session here in Denver 10/30/13.
I was there all day to hear the coal folks from Montana and Wyoming as well as the enviros from Denver. It is of utmost importance to strengthen coal pollution standards for EXISTING coal plants as well as new plants.

I offered 3 thoughts at the end of the day: 1- From various readings I think that there will be more and better job s from the alternative energies such as wind, solar, batteries, efficiency and conservation hydro etc than coal. The REA and transmission jobs will be needed with or without coal. 2- Total Cost Accounting is the best way to compare the various energy sources. This means including the health costs of coal such as black lung in deep mines and coal dust in open pit mines as well as the long term air pollution (asthma etc) and water pollution such as mercury in fish and our children. Also the storm damage costs of Climate Change caused by GHG from coal, methane from gas drilling,etc. And food shortages caused by using corn ethanol to alleviate our fossil fuel dependence on foreign oil because we have failed to produce enough alternative energies. Total means to include ALL the costs of continuing with coal. 3- Missing at this event were any medical experts to describe the health ramifications of continuing with coal. Back in the 1970's I served on the Rocky Flats Monitoring Committee for it's first 5 years ( Ch for 2) and we had many presentations from epidemiologists about the health effects of low level contaminants such as plutonium. No doubt EPA has considerable info about coal emissions as do the big enviro groups such as NRDC, EDF, UCS, Sierra Club, etc. At your listening session the coal folks only talked about jobs and they heard nothing about how coal is damaging the health of not only the public bit also some of them who work near coal dust etc.

More power to you in your efforts to protect all of us from the health and economic problems of our major reliance on coal. For our descendants, Chris Crosby , 251 South Grape St., Denver, Colo 80246133 From: Sengupta, Caryn Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:32 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: FW: Information about Thursday's listening session on developing carbon pollution standards

From: Heather Lowe [ mailto:heatherlowe@hlwhitingham.com ] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:24 AM To: Sengupta, Caryn Subject: RE: Information about Thursday's listening session on developing carbon pollution standards



### O K. The whole point is to REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS fro m ALL POWER PLANTS. Please have your office watch this film DIRECTLY relating to carbon emissions – seriously all sectors of EPA needs to watch this documentary in addition to everything else you take into consideration.

A FIERCE GREEN FIRE is a must see for thinking people to make the correct choices about our planet –please share with others in the Seattle EPA Office http://www.ovguide.com/a-fierce-green-fire-9202a8c040 00641f80000000208680c5

Thank you, Heather134 From: Donna Gregory [ondverge@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:13 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: reduction of carbon pollution



### Dear EPA,
I am unable to attend your public session in Philly on Friday, but wanted to write briefly to say that I support EPA measures to reduce carbon pollution emitted from power plants. I currently live in Delaware, which has received a failing grade for air pollutants from the American Lung Association for around a decade. Our state government has done a good job of reducing pollutants from power plants here locally, but more can always be done. My understanding is that some states to our west have not been as proactive, and that much of Delaware's ozone and particle pollution is blown in from power plants and industry located in more western states. I encourage EPA to set tougher standards, so that power plants across the nation are required to take steps to reduce emissions. Donna C. Gregory 30 South Main Street Middletown DE 19709135 From: Thomas Browne [tw.browne@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:12 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution



### Good Day-i`m writing you today to urge you to begin more seriously regulating carbon output in this country. As a major contributor to climate change, the CO2 output of power plants needs to be reduced. The technology is there to do this. It just needs to be implemented! Please protect the health of people and the planet by mandating a reduction of this gas. Thanks! Tom Browne136 From: Alec Hendrickson [alechendrickson@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:53 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no more dirty power plants

I support the EPA's regulating the carbon pollution from existing power plants and want more b old actions like it to transition to a renewable future.137 From: Scott Luchessa [ecologicalsolutions@seanet.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:38 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Strengthen emission requirements for coal plants



### I am extremely concerned that burgeoning emissions of greenhouse gases will jeopardize the future quality of life for my children and posterity. The scientific consensus is clear, carbon dioxide concentrations have never been higher since the appearance of mankind on this planet. Already we are seeing impacts from carbon pollution that are causing serious economic and ecological impacts, including coastal erosion and translocation of coastal communities in Alaska and failure of natural reproduction of oysters in the Pacific Northwest as a result of ocean acidification. Though we may not thoroughly understand all the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that contribute to climate change, we cannot afford to take chances. Please strengthen emission standards for coal plants. The stakes are too high. EPA cannot afford to delay.

Thanks,

Scott Luchessa Certified Ecologist 

### Ecological Solutions, Inc. E cological Solutions, Inc. cological Solutions, Inc.

4013 32 nd 

### Ave W
S eattle, WA 98199 (206) 285-3015 office (206) 841-3801 cell138 From: Monica Jenkins [mnjenkins23@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:15 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Public Listening Session - Written Statement / Carbon Pollution Regulation



### Dear EPA Leadership:

Y our decision to begin to address our Climate Crisis today will be something you tell your grandchildren some day. Or not. It really is that black and white. A decision to regulate carbon gives a glimmer of hope that we will be able to survive Climate Change. Without it, our chances for survival as a species are diminished. We are at that crossroads and you, members of the US Environmental Protection Agency, may very well be deciding the fate of our species and many other life forms on this planet.

Coming to realize just how dire this crisis is has been a very painful journey for me. I am a Climate Leader, a volunteer with the Climate Reality Project. The more I learn, the more I want to shake everyone I see and meet and tell them that this is the crisis of our lifetimes, not some future generation. It is happening NOW. To convince others to wake up, to act, to write their Congressman or Congresswoman and demand action be taken immediately is my goal for the rest of my life.

At this point, it is very much like standing in a theater shouting FIRE but the audience remains transfixed by the images on the screen, not hearing our cries. Except with this fire, there are no exits. Either we extinguish the flames together or die a certain death together.

What I hope you do is to first fine those corporations who are spewing carbon, the major cause of global warming, into our atmosphere. We will not be the first country to do so. In fact, there are nearly 40 countries before us who are already regulating carbon polluters to help curb Climate Change. Even China already has a pilot carbon policy program in place that they will expand to the rest of the country by 2015. Even China understands what this crisis means.

