, 

State of 

x } " North Dakota 

Office of the Governor 

jack Dalrymple 

Governor

October 22, 2013 

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy 

USEPA Headquarters - William J. Clinton liuilding 

1200 I'ennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail C:ocie: 1101A 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dcar Adininistrator McCarthy: 

I write to express my significant concer.ns witli EPA's present failure to dircctly engage the 

citizens of North Dakota concerning two tnajor C:lean Air Act rulemakings that will significantly 

impact rny state: FI'A's proposal to reducc carbon cmissions from existing power plants and F.PA's 

carbon ernission standards for new power plants, 

EPA announccd on September. 30, 2013 that it planned to laold "listening scssions" in 

several cities to "solicit ideas and irlput" from thc public conccrning fortllcotning EPA regulations 

for reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants. In its September 30 announcement, 

L, PA states that the "fecdback" the agcncy receives from these sessiotls "will play an important role 

in helping FPA develop smart, cost-effective guidelines," which "states use to desigtl their own 

progratns to reduce cmissions". Whilc the c.urrent locations for these sessions coincide with the 

locadon of F..PA regional offices, they do not include scssions in statcs that stand to be most 

adversely impacted by such FPA regulations, including North Dakota, 

I am therefore respectfully requesting that L:PA promptly schedule and hold at least onc 

"listening session" in North Dakota so as to allow citizens througliout our state to have the 

opportunity to provide meaningful commetlt on L:PA's proposal to reduce carbon em.issions from 

existing power plants. 

In addition, I request that L;PA hold a separate public hearing to rec.eive comment on 

F.PA's forthcoming and closely related proposed rule for carbon c:nlission standards for new power 

plarlts. F3ecause of the sweeping nature of FPA's ttivo planned regulations and thc significant 

adverse iinpacts tliey look to impose on the majority of North Dakotans, the additional requested 

listening scssion and public hearing in my state is necessary in order for EPA to hear direcdy from 

those most adversely impacted — including my administration. 

I ani concertled that EPi1's planncd regulations may do more harm than good. `I'wo such 

signi6cant examplcs for this conccrn include — 

1. EPA's proposed regulation for new coal-based powcr plants assumes the use 

of tcchnologies that have tlot been adequately demonstrated and are cost prohibitive. 

As such, L:P.A, as a practical matter is propositlg to cffecdvely ban the planning and 

development of newer, more efficient sources of reliable and low cost cicctr.icity. The 

elimination of coal as a fuel for ncw electi-ic generation would have dranlatic 

600 E Boulevard Ave. • Bisrnarck, ND 58505-0001 • Phone: 701.328.2200 • Fax; 701.328.2205 • www.governor.nd.gov
Administrator Gina McCarthy 

Page 2

implications for electricity prices and for the economy and job-creation in gerieral, as 

well as the competitiveness of Amcrican manufacturing. 

2.	In the past, EPA has dcvelopcd model rul.es under Section 111 (d) that 

included prescriptive standards that limited state discretion. EPA must instead 

recol,mize that states have broad authority and discretion undcr existing federal law to 

determ.ine the nature of these specific requirements for existing plants. EPA may 

require states to adopt standards, and El'A may guide liow statcs do so procedurally, 

but the statcs are vested with the legal authority to dccide the ultimate standards. 

North Dakota .r.el.ies on coal-based generation for almost 80 percent of its electricity. Coal 

also provides us with stable, good-paying jobs. In 2011, the North Dakota coal industry employed 

almost 1,200 individuals and produced more than 28.2 million tons of coal. 'I'hose employed by the 

coal industry in North Dakota earned an averagc income of $89,050 in 2012, which is 80 percent 

higher than the average anrival income for all U.S. worlcers. Coal's reliability and efficacy allows us 

to keep our retail price of electricity relatively low—electricity in North Dakota costs 25 percent 

less per kilowatt hour than the national average. I3y spending less on electricity, we are able to 

divert more of our incomes to savings or discretionary purcliases whi.ch stimulate the state's 

economy. 

Only by EPA making an effort to hold a listening session in North Dakota, and a public 

hearing on its new power plant rule, will F.PA be more fully informed about issues associatcd with 

its current approach and be in a better position to rethink its proposals before finalizing such 

significant policies. Especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's reccnt decision to determine 

whether FPA has thc lcgal authority to iniplcmcnt permitting requirements for power plants and 

other industrial sources that emit greenhouse gases, it is important that EI'A participate in a 

comprehensive and full discussion with those who will be most affected. I look forwar.d to hearing 

directly from you on my request. My office would be pleased to assist EPA in securing an 

appropriate venue in North Dakota.

Sincerely, 

Jack Dalzymple 

Governor 

37:74:58 

C:	Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General of North Dakota 

'1'he Honorable John I-loeven, US Senator 

The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp, tJS Senator 

The Honorable Kevin Cramer, US House of Representatives