Summary	of	Region	10 Public	Listening	Session	

On	Carbon Pollution	Standards for	Existing	Power	Plants

November 7, 2013 – Seattle, WA

On November 7, 2013, EPA Region 10 held a public listening session to obtain public input on 

EPA’s development of carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. Approximately 252

people attended the meeting, and of those attendees, 76 people spoke. Of the speakers, more 

than 97% 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 of 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, unions, 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 

Jersey, 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 been affected 

by it. One speaker said that under higher CO2 emission scenarios, snowpack could be reduced 

20-40 percent. This would result in loss of livelihood of retailers, vendors, athletes, and 

businesses. Winter tourism produces significant revenue and jobs in this part of the country. 

Other speakers 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 industries. 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 of 
health impacts on children such as asthma. Two speakers questioned whether climate change

was happening; one of them said CO2 was naturally 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. The 

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 supply-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 lead 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 for 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 could 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 EE 

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 developing 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’ different 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 profiles, 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, many 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 speaker 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 new and advanced energy 

technologies, allowing room for innovation through EPA’s regulations. Another speaker 

cautioned that when considering innovation, ensure it’s not a gamble but time tested and 

sensible.

Several speakers expressed concern about an over-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 concerns 
with 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 their 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 needed. They recommended federal 

coordination across agencies, encouraged EPA to work with businesses, and to produce 

responsible science-based, enforceable, strong limits on carbon pollution.