## APPENDIX B

Examples of Form Letters Submitted to the Proposed

Tailoring Rule DocketB - 3 

### Appendix B: Examples of F orm L etters S ubmitted to the Proposed T ailoring Rule Docket Form L etter 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 Form Letter 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 Form Letter 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 Form Letter 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 Form Letter 5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 Form Letter 6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 Form Letter 7 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 7 Form Letter 8 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8 Form Letter 9 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9 Form Letter 10 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 10 Form Letter 11 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 Form Letter 12 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 12 Form Letter 13 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 13 Form Letter 14 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 14 Form Letter 15 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 15 Form Letter 16 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 16 Form Letter 17 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 17 Form Letter 18 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 18 Form Letter 19 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 Fo rm Letter 20 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 Form Letter 21 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 21 Form Letter 22 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 Form Letter 23 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 Form Letter 24 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 24 Form Letter 25................................................................................................25B - 1 

### Form Letter 1 EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket) Attention Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0517 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 To Whom It May

Concern: I oppose the EPA's Proposed Rule entitled "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule." This rule is based on faulty and discredited science, and if passed, it would raise energy prices to unprecedented levels, in the middle of the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. Please do NOT implement this Pro posed Rule. Thank you.B - 2 

### Form Letter 2 Attn: Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0517 I would like to bring to your attention that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "tailoring rule" is fatally

flawed. EPA is implementing the "tailoring rule" because it understands that regulating greenhouse gases using the Clean Air Act leads to "absurd results." Instead of trying to change plain language of the Clean Air Act, EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases. Currently the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate facilities with the potential to emit 250 tons per year of a regulated pollutant. With regards to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, this poses an absurd problem because over one million facilities have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of carbon dioxide. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce explained, "This includes 25 percent of the country's office buildings, 50 percent of all lodging, 37,000 houses of worship, 17,000 farms, and virtually every building in the manufacturing secto r." (See A Regulatory

Burden: The Compliance Dimension of Regulating C02 as a Pollutant"). The average cost of obtaining a permit is over $125,000 (EPA, Information Collection Request for Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review (40 C.F.R. Parts 51 and 52), August 2008). Requiring businesses to obtain the necessary permits would not only increase costs, but, it would create more economic uncertainty and increase the incentives for business to leave the United States fo r areas in the world that provide a more profitable environment. From the EPA's perspective, regulating over one million facilities would bog down EPA's permit process and require increased administrative costs. To band aid this perceived problem, EPA is proposing to "tailor" the Clean Air Act to onl y regulate facilities which emit more than 25,000 tons per year because regulating over one million facilities would lead to, in EPA's words, "absurd results." The EPA is trying to rewrite the Clean Air Act i n an attempt to circumvent “absurd results .” This is an incorrect application of the ideology of the Clean Air Act. Congress clearl y intended EPA to regulate all facilities with the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year. Thus it is not an absurd result for EPA to regulate millions of facilities which emit air pollution. The problem occurs when EPA tries to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. This is because the Clean Air Act was not designed to regulate carbon dioxide or the other greenhouse gases. Instead of trying to argue that applying Congress' plain language is absurd, EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases. Regulation of green house gases b y the EPA will lead to great economic hardship and it would create very little env ironmental benefits. We need jobs and economic growth, not new regulations on millions of facilities.B - 3 

### Form Letter 3 As a US citizen and BP employee, I am concerned about your recent proposed rule to require large industrial facilities that emit greenh ouse gases (GHGs) to obtain permits under the Clean Air Act and demonstrate use of best available control technologies (BACT). I believe this proposal could cause unintended and adverse consequences in terms of permitting chaos and delay , and may

impede i mportant energy sector projects from moving forward in a timel y manner. The United States, not merel y BP, needs these projects to continue as scheduled so America can utilize America`s energy . I believe that a better approach to the command - and - control a pproach under the Clean Air Act, would be to utilize a sound market - based mechanism for addressing GHGs. Congress is currentl y considering market - based approaches to address climate change. The legislative process should continue without being encumbered by EPA mandates that would interfere with a market based approach. I urge the EPA to reconsider its proposal to move forward with a Clean Air Act permitting approach.B - 4 

