### Summary	of **Region	1 0**  **Public	Listening	Session**

**On	Carbon Pollution	Standards**  **for Existing**  **Power	Plants**

November 7 , 2013
– Seattle, WA On November 7 , 2013, EPA Region 1 0 held a public listening session to obtain public input on EPA’s development of carbon pollution standards for existing power plants . Approximately 2 52 people attended the meeting, and of those attendees, 76 people spoke. Of the speakers, more than 9 7 % were in favor of EPA moving forward with greenhouse gas rules for existing power plants. A high

- level summary of the meeting is provided below. **Overview** : Regional Administrator Dennis McLerran offered opening remarks and Kate Kelly, Director of the Office o f Air, Waste and Toxics described President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and this Clean Air Act section 111(d) effort in particular

. Region 10 staffer, Judy Smith moderated the session. Speakers included and represented public officials, small businesses, business communities, recreation groups, faith

- based organizations, unio ns, consumer advocates, environmental groups, community groups, students, public health groups, utilities, rate payer groups, energy groups, academics, entrepreneurs, concerned citizens, and parents and children

. The only Region 10 state not represented by a speaker, entity, or attendee at the listening session was Idaho. Speakers at the session were from Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, as well as California, Hawaii, and New Mexico. Participants, who didn’t speak, also included people from Iowa, New Jerse y, and Utah. One speaker, although now living in Seattle, grew up in West Virginia, in coal country. **Impacts of climate change** : Most of the speakers discussed the impacts of climate change and how they have be en affected by it. One speaker said that unde r higher CO 2 emission scenarios, snowpack could be reduced 20

- 40 percent. This would result in loss of livelihood of retailers, vendors, athletes, and business es . Winter tourism produces significant revenue and jobs in this part of the country

. Other speak ers described the vulnerability of children and other populations

– one speaker lost a family member because of a heat wave. Speakers from Alaska were especially concerned about impacts of climate change on fishing and tourism, the state’s biggest industr ies. In addition, they said that native communities are disproportionately feeling the impacts from climate change. Other speakers talked about impacts on seasonal jobs, such as the lack of snow at ski resorts

. One speaker also said the ocean acidification was occurring in Puget Sound because of climate change. Others spoke ofhealth impacts on children such as asthma. Two speakers questioned whether climate change

was happening ; o ne of them said CO 2 was naturall y occurring and thus does not represent a threat.
**Comments on 111(d)**  **:** Most speakers supported EPA’s plans to address carbon pollution from existing power plants. EPA was encouraged to set stringent standards by some speakers; other speakers wanted coal plants to be phased out completely and replaced by renewable energy such as wind and solar. One speaker said that the goal should be policy

- driven, not technology driven, i.e., focus on keeping temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius. One speaker talked about setting responsible limits on carbon pollution, such as what Seattle had done. As a result, the speaker said that Seattle has cleaner air and still has a vibrant economy. Another speaker emphasized that clean energy can create jobs and save money. T he speaker described the clean energy available in the Pacific Northwest such as wind, hydro, solar, and geothermal. Some speakers described the need for system

- wide approach, rather than a facility

- by

-facility approach and that both demand

- side and suppl y- side solutions are needed. Overall, speakers presented both supply

- and demand

- side approaches to address carbon pollution from power plants. One speaker urged EPA to promote renewable energy markets. The speaker also encouraged early and constructive conversations between utilities and environmental agencies and between the states. Multiple speakers emphasized that renewable energy provides jobs and economic benefits. Speakers were looking to EPA to develop standards that would foster innovation and le ad to utilities investing in cleaner energy. **Economic Impacts :**  While speakers were generally supportive of EPA standards for carbon emissions, some speakers did caution EPA on several fronts. The EPA was encouraged to ensure that regulations account fo r the human element of those who may be negatively affected by EPA regulations (e.g., railroad workers, as well as rate payers, power plant workers). Several other speakers recommended that EPA regulations should prevent premature closures of power plants before a complete assessment has been made. Some speakers were concerned about negative impacts on jobs and companies. Certain speakers also encouraged EPA to take action to address potential job losses associated with EPA’s regulations. These actions co uld range from providing training and other support to displaced workers; and/or providing funding to coal

- reliant states to help them transition to clean energy. Some speakers warned that EPA regulations should not harm the affordability and reliability of energy, also expressing concerns about over

- reliance on a single fuel such as natural gas.**Energy Efficiency (EE) and Renewable Energy (RE):**

Many speakers urged EPA to consider EE and RE as part of the development of regulations 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 that would allow non - emitting generation to contribute. One speaker recommended including behavioral E E conditions in the rule, such as supporting behavior change to reduce carbon emissions. Regarding RE, speakers asked EPA to provide renewable energy an even playing field, and to invest in renewable and clean alternatives, and to transition to these safer, cleaner sources of energy. **Setting the Standard:** Representatives from the state and local air agencies encouraged EPA to consider the rule development very broadly to encompass the electric system as a whole, allowing flexibility for compliance not only at a state level, but at a regional level. One speaker articulated that EPA should set a stringent standard giving the states and local agencies the flexibility to implement the rule. Another speaker described objectives EPA should consider in deve loping the rule, such as achieving reductions in line with protecting public health; allowing for a variety of compliance options; encouraging states with clean energy programs to use their own programs to meet federal targets; recognizing states’ differen t starting points; and minimizing compliance costs and burdens while maintaining electricity reliability. Other speakers encouraged a system

- wide approach, as well as allowing states to submit joint plans that work on a regional basis. They want standards to encourage each locality to have lowest emissions profile s, as well as encouraging energy efficiency and a cleaner system overall. Another speaker encouraged EPA to develop standards that serve loads one or two or three states away, since in the West, m any times loads are in one state while the source is in another. This favors a systems

-focused approach , rather than a needs

-focused approach. One speaker also encouraged compensating coal

- reliant states for additional harm or at least recognizing variance. One speake r emphasized that standards developed need to be enforceable by EPA alone. Several speakers encouraged EPA to consider innovation as EPA sets the new standards. These speakers also advocated maximum flexibility for states to adopt n ew and advanced energy technologies, allowing room for innovation through EPA’s regulations. Another speaker cautioned t hat when considering innovation, ensure it’s not a gamble but time tested and sensible. Several speakers expressed concern about an ove r- reliance on a single source of fuel and expressed the need for EPA to encourage a diversity of fuels as it sets its standards. While some speakers want EPA to phase out use of coal, others talked about the potential concernswith relying only on natural gas, especially given production associated with the transport and

use of natural gas and methane. **State Regulations:** State and local agencies and other speakers urged EPA to provide states ample time and flexibility for designing their state regulations. Furthermore, they recommended that EPA regulations provide 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. At the same time, some speakers advised EPA to account for existing state work, in order to ensure that early implementers are credited for thei r proactive steps. **Carbon Tax/Price:** Several speakers supported the use of a carbon tax or price. These speakers suggested that such a tax or price would level the playing field for renewable energy, and urged EPA to create incentives for states to use the revenue to invest in energy efficiency and other emissions reduction programs. **Federal Leadership:** Multiple speakers called on EPA and the federal government to provide bold leadership, particularly in this area where collective actions are ne eded. They recommended federal coordination across agencies, encouraged EPA to work with businesses, and to produce responsible science

- based, enforceable, strong limits on carbon pollution

.