Secondly, my hope is that you and the Obama Administration will set up a task force to determine our way forward as curbing our carbon output is only the very first small step toward addressing this crisis. We need a task force comprised of:

Climate Scientists who can tell us the best and worst case scenarios over the next year as well as 5, 10 and 15 years from now and how much carbon needs to be reduced.139



### Ecologists/Environmentalists who have had boots on the ground for the past 50 years, passionately telling us that this was coming, who have vital networks within our communities who will help us roll out the plan or plans determined to be best.

Community Leaders who can tell us how to best organize these plans in their towns, cities and rural areas, what kind of practical application will best be applied to their home territories and others in their charge.

Policy makers who know the laws, who know what laws will affect this process and can suggest fair and just laws that need to be written to support this way forward.

What this task force will determine are two vital points:

What sources of energy will be used going forward?

How will we capture the carbon existing in the atmosphere?

BOTH tasks need to happen simultaneously if we are to survive this crisis. Choosing to only secure alternative energy sources will only lead to a longer lingering death for millions. We must also draw the carbon out of our atmosphere to avoid further degradation of our overall climate, water, and soil systems. There are carbon capturing resources that exist now and many are being developed and championed. These technologies exist and more will be invented as we focus on this crisis.

We are a creative, thoughtful species and we are approaching the 11 th 

### hour to address this Crisis. Please lead the way.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak out on this issue.

Monica Jenkins, Climate Leader

Geneva, Illinois, USA

mnjenkins23@gmail.com

630-677-0185 (cell)

--

Monica N. Jenkins Exploring The Green Road140 From: Barb Drake [worldpeace7@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 2:41 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: My Comment

Oil companies - look upon the vast wealth you have accumulated at the expense of a once h ealthy planet. Look upon her lands and seas that you have polluted in the name of profit and power. Look at the devastation of her forests that keep the air clean and at the oceans that hold the key to all life. Look into the eyes of children who are plagued by diseases because of your irresponsibility. Look at the countless animals and plants that have become ill or genetically altered by your careless hands - some even driven towards extinction Look at your ignorance and blindness to see how your actions today will burden the people of the future. And look at the number of human deaths and injuries that have occurred because of your senseless misuse of earth's precious gifts. You have lost your way, indeed, and are charged to clean up your act by investing in clean technologies that promote wellness, care, and sensitivity for the earth and it's inhabitants. If you chose to remain blind, you will wake up some day finding that the rest of the world has gone on without you. That day is coming soon. People all over the world are "drawing the line" because they know there is no future if we don't change now.

Barb Drake Seattle, WA.141 From: Helen Hanna [helenhanna@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:48 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no more dirty power plants

I strongly support the EPA's regulating the carbon pollution from existing power plants and

w ant more bold actions like it to transition to a renewable future. This is surely one of the most important things our government can do for our people.

Sincerely yours,

Helen N. Hanna 183 Gifford Way Sacramento, CA 95864142 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Libby Stortz [libbystortz@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 23:03
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Libby Stortz Email: libbystortz@gmail.com
Comments: Today we know that to avoid reaching a 2 degree Celsius global average temperature increase, as much as 2/3 to 3/4 of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. Feedbacks have already begun through deforestation of old growth forests, lower Arctic albedo (reflectivity) as white ice turns to dark ocean, and permafrost release, stabilizing at 2 degrees. We must make these new CO2 restrictions as stringent as possible if we have any hope of averting future catastrophe. Every idea that is floated to reduce CO2 must be seriously considered, and a great many must be implemented with haste.

Unless we are willing to condemn the future of our planet and our species, and generations of Americans, to poverty, r esource wars, pestilence, and food and water scarcity, action must be taken now. The fate of our world is in the hands of those with the power to do the right thing so please do the right thing. The courage to protect the planet and from that, the people, is what will make your positive place in history. All others will be scorned and derided for their lack of foresight and fortitude. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards143 From: Clayton Norcross [claytonnorcross3@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:34 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Emissions controls letter



### Please know that as a resident of the Los Angeles basin I am highly aware of variations in air quality.

Th e best thing California ever did was require motorists to have their car smog checked every 2 years to be reregistered.

I vote for officials who keep their campeign promises around the environmental issues in particular. It is a minimum trust issue that then gives me confidence in their wisdom to represent me for a host of other issues.

Please put our environment first. Clean industry and protection of our water and fisheries should be job one priority for all California residents and representatives.

Voter,

Clayton Norcross, Arcadia, California, 91006144 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of David Landskov [landskov@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 22:11
S ubmitted values are:

Name: David Landskov Email: landskov@gmail.com Comments: I strongly support setting the standards you are proposing, as long as there is no price on emitting carbon. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards145 From: cbrexel@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no more dirty power plants

I support the EPA's regulating the carbon pollution from existing power plants and want more bold actions like it to transition to a renewable future.

Thank you.

Charles Sr. Brexel 12085 Wexford Overlook Roswell, GA 30075146 From: Linda Porter [linda.porter88@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:45 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### 11-8-13

L ETTER TO EPA, CONCERNING CARBON EMISSIONS

To The EPA Commission,

My name is Linda Porter and I am a Lead Volunteer for Organizing For Action, Indiana Chapter. I am also a Lead for our Climate Change Steering Committee in Indianapolis, Indiana. We are part of a coalition of many organizations in Indiana, such as Sierra Club, Earth Charter, Sustainable Indiana 2016, Hoosier Interfaith Power and Light, Citizens Climate Lobby and Hoosier Environmental Council. I am not appearing before you in Chicago as I am working in Indianapolis to make sure that Hoosiers who could not attend your meeting can still have an opportunity to be heard through our petition process.