### Form Letter 4 The Environmental Protection Agency `s (EPA) proposed `tailoring rule ` poses a serious threat to our nation`s economic recovery . While the stated intention is to regulate large facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon, in reality the rule opens the door for regulation of greenhouse gases from smaller manufacturing plants, energy facilities, hospitals, farms, libraries and even American homes. This will impose costly economy- wide regulation that EPA will not be equipped to handle. Congress, not the EPA, should address the climate change issue through public and transparent debate, leading to a comprehensive federal policy that will achieve environmental results while inflicting no economic harm. At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from our nation`s worst recession since the Great Depression, thi s proposed rule would cost jobs in America and undermine our country `s ability to remain competitive globall y. Thank you for the opportunity to express my

views on this proposed rule which will play a significant role in our nation`s energy policy .B - 5 

### Form Letter 5 The 1970 Clean Air Act is not an appropriate vehicle to regulate greenhouse gases. To apply the 1970 Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases the EPA would have to regulate 1.2 million businesses, manufacturers and farms, according to a study by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. This regulation would place a crippling burden on the country. Any attempt to “tailor” the 1970 Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources that have the potential to emit more than 25,000 tons per year is a clear violation of the black letter law, which states that major stationary emitters are classified as “stationary sources with the potential to emit 250 tons or more of any pollutant.” Moreover, the “tailoring” is unlikely to hold, with zealous state regulators and deep pocketed green litigation groups finding sympathetic judges. Once greenhouse gas regulations under the 1970 Clean Air Act are put into effect, it will likely be impossible to limit them only to large emitters. The Agency’s rationale for the “tailoring rule” is that “absurd results” and “administrative necessity” justify exempting most of the entities that would otherwise be regulated. Wh en applying a law produces absurd results, the law should not be applied — it’s that simple. I urg e you not to regulate greenhouse gases under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which is clearly the wrong vehicle for greenhouse gas regulation. Both because it is likely to prove ineffective and because it is legally questionable, I oppose the “tailoring rule” as p roposed in EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0517. As a member of Americans for Prosperity, I urge you instead to defer to Congress to decide whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases.B - 6 

### Form Letter 6 US Environmental Protection Agency To US EPA Environmental Protectio n Agency , I Support EPA Regulation of the Biggest Polluters Dear EPA, I support EPA regulation for the biggest polluters. It is imperative for so many reasons that we forcefully regulate these polluters. The cost of their pollution is incurred by the p ublic. The public that is most exposed and vulnerable to these big polluters are the undeserved and people in poverty . Pollution increases health related costs which will eventuall y bankrupt the country if the status quo prevails. Greenhouse Gas emissio ns will potentially have devastating effects on society , the well to do and the poor. It is our obligation as citizens of the United States that these large polluters are prevented from passing on the costs associat ed with their pollution to the public. To al low this injustice would not be American, capitalism or social ism; it would just be inhumane. I urge you to regulate the biggest polluters. Thank you,B - 7 

### Form Letter 7 Thank you for your historic action, in response to the Supreme Court's decision i n Massachusetts v. EPA , recognizing that global warming pollution imperils human health and welfare. Your tremendous leadership in reclaiming compliance with the law is rooted in strong science. Climate change is one of the most crucial problems facing t he nation and the world today . We also need to recognize the scientific imperative for policy action. I applaud your common - sense proposal to require big emitters -- large new and upgraded power plants and industrial emitters -- to use the best solutions in lowering their heat - trapping pollution. Your proposal will ensure the extensive capital investments in the nation's largest new sources of global warming pollution are harmonized with the need to reduce greenhouse gases thereb y avoiding costl y retrofi ts after the fact while advancing new clean energy technologies. I appreciate that EPA is prioritizing the biggest sources of heat - trapping pollution, namely the ones that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually . I also support yo ur decision to shield small sources from regulation, so that we can focus the nation's resources on cost - effective reductions from big emitters. That makes a great deal of sense. By setting a 25,000 - ton threshold -- comparable to the annual energy use of about 2,200 homes -- the proposal makes clear that individual homes and small businesses would not be covered b y this program (despite scare - mongers claims to the contrary). Finally , Iagree with you that it would be even better for Congress to pass legis lation creating a program that comprehensively addresses climate change and clean energy solutions. But EPA's smart policies are a foundation for strong Congressional action. And, until Congress acts, it's vital that the nation deploy innovative, protective policies to reduce global warming pollution and to ensure that America is winning the race to clean energy innovation in the global marketplace.B - 8 

