## 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.govAdministrator 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