THE LEAGUE 

OF WOMEN VOTERS® 

OF GREATER PITTSBURGH, Inc. 

july 31,2014 

Community Information Center 

436 Seventh Avenue, Suite 350 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Phone: 412-261-4284 

Fax 412-261-4285 

Email L1f1J@pgh_!.Yc{J?l9 

Website: Y~\1;1"\: p1ttsburgh pal,,., C•CJ 

I am Annette Shimer, president of the League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh. I am also a former 

member of the Allegheny County Air Quality Advisory Committee. 

The League recognizes that the EPA has held countless public listening sessions leading up to the 

creation of this proposed rule, and we commend the EPA for holding this public hearing. 

For decades the League has supported federal controls of air pollution from many sources. On the 

federal, state and local level the League has promoted coordination of government responsibilities 

and activities. 

In Allegheny County the League began to study the effects of air pollution in the early 1970s and 

has since advocated for effective air pollution control and adequately funded and staffed agencies. 

We have supported participation in regional air pollution control arrangements. 

Over many years, U.S. citizens have been expected to trade respiratory health for industry and 

business prosperity. However, through the efforts of citizens and government agencies, 

concentrations of many pollutants emitted into the air have been significantly reduced and public 

health has been improved. For the most part, business has succeeded and thrived. 

Now citizens are being asked by industry and business interests to trade the future health of the 

planet for their prosperity. Climate change brought on by carbon and methane emissions is 

beginning to raise the global temperature, raise sea levels endangering many communities, create 

more extreme weather events, and disrupt both agricultural patterns and ocean acid levels 

endangering food production. 

We have a moral obligation to change that trade-off; we can do so by setting the first-ever limits 

on carbon pollution from power plants to reduce the 40 percent of the carbon pollution in the 

United States that they produce. The EPA-proposed rule revises the trade-off to better protect the 

health of the earth and its inhabitants including future human generations. We applaud that 

proposaL 

..:\ftiliatcd with the Leagues of\\'omen \roters of Pennsylvania and the l.Jnited States 
• 

Here in Allegheny County we remember the success of the 1970s implementation strategy for the 

Clean Air Act of federal goals and a state implementation plan that delegated authority to the 

county to address unique conditions. We believe that the EPA's proposal to provide flexibility to 

the states and build on state leadership to achieve carbon reductions is appropriate and will be 

effective. Pennsylvania already has programs in place that could be part of its individual or 

regional plan to reduce carbon pollution, including: 

• Energy efficiency codes for residential and commercial buildings 

• Renewable energy portfolio standards or goals 

The League also looks forward to the economic impact of innovation and investment in new clean 

energy technologies that will create a new generation of clean energy jobs. The return on that 

investment will be substantial. Since 1970, every dollar invested in compliance with Clean Air Act 

standards has yielded $4-8 in economic benefits. In addition, some of the economic devastation of 

extreme weather events will be avoided. 

We understand that there will be rate increases for electric power and that the effects of increased 

rates are concerns that business and industry are voicing. But the prices of the products and 

services they provide should cover all the costs of production. Offloading costs on the public in the 

form of health care expenses and now climate change effects is a violation of the basic rn"'"';,.+~6"'s~ 

economic system that business interests profess to support. 

We also understand the possible hardships of rate increases for low-income people. On the other 

hand, climate change effects often fall disproportionately on these same people. 

Finally, we have concerns with the reputed advantage of gas over coal. The League's study on 

Marcellus Shale Gas Extraction noted "shale gas production has an 8-11% larger GHG footprint than 

conventional gas over the life cycle" although this could change with improved practices. We hope that 

eventually EPA will address methane emissions. 

Thank you. 

~\[filiated '\vith the Leagues of\V'omen Voters of Pennsylvania and the United States