Summary	of	Region	7 Public	Listening	Session	

on	111(d)	for	Power	Plants

November 4, 2013 – Lenexa, KS

On 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 representatives 

(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. 

Impacts 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 environment and the economy. 

Overview of Comments on 111(d):

Many 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 discussed energy 

efficiency, solar and wind power, and renewable portfolio standards as possible considerations beyond 

onsite controls at power plants. They also felt the standards could spur technological innovation and 

create jobs. 

Other speakers cautioned 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 regulations are fair and not rushed, and 

account for the human element of those who may be negatively affected 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 impact 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 harm the affordability and reliability of energy, 

also articulating concerns about over-reliance on a single 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 action 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 coal 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 consumer 

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 speakers 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 recommended 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.

Several 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. For 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.