Every day our organization works to educate and increase public awareness of the dangers of climate change and we work toward finding ways to help reduce the effects of climate change that we are facing. We represent a large portion of our community who understand that climate change is happening, that it is real, that it is serious and that it is manmade. We also educate the public to understand that we can take tangible steps to address the effects of climate change and that the number o ne action which can be taken is to reduce the amount of CO2 that is being emitted into our atmosphere. As a citizen and as a representative of citizens in Indiana who are concerned about climate change, I call on you, the EPA to take direct action to severely limit the amount of CO2 that is currently being emitted into our atmosphere. To do anything less is putting us on a collision course of destruction as we head over the tipping point of the amount of carbon that our world environment can withstand. I ur ge you to do everything within your power to set strict standards on CO2 emissions from coal and fossil fuel plants. Without your intervention the coal industry and fossil fuel industry will continue to send unspeakable amounts of this deadly toxin into our atmosphere with no thought about future generations or the quality of life for countless human beings who depend on earth as we know it.

Thank You,

Linda L. Porter, OFA

Linda Porter Organizing For Action147 

### Indianapolis, Indiana Cell: 317 640 0865 Email: linda.porter88@gmail.com

--148 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Alice Eckart [eckart@horizoncable.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 19:42
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Alice Eckart Email: eckart@horizoncable.com
Comments: Please concentrate on reducing carbon emissions and move us away from fossil fuels. Alternative energy is the way to go.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards149 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of arvia morris [morris358@zipcon.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:14 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 19:14
S ubmitted values are:

Name: arvia morris Email: morris358@zipcon.com Comments: To whom it may concern--CO2 emissions from human burning of fossil fuels is destroying our natural life support systems. A recent series of articles in the Seattle Times "Sea Change" September 15th- 17th 2013, documents how the Pacific Ocean and other oceans are becoming more acidic due to the increased C02 in the atmosphere. This C02 equilibrates with the ocean water and forms an acid in the ocean water that causes the pH of the whole ocean to go down. Plant and fish life in the ocean is very sensitive to the pH of the water it lives in, and many ocean species are showing signs of extreme stress. For example shell fish such as oysters that are commercially important can not mature due to the acidic condition of the ocean. In addition to the negative impact to the ocean, increased C02 from fossil fuels is also causing the atmosphere to hold more moisture and less heat is released back into space. This change in energy and moisture balance is causing more extreme weather patterns such as Hurricane Sandy and very strong typhoons in Asia. The national budget to deal with natural disasters related to new weather patterns has increased to 60billion in recent years compared with 15 billion a decade ago. We must stop C02 accumulation in the atmosphere, we will be spending too much of our national budget dealing with the weather consequences of too much C02 in the atmosphere. One of the largest sources is the burning of fossil fuels. We must build more wind and solar capacity as well as use all technology possible to improve the efficiency of our heating, cooling systems to get the same GDP with much less energy. I believe we should have a carbon tax or cap and trade system to limit carbon pollution, ban on all new fossil fuel burning power capacity. We need to close down older power plants that release high levels of C02. Coal releases more C02 /Kw than natural gas, so coal is the worst offender. Coal companies should be offered incentives to switch their business plans to become Solar or wind companies. We need to invest heavily into developing new materials that are lighter for our transportation systems thus would use less fuel to move. We need a state of the art high speed rail system on the West coast and across the country to compete with air travel and reduce the C02 from air transport. There are many things we can do, we must start with a strong mandate to dramatically reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards150 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kevin Jackson [kjbiker@netzero.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:10 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 19:09
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Kevin Jackson Email: kjbiker@netzero.net Comments: Given th e reality of climate change and the likely consequences, I don't believe it is possible to go too far in trying to minimize the damage. Please do all you can to require power plants to be responsible for the enormous damage they are doing. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards151 From: Barbara Rothkrug [rothkrug@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 6:34 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulating new coal plants



### As a citizen concerned about climate change and particulate pollution causing illnesses such as asthma (I'm a

n urse) I believe that green house gases should be kept to zero in new coal powered plants. Further, current plants must be brought up to the zero output of greenhouse gases or decommissioned. We need to keep 80% or even more of the world's fossil fuel supplies in the ground or it's game over for the climate. Barbara Rothkrug 158 Mariner Green Court Corte Madera, CA 94925-2014.152 From: donsiefkes@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 6:01 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Listening Session - San Francisco Tuesday, Nov. 5



## Comments by Don Siefkes - Executive Director E100 Ethanol Group at San Francisco E PA Listening Session Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2013



## A lot of carbon has been put i nto the air during the l ast 100 years. We’d like to see the EPA come up with more ideas to use this carbon that’s already above ground to generate power rather than bring up new carbon.
/span> O ne such idea we would like the EPA to consider is to expand the use of cellulosic ethanol to power light cars and trucks. How does this relate to electric power plants? It relates quite directly.

/span> We have over 200 ethanol plants producing ethanol to blend into gasoline. Many of these plants are using municipal solid waste, crop stover and other waste cellulose to run their operations and some have become very efficient. Those plants have excess energy which they use to produce electricity, a lot of it.

/span> /span> Argonne National Lab’s GREET program shows that each gal of EtOH produced from waste cellulose produces 2.3 KWHrs of electricity which is sold back to the grid.

/span> Mandating that 50% of all light duty vehicles sold in the U.S. be optimized for mileage on ethanol in accordance with the 2017-2025 fuel standards would quickly generate a market of >50 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol annually.

/span> /span> Such an E100 engine mandate would thus produce over 115 (50*2.3) billion KWhrs of electricity without bringing up one lump of coal. /span>153 

## /span> Such a mandate would also reduce total CO2 emission s by 1.2 trillion lbs/yr by replacing those 50 billion gals of gasoline with ethanol (24.2 lbs CO2 per gal of gasoline).

/span> In other words, an E100 mandate using cellulosic ethanol gives a 2 for 1 contribution to lowering global warming. /span> /span>154 From: Max Clifford [xamnamron@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: listening session on new rules for coal fired power plants



### To whom it may concern:

I am unable to make the session on new rules for coal fired power plants in person s I am sending this email to show my support for stricter regulations on coal fired power plants.

Sincerely, Max Clifford, 26 Chester Ave. Fairfax, CA 94930155 From: Giessel/Voss [ecos@everestkc.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:28 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Fwd: LTE re: Tim Carpenter piece on EPA Listening Session in Lenexa



### Below is a letter that I sent today to the Topeka Capital-Journal in response to an article on the Reg. 7 Listening S ession. Please enter the letter into your public comment record.

