## Summary	of **Region 7**  **Public	Listening	Session on	111(d)	for	Power	Plants**  November 4, 2013

– Lenexa, KS O n November 4, 2013, EPA Region 7 held a public listening session to obtain public input on how EPA should draft carbon pollution standards for existing power plants

. A total of 391 individuals registered for the event. The final attendance was 324 which consisted of 225 pre

- registered attendees and 99 “walk

- ins”. We had a total of 139 speakers. Attendees included business and industry repre sentatives (11), environmental organizations (16), elected officials (9), government officials (4), faith

- based organizations (2), citizen groups (4) and general public (93). The individuals identified as “general public” may have had some affiliation but if so, did not identify it in their registration documentation. Attendees came from all 4 of our States (KS, NE, MO, IA) as well as Illinois, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Colorado. A high

- level summary of the meeting is provided below. **Overview** Regional Administrator Karl Brooks offered opening remarks and Becky Weber described how Clean Air Act section 111(d) has worked . Region 7 used three experienced moderators to manage concurrent listening sessions over the 4 hour meeting

. **Imp acts of climate change**  : Many speakers were concerned about climate changes and its impacts on health, businesses (including small businesses), jobs, livelihoods, vulnerable populations, natural resources, assets, and communities, and more broadly, the en vironment and the economy. **Overview of Comments on 111(d)**  **:** M any speakers supported action by EPA on existing power plants and encouraged the Agency to implement strong standards in a timely manner, with prompt review of state plans

. Several speakers supported the phase

-out of coal, or more stringent regulations for coal, and felt the standards would prompt the transition to cleaner electric generation and renewables. Speakers offered solutions for addressing carbon pollution from power plants and dis cussed energy efficiency, solar and wind power, and renewable portfolio standards as possible considerations beyond onsite controls at power plants. They also felt the standards c ould spur technolog ical innovation and create jobs

. Other speakers caution ed EPA not to penalize states who were early implementers of carbon pollution programs for existing power plants. This is discussed further in the section on “State Regulations”. **Economic Impacts :** While many speakers were supportive of EPA standards for carbon emissions, some speakers cautioned

EPA on several fronts. Those speakers urged EPA to ensure that regu lations are fair and not rushed, and account for the human element of those who may be negatively a ffected by EPA regulations ( e.g. , rural communities )

. Many individuals further noted that there were energy efficiency and emissions reduction efforts that had already occurred and strongly urged the Agency to write a rule which “meshes” with these improvements and to the extent possible, provides credit for them. Some individuals further clarified that aggressive regulations could prematurely retire units many of which had been recently improved through significant investment. Such retirements could i mpact reliability and increase rates and should be avoided. Many individuals were concerned about job loss impacts that they believe could result from the implementation of greenhouse gas regulation. Some speakers warned that EPA regulations should not h arm the affordability and reliability of energy, also articulating concerns about over

- reliance on a si ngle fuel such as natural gas. A number of individuals commented that the Agency has over

- regulated businesses, especially small businesses and they are concerned about the potential negative impact of this rule on the small business community. A few individuals noted that climate change impacts on disadvantaged communities can be much greater than for other communities and urged the Agency to take acti on to protect these communities and to ensure that these actions translate into verifiable results. A number of individuals indicated a concern regarding the impact of such a rule on small rural power generators, including COOPS, which rely heavily on coa l for power production. These entities provide power to small, rural communities and have few options available to them to comply with extensive greenhouse gas requirements. Many asked that the Agency provide extensive flexibility to states and units and exercise caution with mandates. Some individuals further commented that many of our rural communities include low income families which can least afford increased electric rates associated with such rules. Quite a few individuals indicated that they were concerned about job losses associated with the MATS rule and were also concerned that further job losses in the same sector would result from greenhouse gas rules. **Energy Efficiency (EE) and Renewable Energy (RE):** A number of speakers urged EPA to consider EE and RE as a part of the solution for reducing carbon pollution from power plants. These speakers encouraged EPA to design the regulations to be flexible enough to include EE and RE as part of the solution. Regarding RE, speakers asked EPA to provide renewable energy an even playing field, to invest in renewable and clean alternatives, to transition to these safer, cleaner sources of energy.A number of individuals encouraged the Agency to focus its rule on energy efficiency at the consume r

level.
**Setting the Standard:** A number of speakers encouraged EPA to consider allowing flexibility for compliance not only at a state level, but at a regional level

. Certain s peakers supported a mass

- based emissions approach as opposed to a rate
- based approach, while others supported the rate

- based approach. Several speakers encouraged EPA to consider technology potential and innovation as EPA sets the new standards. These speakers also advocated maximum flexibility for states to adopt new and advanced energy technologies, allowing room for creativity and potentially spurring innovation through EPA’s regulations. Several speakers expressed concern over an over

- reliance on or over- incentivizing a single source of fuel and articulated the need for EPA to encourage a diversity of fuels in setting its standards Many individuals commented that they believe it would not be practical or appropriated to require carbon capture and sequestration for existing power production facilities. A few individuals indicated that the Agency should work with industry to ensure that pollution control technologies are viable before they are mandated. A number of individuals encouraged the Agency to support a system
-wide, collaborative approach in addressing greenhouse gas emission reductions.
**State Regulations:** Speakers urged EPA to provide states ample time and flexibility for designing their state regulations. Furthermore, they recommende d that EPA regulations provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate existing policy solutions that are already in place, recognizing that each state will have different methods that are optimal for that state. In particular, states advised EPA to account for existing state work, taking care to ensure that early implementers are credited for their proactive steps.
**Ensuring Program Effectiveness :**  A few individuals commented that EPA should take more time to develop the proposal and provide the states and affected facilities with more time to develop plans and comply.
S everal speakers cautioned that standards cannot be so broad that it allows for actions that do not achieve real emissions reductions; and that effectiveness should not be compromised. F or those states that choose not to implement their own plans, one speaker urged EPA to establish a strong federal implementation standard. **Federal Leadership :** Several speakers called on EPA and the federal government to provide effective, collaborative

leadership, particularly where collective actions are needed such as climate change and carbon pollution. They recommended federal coordination across agencies and encouraged EPA to work with businesses. Some individuals requested that EPA hold additional meetings on this rule in more remote areas of the Region. A number of individuals asked for the Agency to continue to provide education and open discussion forums around climate change and climate change regulations.