### Form Letter 8 Dear Administrator Jackson, When doctors in an ER triage an extreme case they act immedi ately and decisively

on ONLY the most serious and immanently life - threatening issues. Nothing else matters until the patient is stabilized. We are approaching a triage decision for Global Warming on Earth. Life as we know it is bleeding out. We can see exactly where to act - now YOU just need the courage to do it. The United States has created the vast majority of the historical greenhouse gas emissions, and even today

is just barel y eclipsed b y China's total annual output. But China has 4 times the po pulation of the US, which effectivel y means each US citizen STILL generates about 4 times the pollution as the Chinese. The United States and China together create some 40% of current emissions worldwide, and it is painful and ironic that for yet ANOTHER ye ar neither of us will ratify Kyoto. We can't control China, so what is the best place for US decision - makers to focus triage efforts to stop the life threatening hemorrhage that we created? The obvious target is the mega - polluters. If we know half of US emissions can be plugged at just a few sources, it is a moral imperative that we act on that. Life as we know it is bleeding out. We can see exactly where to act - now YOU just need the courage to do it.B - 9 

### Form Letter 9 I support President Obama's plan to enforce limits on global warming pollution from coal plants and other big polluters under the Clean Air Act. We need to stop letting coal plants and other big polluters off the hook so we can create clean energy jobs and solve global warming.B - 10 

### For m Letter 10 I am submitting comments in favor of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's intention to regulate large sources of global warming emissions [Docket ID number: EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0517]. The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climat e Change unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming, stating with at least 90 percent certainty that the warming of the last several decades is primarily due to human activities. There is much at risk from unchecked global warming. Our nation an d the world can expect more extreme heat, severe storms, dangerous flooding, rising sea levels, threats to agriculture, and increased rates of plant and animal species extinctions. The longer we wait, the harder and more costly it will be to limit climate change and to adapt to those impacts that will not be avoided. Right now, only a handful of sources, including coal power plants, are responsible for more than half of all of the global warming emissions in the United States. It makes sense to regulate the largest emissions sources to ensure the United States gets the largest emissions reductions as quickly as possible. The EPA's proposed rule to reduce emissions from these large - scale polluters under the Clean Air Act is a crucial first step -- by targeting the worst offenders, the rule will quickly cut global warming emissions while still helping our econom y grow.B - 11 

### Form Letter 11 Dear Administrator Jackson, As a person of faith, called to care for God’s people and creation, I applaud you for recognizing the importance of regulating green house gases to protect human health and the environment. I understand that the buildup of these pollutants in the atmosphere is the major cause of global climate change, which poses serious risks to God’s people and God’s Creation. I urge you to act quickly to implement strong new rules to require big smokestack industries to meet modern pollution standards for carbon emissions when new facilities are constructed or existing facilities are significantl y modified. Climate change is one of the most critical moral issues of our time. We must respond compassionatel y, intelligently and quickly to the challenge of climate change. Thank you for yo ur leadership in recognizing greenhouse gases as a form of air pollution. Please continue to lead b y quickl y implementing strong new rules designed to co ntrol global warming pollution effectivel y, protecting God’s Creation and God’s people and communities across the US and around the world from the impacts of global climate ch ange.B - 12 

### Form Letter 12 Unchecked, climate change will impact every person on earth

– whether b y rising seas, droughts, storms, floods, rising snow pack lines, and wildfires -- or b y the massive costs that accompany them. Scientists tell us that we may s till have time to prevent such a future, but we can onl y do so by controlling the pollution from the world's biggest sources of greenhouse gases and ramping up clean, renewable sources of energy like wind and solar. Coal - fired power plants are b y far the largest producer of global warming pollution in America, and by regulating the harmful emissions produced by America's coal - fired plants the Obama Administration has a real opportunity to make sure that our environment is safer for future generations. Ple ase take the necessary steps to ensure that all sources of global warming emissions in the United States are regulated, reduced and controlled, including the coal industry . As a first step, please finalize a strong rule to require big smokestack industrie s to meet modern standards for global warming pollution when new facilities are constructed or existing facilities are significantl y modified.B - 13 