Thank you,

Elaine Giessel Overland Park, KS

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: LTE re: Tim Carpenter piece on EPA Listening Session in Lenexa Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:59:12 -0600 From: Giessel/Voss <ecos@everestkc.net> To: letters@cjonline.com

I appreciate the Topeka Capital-Journal sending a reporter to the EPA's Carbon Pollution Listening Session, November 4, in Lenexa. I do wish to express my concern about one of Mr. Carpenter's statements: "EPA action to address emissions in the United States won’t alter the global pollution b alance if other countries continue to use coal." This belongs on the opinion page unless it is attributed to someone at the session.

Our energy use and CO2 emissions per capita rank far above China and India, the two nations often used an excuse for not regulating our own carbon emissions . The US must lead on pollution reductions, so others will follow. New CO2 control technologies we develop can grow our economy and positively impact the "pollution balance" globally.

History demonstrates that industry will not voluntarily make changes to reduce emissions. Shareholder profits take priority over public health and the environment. Decades after passage of t he Clean Air Act, thousands of "grandfathered" facilities continued to avoid making the improvements needed to come into compliance. It takes regulations.

If CO2 standards result in fewer coal-fired plants, the US benefits from construction of cleaner, more efficient energy facilities (jobs, jobs, jobs!), from promotion and construction of renewable energy sources (more jobs!) and from reduction of air pollution and associated health care costs.

It is also a matter of environmental justice. The oldest and dirtiest facilities are typically located in low income, minority communities, home to the most disenfranchised of us.

Energy prices are going to go up, with or without CO2 regulations. Demand for energy is increasing globally and natural gas prices will rise again -- the shale gas boom isn't sustainable. What this country really needs is a comprehensive energy plan that focuses first on conservation and efficiency. The cheapest and cleanest energy is the energy we don't use.156 

### C. E. Giessel

Overland Park, KS157 From: Laura Fultz Stout [Laura.FultzStout@lung.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution comments



### Dear EPA Staff,

T hank you for beginning to reduce carbon from power plants. It was with great hope that I read that reductions in carbon was the lowest this year than any decades earlier. 4% reductions is a good start and needs to be increased through strong reduction standards to stave off pollution related deaths and catastrophic weather events.

• 

### EPA must require existing power plants to reduce carbon pollution to protect public health. E PA’s next carbon pollution proposal should cover existing power plants. Over time, forward-looking standards that clean up existing plants will ensure that power generation in this country becomes cleaner and more efficient. Coupled with the steps being taken to cut other dangerous power plant pollutants – soot, smog, mercury, and other toxics –EPA carbon pollution standards for existing plants would help protect our health, improve efficiency, and encourage innovation.

Thank you again,

S incerely,

Laura Fultz Stout

424 Pendleton Way
O a kland, CA 94621 Phone: 510.982.3151158 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Tracy Jolivette [tjol2012@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 17:05
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Tracy Jolivette Email: tjol2012@gmail.com
Comments: More strident standards need to be adopted. We cannot rely on companies to police themselves, nor determine what is an acceptable levels. They are only concerned with making money, not human health or clean air. Create a nationwide challenge for students to come up with a reduction program. As a laid off teacher, I can still r ecognize opportunities to get students to problem solve and come up with alternative solutions.

Thanks Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards159 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kevin Jolivette [jolivette.kevin@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:57 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 16:57
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Kevin Jolivette Email: jolivette.kevin@yahoo.com
Comments: Please regulate green house gases under the clean air and water act.

Thanks Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards160 From: Gray, Stephen P [Stephen.Gray@tmcmed.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulation on Carbon Pollution from Coal-Fired Plants



### To the EPA:

T he use of coal-fired power plants to supply energy to this country needs to be eliminated as soon as possible. While it is a cheap energy on the front-end because the system is in place, it is too costly and gravely dangerous on the back end. There is no doubt that it is polluting our air, water, and wildlife to such a degree that our way of life will soon be threatened if it is already not. If we want this country to maintain some semblance of being progressive, innovative, and concerned with the welfare of the planet, then we must not be short-sighted on this issue.

There are doomsday voices on both sides of this issue for sure. One side of the argument is that coal is dirty energy that will negatively impact our health and quality of life. This side argues that there are alternative energies that are cleaner and less expensive in the long run. The other side says that it is too immediately costly to shift away from coal because coal is the cheapest form of energy and the economy would suffer or even collapse from investment in something more expensive. This second viewpoint is a fiscal bluff. It is dishonest because the inexpensiveness of coal is only based on its price for units of energy. The other costs of coal, such as declining health of our citizens, elimination of wildlife, and higher cost in the long run, are rarely mentioned.

With this issue, it is important to look at the next 100 years and not simply the next business quarter. Once networks for solar, wind, and geothermal energies are in place, this energy would be practically free. The faster we move to get these networks in place, the quicker we become energy-independent for generations. The only way to get started on this project is to impose tougher standards on coal-fired power and provide more incentives to clean energies. It is the way of the future whether we start now or in 25 years. The only question is whether the damage will be too great to recover by the time we are forced into the future. It would be better to make the choice now than be backed into a corner that we may not get out of later.

We should be creating policies, initiatives, and programs that will long outlive us rather than continuing down a path that threatens how long we might actually live.

Thank you,

Stephen Gray, LMSW Kansas City, MO



### ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- The information contained in this communication may be confidential and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete any copy of it from your computer system.161 From: Oliver [oliverohaver@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulate emissions

Hi EPA please regulate power plant CO2 emission levels. That would mean so much to me. I am

a n environmental studies major so I may be biased but it's very important you reduce this because we can no longer live the way we do. The world will end.162 From: Environmental Law and Policy Center [elpcinfo@elpc.org] on behalf of Katie Coleman [katieelizabethcoleman@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time for strong carbon standards

N ov 5, 2013

U.S. EPA

Dear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow citizens like myself to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. I was pleased when President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan in June, and I hope U.S. EPA follows through with aggressive carbon pollution reduction standards that will make a difference in our fight against climate change.

