Brent Murcia 

Contact: rnurciab ~c~ carleton.edu 

Testimony for Public Comment Hearing on EPA Carbon Pollution Standards 

Good afternoon. I want to start by saying that I very much appreciate the fact that as a young 

person and an ordinary citizen, I have the ability to offer input on such a momentous proposal. 

The fact that EPA has such an open and transparent regulatory process is truly something to be 

proud of. 

I wear a number of hats in my life; I am a student, a policy intern, a climate activist, and an 

organizer. But today I am speaking solely from rny personal perspective as a 19 year old person, 

growing up with the looming threat of climate change. I'11 share some of my experiences with 

you, and hopefully my perspective can be a useful one. 

I grew up in Connecticut, where we are no stranger to extreme weather, especially recently. 

In 2011, we had Hurricane Irene. That storm hit us with 754,000 power outages- about half the 

state's customers. A tree fell on rny house in that storm, and like many, I went eight days without 

power or running water in one of the hottest weeks of the summer. Irene was the 7 thcostliest 

hurricane in US history- $15.6 billion. 49 people lost their lives. 

Two months later, in October, we were hit by a historic early season snowstorm. Because it 

hit when the leaves were still on the trees, thousands of trees came down, and this time more than 

half the state, 830,000 customers, lost power. Outages lasted as long as 11 days this time, leaving 

some people huddling together for warmth in shelters. Another two trees fell on my house, one 

right over the bed I was sleeping in. That storm cost the US as much as 3 billion dollars. 10 

people in Connecticut died. 

And then there was Sandy. $65 billion in damage, the second costliest storm in US history. 

Again, 625,000 power outages in Connecticut. 72 people were killed, 4 of them in Connecticut. 

What else can I say about Sandy that hasn't already been said? 

I was personally fortunate that for the most part I was never in any irnmediate danger in these 

storms. But for millions of people on the front lines of climate change, extreme weather is the 

difference between life and death, between having a home and having it washed away. 

I'11 be honest: as a 19 year old seeing all of this happen, I'm scared. I'm scared because I 

hear scientists saying that storms like these - heavy precipitation events and extreme 

temperatures - are already becoming more frequent, and will get worse. I'm scared because 

towns that I've grown up near, where my friends live, are predicted to be underwater within my 

lifetime; my friends may lose their homes. I'm scared because models predict that the places I've 

grown up may get up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer if we don't do something. And most of 

all, I'm scared because as I've learned about it frorn my teachers as far back as elementary 

school, our government has still not done nearly enough. This proposal gives me hope that this is 

changing, that we can still prevent the future that I am afraid of. 
But my support or this proposal doesn't just rest on fear. I'm genuinely excited by the 

possibilities that it opens up for us. I've had the chance to do some work in the renewables 

industry, and I know the potential for jobs and growth that is there. I'm also excited about what 

this proposal will do for our air. My father is a physician who's done some work in public health, 

and he's told me about the massive numbers of health problems that come from air pollution. 

Currently, 44% of people in the United States are regularly exposed to dangerously polluted air. 

As a Latino, this hits especially close to home because minorities are 38% more likely to be 

exposed to air pollution, even after controlling for household income. 40% of Latinos live within 

30 miles of a power plant. These proposed standards will help to cut dangerous pollution from 

these power plants, and I appreciate that. This is one thing I love about this proposal. It 

recognizes that our problems do not stand alone but are interconnected, and that it will take a 

coordinated approach to solve them. 

The proposed rule isn't perfect. I think EPA should do more to take into account 

environmental justice concerns about nuclear energy and fracking. There are costs there that 

aren't being counted. And I also think we need to recognize that when there are winners in our 

transition to cleaner energy, there are also inevitably some losers. While the net benefits far 

outweigh the costs, we must remernber that there are costs, and I believe a mechanism should 

exist for those who are hit by the costs to be helped. But that's more of a job for the states. That's 

one thing I appreciate about this rule: the state flexibility. States can address those kinds of 

issues. 

So yes, this proposal isn't perfect. But solving climate change and cleaning up our air will 

take many steps, and this is just one of those. To me, this rule is a huge step in the right direction, 

one that we will undoubtedly have to build on, but one that can get us going. For that, I sincerely 

thank the EPA for what you've done, and hope that you'11 keep doing it, for all of us.