### Form Letter 13 It 's time to take back control of our energy future. By

harnessing the power of the wind and the sun, we can cut global warming pollution and transition to clean energy sources that don't harm the environment, never run out, and create good paying new jobs here in the United States. To succeed, we must require coal - fired power plants - America's largest single source of global warming pollution - and other big smokestack industries to stop polluting with impunity . As a first step, please finalize a strong rule to require big smokestack industries to meet modern standards for global warming pollution when new facilities are constructed or existing facilities are significantl y modified.B - 14 

### Form Letter 14 Dear Administrator Jackson, I appreciate your efforts to cut dangerous global warming pollution with the tools at your disposal under the Clean A ir Act, and urge you to guarantee that companies building or expanding big carbon pollution sources will use the best available control technology . A handful of industries -- like power plants, oil refineries, cement kilns and other big factories -- are responsible for more than half of the nation's global warming pollution. Two years ago the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority and responsibility under the Clean Air Act to reduce dangerous glob al warming pollution. The EPA's proposed new rule would use the Clean Air Act to curb pollution from these large sources, while at the same time assuring small sources (like millions of mom and pop businesses) that they will not be regulated. This is nothing new or complicated. Big power plants and other new sources have been required to use the best available control technology for other pollutants, like sulfur dioxide, for decades. The proposed new rule would use the same tools to curb global warming em issions when companies build or expand big pollution sources. Cleaning up the largest and dirtiest pollution sources first is a logical and cost - effective way to reduce our global warming pollution. I urge you to finalize a strong rule that will hold ind ustry accountable, clean up our air and protect our health.B - 15 

### Form Letter 1 5 Dear Administrator Jackson, As an American concerned with the future of my country's climate and natural resources, I jump at the chance to regulate our nation's largest pollut ers. Please let it be noted that Istrongl y support the EPA's proposed rule to require America's largest industrial facilities to obtain Clean Air permits.B - 16 

### Form Letter 1 6 I am writing in support of EPA's proposed greenhouse gas tailoring rule. This r ule will regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from big sources of air pollution, and require state of - the - art controls on new and modified polluters. This proposal is an essential step that will help to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and address climate change. Regulating greenhouse gases is the right thing to do. Thank you. With these and other actions, EPA is finally

taking greenhouse gases and climate change seriousl y. I support these efforts and the tailoring rule.B - 17 

### Form Letter 1 7 Dear EPA Administrator Jackson, A relativel y small number of factories and coal - burning power plants emit more than half of the carbon dioxide discharged into the atmosphere b y the United States. The most effective way to cut global warming pollution is to require those big polluters to make significant reductions in their dangerous emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from coal combustion constitute a major source of global warming gases. Controlling those emissions is absolutely essential if we are to minimize the worst consequences of global warming: heat waves, climate instability, storms, extreme weather, flooding, and drought. These changes in climate will result in grave threats to human health: increased heat stroke and respiratory diseases; inc reased water- borne and vector - borne diseases; decreased food production; shortages of potable water; population displacement, and growing conflict and war. As a member of Phy sicians for Social Responsibility , I support the EPA in reducing global warming emissions and regulating first those polluters who are responsible for the largest share of the problem. This approach will allow swift reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and will also contribute to reducing emissions of toxic pollutants that damage the respiratory , cardiovascular and nervous sy stems.B - 18 

### Form Letter 1 8 Dear Administrator Jackson, Right now only

a handful of sources, including coal power plants, are responsible for more than half of all the global warming pollution in the United States. These mega - polluters should be held responsible for their share. EPA's Big Polluters rule is a major step toward holding these facilities accountable. By focusing on cleaning up the largest sources of global warming pollution first, emissions can b e cut quickly , while still helping our economy grow. EPA is right to seek the most bang for its regulatory buck by taking on the big polluters first. The Big Polluters rule will result in real pollution reductions and help spur growth and development of clean energy technologies. I support EPA's decision to efficiently and effectivel y get us on track towards a cleaner future.B - 19 