This is especially important in the Midwest, where we have a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce a lot of air pollution that contributes to our climate change problems and that affects our health.

Climate change impacts are already starting to hurt people in the Midwest. More days of extreme heat are hard in old cities like Chicago, where lots of folks have asthma and other respiratory issues and where lots of folks don't have access to air conditioning. It's also very hard on Midwestern farmers, who deal with droughts one year and floods the next -- and that, in turn, can affect food prices for everyone.

This is hurting our health and hurting our pocketbooks. And it's only going to get worse unless we do something about it. That's why I hope the U.S. EPA designs STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Ms. Katie Coleman 436 Harrison St Apt 1 Oak Park, IL 60304-1466 (847) 828-0205163 From: Martin Washington [martinwashington977@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: No More Dirty power plants!

Please go Solar! Make California the Solar Energy Capitol of the World!

- - Martin Deporres Washington164 From: Shirley Peeke Wallack [shpeeke@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no more dirty power plants

I support the EPA's regulating the carbon pollution from existing power plants and want more b old actions like it to transition to a renewable future.165 From: Geoff Chapin [geoff@nextsteplivinginc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:00 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Input on Carbon Pollution from Next Step Living at EPA Nov 4, 2013



### Thank you, committee members, for your attention and focus on this critical legislation.

My name is Geoff Chapin. I am the CEO and founder of N ext Step Living, a New England-based residential energy efficiency retrofit and solar provider. Next Step Living works with communities and individuals to reduce energy use and help transition our economy towards sustainable levels of fossil fuel use.

Next Step Living is five years old and has grown from 10 employees to more than 750, with another approximately 500 jobs created through our installation of (energy-saving) measures and demand created for product. We are honored to be No. 84 on the Inc. 500 list of the fastest growing private companies in the United States and more proud of our Inc. Hire Power award for being No. 49 of 437 employers for their ability to create highroad, good-paying careers with benefits.

We are one implementer of what Commissioner (David W.) Cash of the state Department of Public Utilities pointed out as energy efficiency savings that have helped stabilize the grid, reduce costs, and reduce emissions across the region.

We encourage the committee to push for the lowest emissions possible through this legislation for the hundreds of reasons we all know and have heard today that we are running out of time. Without repeating all the harrowing facts, this fundamentally boils down to a moral question we will have to explain to the next generation and a matter of deciding the best path that is most humane to workers who will suffer displacement.

Please also ensure that states are left to their own decisio n about how to reach these targets, whether it be reductions at the plant level, ramping up energy efficiency measures, or ramping renewable energy programs. This is critical for cost-effective adaptations in each state.166 

### There are two arguments we've heard today:

1) The cost will be high.

2) This will eliminate jobs when we need them.

1) The cost will be high. Commissioner Cash outlined how energy efficiency helps the grid as a whole and has a proven track record of success. For consumers who implement any energy efficiency measures at all, they can save between 10 and 45 percent. We know this from the approximately 60,000 homes we've visited and from our close working relationship with the utilities in Massachusetts that have allowed us to implement these programs and help track savings.

2) This will eliminate jobs. We must indeed be humane about this. There are coalworkers who will be displaced. My primary message to you and them is that the cleanenergy sector is hiring rapidly, and as an industry we would love to hire those hardworking folks and put them to work in high-road, good-paying jobs with benefits.

Hiring is something of a constraint on our growth, actually. We'll likely put another 1,200 people to work over the next few years. If there were just two companies in each state doing similar hiring work, and there are indeed many, that would mean more than 250,000 new clean- energy jobs nationally, from just two residential companies alone per state over the next few years.

Let's implement ways to ensure the coal workers (who tota l many fewer than the number above) have access to training and job placement and bring them into the new energy economy with green-collar careers.

The policies in Massachusetts have allowed us to grow even faster than we would have. The utilities have been close working partners, and Massachusetts is the canary in the coal mine of what many other states are poised to do. If this legislation allows states to determine how they reach these targets, it will mean a clean, cost-effective new step forward in the most critical fight of our generation, one that will preserve or not, this planet for the next generations.167 

### Thank you

- - Geoff Chapin 

### CEO Next Step Living 21 Drydock Avenue, 2 nd Floor Boston, MA 02210-2384

Direct: 617.999.6240 Geoff.Chapin@NextStepLiving.com

NextStepLiving.com Home Energy Solutions.168 From: Holly Mehl [hollymehl@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:55 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### I believe that standards for existing coal-fired power plants should be as strict (protective of human health and

e nvironment) as possible without making it impossible to run the plants to produce energy. Yes, we might have to pay more for our energy but we are already paying dearly in the form of natural disasters that are now more frequent due to carbon overload in the atmosphere....put there by us.169 From: Larry [bethanylm@wightman.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:52 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no more dirty power plants



### I support the EPA's regulating the carbon pollution from existing power plants and want more bold actions like it to transition to a renewable future. The sands of destruction are falling through the hour glass. If we love the earth and our children, we can't waste time.170 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Shane McKibben [smckibben47@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 15:39
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Shane McKibben Email: smckibben47@gmail.com
Comments: Science is the best tool we have to understand the world we inhabit and share. Scientists who study the climate (i.e. who are not shills for special interests) are united in their diagnosis: catastrophic effects await in this century unless we take rapid action to mitigate, not just adapt, regarding climate change. We face myriad environmental challenges on multiple fronts, but it is essential that we use the tools at our disposal NOW so that in the future, things are not as bad as they might be.

Study after study has demonstrated that it is not only in our best interest environmentally to act now, but it is also in our best interest economically, as the longer we wait, the greater the costs to respond become. Every day wasted is one more day of expense and investment in the status quo, rather than a sustainable and just future. I say just because justice is not served when mega- corporations and their pathological leaders get rich today on the backs of the planet and our children's future.

Already, we can see the signs of a changing climate. We must take action TODAY to mitigate the damage this will cause. Regulating carbon dioxide is one of the most important steps in that process. It will spur investment in clean, renewable, sustainable energy sources; it will ween us off our addiction to fossil fuels; it will internalize the true cost of fossil fuels, rather than allowing externalities to be heaped on those least able to cope with them; and it is the scientifically, economically, morally, and rationally right thing to do.

To avoid reaching a 2 degree Celsius global average temperature increase, as much as 2/3 to 3/4 of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. Since feedbacks have already begun through deforesting old growth forests, lower Arctic albedo (reflectivity) as white ice turns to dark ocean, and permafrost release, stabilizing at 2 degrees is a daunting enough challenge. We must use every tool in the toolbox to make these new CO2 restrictions as stringent as possible if we have any hope of averting future catastrophe. Every idea that is floated to reduce CO2 must be seriously considered, and a great many must be implemented with greatest haste.

Governing is hard, and procrastination is easy, but unless we are willing to condemn the future of our planet and our species, not to mention generations of Americans, to a world of poverty, resource wars, pestilence, and food and water scarcity, action must be taken now. It must. It must. The fate of our world is in the hands of those with the power to do the right thing. Do the right thing. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards171 From: Edna Rainey [browngrandma1@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:36 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no more dirty power plants

I support the EPA's regulating the carbon pollution from existing power plants and want more bold actions like it to transition to a renewable future.172 From: Ramiro Bahamon [ramirobahamon@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:28 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Santiago Bahamon; Kiersten Iwai; jasmin.vargas@sierraclub.org; Kanako Ishikawa Subject: To support EPA regulations to Power Plants

Thank you for this opportunity.

W ithout Oxygen you will die in less than 5 Minutes! Even worse than that, with a limited supply of clean air, you will not have a normal life and your priorities will be to create and maintain an artificial existence because of the damage made on what we now are taking for granted: Air. That is what we are doing to ourselves and our children.

As a Biologist, a father of a 9 years old American Citizen, and a citizen of the Earth It is my responsibility to encourage the EPA to enforce and apply, As Soon As Possible, strong regulations against the production of electricity from coal base Power Plants and strong regulations against the use of combustion for transportation as well.

We are late! We are on this problem because a narrow approach to solve energy problems 100 years ago... I don't want to make the same mistake; a holistic approach should take place.

That being said, EPA regulations must consider the effects of closing Power Plant on the workers, coal miners, and their communities, especially the low wage Power Plant families, miners, and Oil refinery workers.

It is my belief that taxati on is the price we have to pay for civilization. Civilization is a demonstration of intelligence, an effective education, and good communication.

Unfortunately, the most effective way to proceed with the implementation of new standards is by forcing citizens to pay an additional temporary tax for each KiloWatt produced by a Power Plant and for each gallon of gas used for transportation until these sources of pollution are removed completely and replace with other cleaner sources.

This tax can be easily collected through the electricity bill and by the pump in the gas station. The Clean Air fund created from these collection should be used to create an educational fund for the kids of the families affected for the closing of the plants and provide training in new fields to Power Plant workers and miners.

Ultimately, please extend this call to other countries. Atmosphere is an organ of the Earth. This is not only about the air over our heads.

-- Ramiro Eduardo Bahamon B. Sc. Biologist173 From: hklbrries@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Green, sustainable energy is what is needed - not more dirty fossil fuels!

Dear EPA,

I am a long time supporter of "green" and sustainable energy and want to advise you today that I completely support the EPA's regulating carbon pollution from existing power plants. I wish to see more bold actions like this with an eventual (and rapid) transition to a clean, renewable energy future. Other places are doing it and there is no reason whatsoever the United States shouldn't be embracing these technologies as well. It is the least we can do for future generations and our shared planet.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Costigan174 From: Dave Cline [Dave@ClineOnlineMarketing.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no more dirty power plants



### I support the EPA's regulating the carbon pollution from existing power plants and want more bold actions like it to transition to a renewable future.175 From: Claire Tiernan [clairetiernan1027@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:54 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Limiting Carbon/Greenhouse Gas Emissions



### I am writing to urge the EPA to finalize its 2013 Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for new power plants. I h ope that existing power plants are made to cut their pollution. I also hope the EPA administrator and staff will not be intimidated by the powerful fossil fuel industry and lobbyists who oppose efforts to address climate change. All of us need to do what is necessary to address climate change for the long-term health of our citizens and planet. Thank you for listening and hosting the public listening sessions throughout the country on best approaches to this issue.

Sincerely,

-- Claire Tiernan176 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Aaron Myran [aaron.myran@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 14:24
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Aaron Myran Email: aaron.myran@gmail.com Comments: please put stronger limits on carbon pollution Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards177 From: Anne Cummings Jaccopetti [cummings@sonic.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:01 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Among the many important reasons for instituting strong, enforceable carbon standards, the

m ost immediately urgent may be the unconscionable rise in rates of asthma among children and the elderly. 40 million Americans currently suffer from asthma and the rate is rising. ( Prevalence in California alone) has increased by 75% since 1980. The cost of this preventable illness is also astronomic, estimated currently at $56 billion dollars a year for medical treatment, lost school and work hours and early death. The rising number of children suffering from asthma will have impaired breathing for life because asthma adversely affects lung development during the maturation years. A number of studies, including the Children's Health Study conducted in 1992 of 5500 children in 12 communities, confirm the connection between asthma and inhalation of nitrous oxide, acid vapors, particulate matter and carbon. Now in my mid 70's I have dealt with asthma throughout my life, first as a child with seasonal allergies and n ow as an adult who has become environmentally sensitive. My impaired lungs are affected by traffic exhaust, the indoor air pollution of K-Mart, and the scents worn by my fellow citizens, etc.. I cough a lot, even when I faithfully take my prescribed medications. As a former teacher and educator, it broke my heart to see the number of children struggling to breath in my school. Even in idyllic Sonoma Valley the air hangs heavy with agricultural chemicals and sprays. I ask you to protect children by holding accountable those industries and entities, that are currently treating our airways as a free and unlimited sewer. Establish firm limits, put a price on carbon pollution. Help restore a world in which children can breath freely as part of their birthright.178 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Howard Langeveld [hlangeveld@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:44 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 12:43
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Howard Langeveld Email: hlangeveld@comcast.net Comments: I believe the epa should continue to treat carbon as pollution and do what it can to cut down on its use both in the US and elsewhere. I think cutting down on enabling other countries by allowing new pipelines and coal ports defeats this purpose. The epa should also be working on taxing carbon use and production as a fuel. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards179 From: Pamela Bergdall [pbergdall@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments for EPA Listening session