### Form Letter 1 9 Big smokestack industries account for more than half of all the carbon pollution produced in the United State s. A strong rule by the EPA requiring heavy polluters to meet modern emission standards when expanding or building new facilities is a critical first step in cutting America's emissions. The EPA's recently issued proposed rule on big carbon emitting polluters would result in the quick, significant carbon pollution reductions America needs to assert its leadership in the global transition to a green economy. Critical to this rulemaking is the creation of a reporting s ys tem that will finally provide busine sses the data necessary to compare and control emissions as well as inform federal strategies on national emissions reduction. Accurate and credible data on domestic carbon polluters is necessary

for the United States to address the climate crisis on the domestic and international stages. The effects of climate change are already being felt across the United States. Now is the time to put the United States on track toward a low - carbon future that is safe for America's people, wildlife, and natural enviro nments. Please finalize a strong rule demanding transparency and accountability

from the nation's largest carbon polluters.B - 20 

### Form Letter 20 The Alliance for Climate Protection (Alliance) applauds EPA's proposed rule to limit greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the largest sources of U.S. global warming pollution. The Alliance believes this proposed rule represents a common sense approach to deliver cost - effective GHG reductions through the Clean Air Act's proven Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting programs. The Alliance supports swift regulatory action to reduce GHG emissions from big polluters, such as coal - fired power plants and large industrial emission sources. Focusing on the largest polluters first makes economic and environmental sense, and through the promotion of GHG reduction technologies, will help transition America to a clean energy econom y. The Alliance informed its members about this proposed rule, and provided them with an opportunity

to support the draft regulation. Interested members expressed support for the proposal by

agreeing to endorse a petition that would be submitted to EPA as public comments. The petition states, "I support the EPA's proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our biggest polluters. By

doing so, we can help transition to a clean energy economy ." In total, 39,526 Alliance members endorsed the petition . Their names and information are included in the USB drive enclosed with this letter . The Alliance commends EPA's approach rep resented in this proposed rule that would eliminate illogical and costly

outcomes and would deliver real GHG reductions through the Clean Air Act. The Alliance supports this proposed rule and encourages EPA to finalize a rule that requires big polluters to clean up their act.B - 21 

### Form Letter 2 1 Dear Administrator Jackson, I support President Obama's plan to enforce limits on global warming pollution from coal plants and other big polluters under the Clean Air Act. Please finalize a strong rule to require big smokestack industries to meet modern standards for global warming pollution when new facilities are constructed or existing facilities are significantl y modified.B - 22 

### Form Letter 22 I support the effort to enforce limits on green house gas emissions f rom Coal plants under the Clean Air Act. This is a critical first step to minimizing climate change due to human activities. Thank you.B - 23 

### Form Letter 23 I support President Obama's plan to enforce limits on global warming pollution from coal plants and other big polluters under the Clean Air Act. We need to stop letting coal plants and other big polluters off the hook so we can create clean energy jobs and solve global warming.B - 24 

### Form Letter 24 De ar Administrator Jackson, I support President Obama's plan to enforce limits on global warming pollution from coal plants and other big polluters under the Clean Air Act. Please finalize a strong rule to require big smokestack industries to meet modern standards for global warming pollution when new faciliti es are constructed or existing facilities are significantl y modified.B - 25 

### Form Letter 25 Dear EPA Administrator Jackson: It 's time to take back control of our energy future. By

harnessing the power of the wind and the sun, we can cut global warming pol lution and transition to clean energy sources that don't harm the environment, never run out, and create new, local jobs. But we will only succeed if we require coal - fired power plants - America's largest single source of global warming pollution - and other big smokestack industries to stop polluting with impunity . As a first step, please finalize a strong rule to require big smokestack industries to meet modern pollution standards for carbon when new facilities are constructed or existing facilities are significantly modified .