## Who else can we turn to in order to protect our God-given air and water that is absolutely critical to human life? Certainly not those who are polluting our air and water and land. Certainly not those who only look toward immediate gains and profits. Certainly not those who if they could, would even claim ownership and charge us for sunshine and the air we breathe. YOU are our voice and our protector. And we appreciate it when you are. Thank you.180 From: Buffy [bshake@wtechlink.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:52 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Climate Change

I am very worried about Climate Change and its effects on weather systems and the health of

o ur oceans. Please take all steps possible to slow its progression. In my opinion Fracking, strip mining coal, and bituminous sands used for petroleum produ ction are all terrible ideas. Most of these dirty fuel products these activities are producing are going to be shipped overseas, making the 1% even more wealthy and will continue the destruction of our planet. The rest of us will have to live with the negative impacts this will cause. I am totally against LNG, KeystoneXL (and all the other existing pipelines) and the proposed Coal Trains and
Ports.

We need to focus on sustainable energies. Please help us.

Buffy Hake 49591 River Rd Pendleton, OR. 97801
541-276-0117181 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jennifer Smith [jensmith810@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:31 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 10:30
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Jennifer Smith Email: jensmith810@yahoo.com Comments: I think it is great if it helps with pollution and creates jobs. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards182 From: Pugsley Al [apphs58@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:08 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Polution limits



## I want to encourage strong limits on all coal-burning power plants. In my opinion we should move away from burning all fossil fuels. Look at the air quality in China. America should take the lead in protecting humans and we can lead by example. But we must take a stand. The EPA can do this. Please connect the dots between coal use and health care costs. "Coal combustion is the world's foremost offender in the production of greenhouse gas emissions..." ( Prescription for the Planet by Tom Blees, p. 48). All of life is riding on spaceship earth and our actions affect everyone.

Al Pugsley 9029 Rosewood Dr. Prairie Village, KS 66207183 From: Anne Nielsen [nielsena57@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:03 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: For EPA consideration



### November 5, 2013 Th ank you for the opportunity to express my views to this EPA panel. May I begin by applauding EPA for proposing to regulate coal and natural gas through air quality protections. If these standards are strong enough, they will be a significant advance from where we stand now. Polluters will be held accountable, with the price paid by those who have profited from the use, especially of coal, finally paying at least part of the price.

I am an emeritus professor of Biology from Blue Ridge Community College. At this and other colleges where I taught in my working career, global warming was always in the curriculum. But only as I reached retirement age has the situation become truly alarming, as the politics of dealing with carbon emissions has collided with climate change already underway and a generation of climate scientists under attack from government agents in the U.S., Canada and Britain, perhaps others. I am also a founding member of the Climate Action Alliance of the Valley, a local grassroots organization now in its fifth year.

While attempts to "put a price on carbon" have been made by members of the US Congress several times, they have always been successfully defeated, either by entrenched commercial interests or by an economic recession that made them afraid to push this.

Now, however, it will be necessary to do something far more drastic if we intend to avoid th e worst scenarios of climate chaos which the best models of climate change have consistently presented: We must stay under 2 degrees Celsius of additional warming. The global fever has already risen by 1 degree C., so there is no longer a margin of error nor time to debate whether energy efficiency or alternative energies might suffice. We will need every measure, every technology, including banning the use or sale of coal here and by export, and the interim use of nuclear energy if we are to reduce carbon emissions by 10%/annum, the only measure that will now be enough.

Yes, raise my taxes, let the president be seen wearing a sweater, let Congress deal with this or be removed from office, but it must be done. Had we heeded President Carter, this would be behind us now. Instead we elected Reagan, and we lost that momentum.

I have grandchildren now. What will their world be like? And I also care about the countless animals, plants, bugs, microbes that are a part of earth's systems, so finely adapted to the roles they play, and whose loss will be immeasurably sad as well as damaging those systems in unpredictable ways.

So please do what you can, do it now, do it quickly, plug your ears against the flood of vitriol that will surely come from certain elements in Congress, from the Chamber of Commerce and those who fund them, from the Koch Brothers and Warren Buffet and other powerful interests who stand to lose short term but massive profits. This is your moment, and we're counting on you and behind you all the way.

Sincerely, Anne W. Nielsen 256-A Rocco Ave. Harrisonburg, VA 22801184185 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Gail Downward [eg315@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:43 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 09:42
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Gail Downward Email: eg315@comcast.net Comments: Please vote for stricter regulations on carbon emissions before more illness, disability and death are caused by these pollutants Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards186 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Christine Schuba [silverhillalts@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:41 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 09:41
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Christine Schuba Email: silverhillalts@yahoo.com Comments: I live less than 2 miles from one of the top 5 dirtiest coal plants...Ameren In Labadie, MO. Now they propose that after living with this pollution my entire lifetime (plant went on line when I was a baby) they want to dump toxins in the floodplain & continue their pollution of the environment even more! I have 2. Young kids & I am sick and only in my 40's...please make them regulate as tightly as possible so we can get to solar, wind, & combinations of viable renewable energy sources! They have had leaking ash ponds for over 20 years in a flood plain!!!! Protect us all!!! Please & Thank You for listening. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards187 From: Susan Cummings [susankcummings@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:40 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Don't back down

I am writing to urge you to continue the work of ensuring the safety of the air we breathe.
P lease do not bend to the pressures of the coal mining industry whose claims of "Clean" coal are bogus. Our right to clean air outweighs their desire for profit. Thank you.

Susan Cummings
281.787.4303 4200 Queenswood, Baytown, TX

Be the Change You Wish to See in the World.188 From: Nizich, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:36 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: FW: Public Hearing



### S haron Nizich Minerals and Manufacturing Group OAQPS Sector Policies and Programs Division US EPA Research Triangle Park, NC 919 541 2825

From: Esther Sue Holdeman [ mailto:susique@cox.net ] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:57 PM To: Nizich, Sharon Subject: Fw: Public Hearing



### T o: Sharon Nizich Subject: Public Hearing



### From: Esther Holdeman [mailto: s usique@cox.net ] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 2:31 PM To: 'Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov' Subject: EPA invites opinions on coal-plant emissions policy Lenexa, KS.

I will be unable to attend the Lenexa, Ks. Hearing today. Here are my comments. The Jeffrey Energy Center owned by Westar Energy, ranked 12th nationally in carbon dioxide emissions, releasing 14.5 million metric tons in 2011 or equivalent of 3 million passenger car miles. The La Cygne, plant owned by Kansas City Power and Light, ranked 69th on the national list of emissions. It emitted 8.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions levels are unacceptable. Please keep these facts in mind as you deliberate over future carbon emissions. Please hold the new project in Holcomb Ks. to the highest standards of emissions control. I believe the Kansas Department of Health and Environment incorrectly interpreted state and federal law when approving a 2010 permit to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays. KDHE failed to take into account revised nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide restrictions. This needs to be corrected.

Thank you,

Esther Holdeman 

### susique@cox.net
722 East 10th Street Newton, Ks. 67114189 From: Nizich, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: FW: EPA invites opinions on coal-plant emissions policy Lenexa, KS.



### S haron Nizich Minerals and Manufacturing Group OAQPS Sector Policies and Programs Division US EPA Research Triangle Park, NC 919 541 2825

From: Roger Rutschman [ mailto:rrutschman@cox.net ] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:31 PM To: Nizich, Sharon Subject: EPA invites opinions on coal-plant emissions policy Lenexa, KS.



### I will be unable to attend the Lenexa, Ks. Hearing today. Here are my comments. The Jeffrey Energy Center owned by Westar Energy, ranked 12th nationally in carbon dioxide emissions, releasing 14.5 million metric tons in 2011 or equivalent of 3 million passenger car miles. The La Cygne plant owned by Kansas City Power and Light ranked 69th on the national list. It emitted 8.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions levels are unacceptable. Please keep these facts in mind as you deliberate over future carbon emissions. Please hold the new project in Holcomb Ks. to the highest standards of emissions control. I believe the Kansas Department of Health and Environment incorrectly interpreted state and federal law when approving a 2010 permit to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays. KDHE failed to take into account revised nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide restrictions. This needs to be corrected.

Thank you,

Roger Rutschman rrutschman@cox.net
304 SE 7 th 

### Street
N ewton, Ks. 67114190 From: Robert Sommer [rsommer@kc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 6:46 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Region 7: Comment on carbon pollution



### Re: Regulation of carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants

T o the EPA:

During the EPA Region 7 listening session on November 4, 2013, only one speaker who opposed strengthening EPA standards for coal-fired power plants addressed the question of whet her carbon emissions were harming the planet—and he relied on junk science to do so, denying that a problem even existed. No one else from that camp spoke to the issue of carbon pollution or climate disruption. Rather they chose to rely on faulty logic and flawed data (when they used any data at all) to claim that tougher standards would harm the
economy.

Coal pollution has badly damaged our planet, and the damage to air, water, wildlife, and the quality of human life only grows worse. The U.S. should take a leadership role in establishing a standard that will close every coal-fired plant in the country by mid-century. Meanwhile existing coal plants should be required to mitigate their emissions to the toughest standards available technology will allow.

The cheapest and cleanest energy is the energy we don’t use . It is past time for the U.S. to develop a program of conservation on a scale that exceeds the nationwide effort that went into World War II. The coal plants have to go—and the way of life we lead must change. The planet can no longer accommodate the frenzy of carbon emissions we have poured into the atmosphere during the past century.



### Robert F. Sommer 1 2020 Westgate St. Overland Park, KS 66213191 From: David Nadolski [david.nadolski@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:17 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Hello!

M y name is David Nadolski and I am a climate leader who attended Al Gores Climate Reality Project. It was at that event when I came up with an idea that stumped the panelists. They wondered out loud at the summit why they hadn't thought of this and told me it was a great idea.

My idea is simply this: to elect board members of publicly held and traded companies who are considered environmentally friendly and then send to supporters who the EPA's endorsed candidate is for that elected position. This way we evoke change from within and as an investor I have an incentive to send back that envelope with my vote in it while knowing I did something major to create change. This way we are changing corporate America company by
company.

I hope that helps!

David J. Nadolski Chicago, IL

Sent from my iPhone192 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of max hosey [max@townhallsf.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:55 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 01:54
S ubmitted values are:

Name: max hosey Email: max@townhallsf.com
Comments: Hello EPA, Coal and gas- fired power plants hurt our communities and our climate. They are one of the worst sources of climate pollution in the United States, and until now, they've been allowed to pollute without limits. Carbon pollution is the main cause of climate problems, which means more droughts, wildfires, and storms. This costs Americans over $140 billion a year. Each family's share is over $1,000 per year. Fossil fuel companies are getting rich, but our families and communities pay the bill. Carbon pollution is also linked to dangerous air pollution like the smog that triggers asthma attacks. If the clean air protections are strong enough, then rich fossil fuel companies will no longer get a free pass to pollute. They won't be able to dump unlimited amounts of climate pollution into our air anymore. These safeguards will also protect families from dangerous air pollution like toxic mercury, dirty soot and the smog that triggers asthma attacks. We can’t give a free pass to natural gas -- more gas in the electricity sector just means more fracking and more pollution. We need strong standards that limit pollution from coal AND natural gas-fired power plants, and we need a commitment to true clean energy like wind and solar. Polluters can't balance their books on the backs of the poor. We need protections that make sure pollution doesn't disproportionately hurt America’s poorest and most vulnerable communities. Strong standards will hold polluters accountable. We can get rid of more than a third of the cli mate pollution from power plants so that we hit our nation's climate goals - what scientists say we need to do to stop runaway climate change. It's a win-win - we can modernize and clean up our communities and create new jobs at the same time.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards