1 From: Environmental Law and Policy Center [elpcinfo@elpc.org] on behalf of Ann Donovan [ddabd@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 5:29 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time for strong carbon standards

N ov 9, 2013

U.S. EPA

Dear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow citizens like myself to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. I was pleased when President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan in June, and I hope U.S. EPA follows through with aggressive carbon pollution reduction standards that will make a difference in our fight against climate change.

This is especially important in the Midwest, where we have a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce a lot of air pollution that contributes to our climate change problems and that affects our health.

Climate change impacts are already starting to hurt people in the Midwest. More days of extreme heat are hard in old cities like Chicago, where lots of folks have asthma and other respiratory issues and where lots of folks don't have access to air conditioning. It's also very hard on Midwestern farmers, who deal with droughts one year and floods the next -- and that, in turn, can affect food prices for everyone.

This is hurting our health and hurting our pocketbooks. And it's only going to get worse unless we do something about it. That's why I hope the U.S. EPA designs STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Ann Donovan 1842 Auburn St Dubuque, IA 52001-58622 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Joanna Hoyt [joannahoyt@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 3:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 15:06
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Joanna Hoyt Email: joannahoyt@yahoo.com
Comments: I am writing to ask you to implement the most stringent possible carbon-emissions caps for existing power plants, including natural gas-powered plants, requiring them to make full use of all existing carbon-capture and emissions-reduction technology. I understand that there is concern about the economic chilling effect of strict regulation of natural gas. But given the long-term devastation that accompanies climate change--devastation which you describe powerfully on your own site--the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions needs to be our first priority.

I think that the praise for 'efficient natural gas' is misleading. This is partly due to the high levels of CO2 and methane emissions associated with natural gas extraction. It is also partly due to the fact that the burning of existing declared natural gas reserves could push us over the threshold of catastrophic climate change.

We want money and abundant energy in the short term. We need a livable climate, always. Please make this your priority.

Thank you for taking time to read and consider this comment.

Sincerely, Joanna Hoyt small farmer and community volunteer Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards3 From: Jackie Thompson [jwthomps47@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 2:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: "Hearing" in Seattle



### Dear Friends,
W e were so grateful that you came to Seattle to "hear" concerns that the locals have around the environment in general and BREATHING in particular. I was researching water in the dictionary. The definition included the idea that for humans, water was second in importance only to air.
Your work includes evaluat ing the impact of humans on both. We seem to have the idea that air and water are giant sinks into which we can forever dump whatever we want with no consequences. We saw the results of that mistake in the pictures from Harbin, China, where the coal smoke in the air was so bad people were all in filter masks just to be outside on the street, and you could not see across the street. There is no "American air" or even "Chinese air." Anything we put into the air goes into everyone's lungs. We cannot continue supporting industries which make a profit poisoning folks. What we learned from cigarettes ought to transfer to fossil fuels. I urge you to aggressively act to quickly limit, then replace, finally phase out burning fossil fuels.

Sincerely, Jacqueline Thompson jwthomps47@hotmail.com4 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jennie Shanker [jshanker1@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 2:03 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 14:02
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Jennie Shanker Email: jshanker1@gmail.com
Comments: Thank you for supporting new limits on carbon pollution from power plants. With regulatory encouragement from the EPA, more sustainable energy sources will be developed. The rise in natural disasters world wide, clearly caused by climate change, make it evident that fossil fuels cause devastation that threaten mankind's ability to thrive on this planet. Weather is no longer an 'act of G-d'. It is man-made. We are in the position to slow or even eventually reverse damage done. New power plants need to be fueled by non-foss il and non-nuclear sources. There are options. They are feasible. They need to be developed further, their power needs to be more regularly and fully harvested. Thank you, Jennie Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards5 From: Mary Helen Korbelik [mhkor@kc.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 1:33 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Power Plant Pollution

There should be regulation of how much CO2 and other pollution like mercury a power plant can dump in our air which all of us breathe. There are so many people with breathing problems in our country. The air should not be a dumping ground for waste.

Mary Helen Korbelik
3316 West 69 St Mission Hills, KS 66208
913-362-64636 From: Karen Fort [karen.o.fort@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: My testimony to EPA listening session, Nov. 8, Chicago



## I am neither a scientist nor a lawyer, nor a corporate executive officer armed with expert l obbyists to maximize shareholder profit. I’m a retired theater teacher, and free-lance actor and director, and a wife and mother. I am a board member of the Second Unitarian Church. We Unitarians strive to live by seven principals. We covenant to affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence, of which we are a part. Please protect our environment from pollution. Filthy soot from coal plants hurts our lungs and melts glaciers. To regulate coal is one small step towards a lower carbon pollution economy. This is the least we can do. If we, as a world, do not insist that industrial messes and poisons be cleaned up, the whole world will suffer. Unless we vividly imagine the long-term consequences, so that we as a world community are motivated to act to prevent much of the harm, it will be too late. By the time my son and daughter are my age, they will have to endure and witness 100 million refugees fighting to flee flooded lands, battle disease, and succumb to severe storms, fires, drought and starvation. The litany of “doom is near” is almost cartoonish, but the warnings come from over 97% of our best scientists. We have this opportunity now. It is not too late. There is economic opportunity for profit in the just transition of coal jobs to better jobs, using strategic, sustainable practices.7 From: Anne Mckibbin [anne.d.mckibbin@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 11:22 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Supporting GHG rule for existing power plants

Hello,

I 'm writing to support stringent greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants.

I grew up on a farm in Alabama. My sister and her family have run the farm since my parents retired. It is becoming more and more difficult to raise cattle there because of the weather. Between the droughts, the floods, and the tornadoes, the farm just doesn't seem as productive as it used to be. That worries me, and I worry that my nieces won't have the opportunity or even the option of continuing to farm, as my sister and I did.

But worst of all, come tornado season...well, we all watch the weather very, very closely. Last time, they only missed them by 1 mile. My sister has installed a shelter since then, but tornadoes come by surprise in hilly terrain.

I believe the scientists - this change is due to too much carbon in the atmosphere. And I understand that much of that carbon comes from electric power plant. So I support stringent standards to protect my sister's livelihood, our food supply, and our safety.

Thank you,

Anne McKibbin Chicago, IL8 From: Environmental Law and Policy Center [elpcinfo@elpc.org] on behalf of Mary Moran [mam8 @snet.net] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 8:26 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time for strong carbon standards

N ov 9, 2013

U.S. EPA

Dear EPA,

It's about time something is done to address the Climate. Too much time has gone by. We could have taken action a decade ago but this has become too political. It needs to be about human survival and our one Earth.

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow citizens like myself to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. I was pleased when President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan in June, and I hope U.S. EPA follows through with aggressive carbon pollution reduction standards that will make a difference in our fight against climate change.

This is especially important in the Midwest, where we have a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce a lot of air pollution that contributes to our climate change problems and that affects our health.

Climate change impacts are already starting to hurt people in the Midwest. More days of extreme heat are hard in old cities like Chicago, where lots of folks have asthma and other respiratory issues and where lots of folks don't have access to air conditioning. It's also very hard on Midwestern farmers, who deal with droughts one year and floods the next -- and that, in turn, can affect food prices for everyone.

This is hurting our health and hurting our pocketbooks. And it's only going to get worse unless we do something about it. That's why I hope the U.S. EPA designs STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Mary Moran 23 Montgomery Ln Norwich, CT 06360-2732 (860) 887-24029 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kermit Hovey, Jr. [khovey.ccc@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 2:27 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 02:26
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Kermit Hovey, Jr. Email: khovey.ccc@hotmail.com
Comments: This is the full text of the testimony I presented at the EPA region V hearings regarding Carbon Pollution standards for Existing Power Plants 11/8/13 as speaker number 114 in the Lake Michigan Room, 12th floor at the EPA Region V Headquarters, 77 W Jackson, Chicago, IL :

Thank you for taking time to conduct these hearings and to listen to the public. I am from Middleton, Wisconsin. My name is Kermit Hovey a concerned citizen, person of faith, climate change activist and volunteer with the Sierra Club , Citizens Climate Lobby, 350.org, and the Climate Reality Project. I am here today because of my concern about human caused climate disruption. I want to encourage bold, decisive and constructive steps to reduce green house gas emissions and to reduce the growing threats of climate disruption.

Without such steps today, I fear for the future and I fear the future. I fear for the future - that we will damage it beyond recognition and repair. I fear the future - that it will not be habitable and healthful for me, for us, for our children and grandchildren.

I don't want my children and grand children-to- be, my nieces and nephews, to come to me years from now distraught that Wisconsin, America's Dairyland, has become America's dry land and America's bread basket has again become America's dust bowl. I don't want them to ask, “Did you know this was happening?” And “Did you do anything?” without my honestly being able to say, Yes and I did what I could".

So, I'm here to do what I can and I am here to ask you an d the EPA to do what you can. Right now a big thing that the EPA can and should do is regulate carbon pollution at existing power plants. Existing power plants cause 40% of the climate disrupting carbon pollution in the united states. Drastically reducing carbon pollution from that source will move us in the morally responsible direction of taking responsibility for our country's historic and current role in contributing to climate disruption.

We would do well to follow the Boy Scout exhortation to leave a campsite better than we find it. We should leave this campsite we all camp at, our country, our planet, better than we find it.

The EPA has played a key role in leaving places better than they find them over the years. Impenetrable smog has drastically, if not yet completely, cleared over major cities. Rivers so polluted that in some cases they burned have been substantially purified. And now with this increasingly real and verified threat of human caused climate disruption the EPA has a fresh c hance to help us leave our campsite, our home, better than we find it and better than it might otherwise become.10 The status quo of those who profit immediately and directly regardless of the long term effects of their actions, has a well funded lobby to advocate for no change in both fossil fuel use and carbon pollution from coal fired power plants. Sadly, no lobbyists from the future register to speak at these hearings about the consequences of the status quo. Nevertheless the consequences of a climate changed future have been shown by ongoing studies to be increasingly present, immediate, disruptive and extreme. Fortunately, some of us today stand in and stand up for the future and invite action to bring about a better, healthier, more livable tomorrow.

I stand in for the future and I invite you to stand up to prevent a future that has for all intents and purposes already begun - as demonstrated by memorable extreme weather events such as Superstorm Sandy. I encourage you to take action which fulfills the grand heritage of the EPA to make our world happier and healthier, more sustainable and better than we found it. Please drastically reduce power plant carbon emissions to fulfill the mandate we the people have given you to care for and protect our environment. Please - so we citizens of the United States can survive and thrive not just now, but for many tomorrows to come.

Thank you again for your time, your concern, your work and your service.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards11 From: Adam Weber [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 2:12 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I just signed "EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants"



### Dear EPA,

I just signed Solve The Climate Crisis's petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " on Change.org.

I strongly support strict limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants is vital if we are going to avoid the worst effects of climate change. I urge EPA to implement the strongest possible carbon standards as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely, Adam Weber Hood River, Oregon

There are now 12 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented
auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.12 From: Duane Ediger [duaneediger@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 1:43 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Atmospheric Protection Plan: Reduce GHG emissions 80% in 30 years



# Presentation at EPA listening session on reducing carbon from

e xisting power plants (Chicago, 11/8/2013)

My name is Duane Ediger. I am a Climate Leader train ed by Al Gore and the Climate Reality Project, an international nonviolence practitioner and the Congregational Chair of First Church of the Brethren of Chicago.
Human effects on natural and geological processes on earth, especially since 1950, have brought us to the end of the Holocene epoch and into the Anthropocene, which we humans are marking by rates of increase in atmospheric CO 2 

# concentration and

o cean acidification greater than those during the last mass extinction 65 million years ago or at any time since.
Greenhouse gas emissions are among the most important pollutants the EPA needs to control today, and the production, distribution and burning of fossil fuels for electrical power are the low hanging fruit. The scientific consensus is that we must bring emissions down to about a fifth of current levels within about three decades in order to avoid uncontrollable global catastrophe.
We're only beginning to feel the consequences of poll uting allowed during my lifetime, and they're already horrendous. Growing up near the foothills of the Rockies, I loved the vitality of pine, spruce, fir, and aspen. Starting in the 1990s, whole stands and forests began succumbing to conditions brought on by anthropogenic climate change. Now the warming climate, insect infestations and drought kindle massive forest fires every summer. The soot they add to the atmosphere is just one of many feedback loops that leave our survival as a species vulnerable. We need you to protect us from those who profit at the expense of life on this planet.

Show me that you have the political will. Draft, refine and implement a comprehensive atmospheric protection plan with phased objectives guaranteeing a steady, rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions. Make it the centerpiece of the EPA's priority of Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality 

# . To give13 

# anything less than focused attention to radically decreasing our country's carbon footprint would be to betray the Agency's mission.

Having awareness of climate change solutions and fai ling to implement them is about as bad a crime as there is. We can build a survivable future if we take our situation by the horns and opt for a way of life that may avert the worst of the mass extinction already underway.
Don't wimp out on us. It's not too hard. In Chicag o we've shut down two urban coal plants and turned a brownfield into a beautiful, clean "bluefield" harvesting sunshine for clean, safe power when our city needs it most. Encourage us to take our next steps by implementing a concerted phase-down of carbon pollution.
Focusing on power plants is important, but it's not enough. The EPA owes it to us to fight for the removal of improper environmental protection exemptions for energy development and mining involving intensive drilling, fracking, waste injection and bitumen extraction. Please fight with us to protect our atmosphere, land, air, water, our bodies and our policies.
To thrive and not just survive will require making r ight choices while there is still time. So set the goal: Regulate and bring down carbon emissions in the whole life cycle of power production to 20% of current levels by 2045. Do it for all God's species.
Thank you.

Duane Ediger 2620 W Cullerton St Chicago IL 60608 2422 312-523-9955 duaneediger@gmail.com14 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of David McMinn [DTMcMinn@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:26 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/09/2013 - 00:25
S ubmitted values are:

Name: David McMinn Email: DTMcMinn@aol.com
Comments: I am writing to you concerning the new guidelines for existing power plants to encourage you to set the most restrictive carbon emissions standards that you possibly can. Looking at the standards announced recently for new power plants, I feel that the EPA did not adequately address this issue for new power plants and I urge you to reconsider the strength of conviction with which you set the upcoming guidelines for existing power plants based on the following reasoning. Scientists are in focused agreement about our need to curtail greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate change and that the worldwide level of Co2 emissions should stay within a trillion metric tonne budget throughout the twenty first century, lest we exceed t he 2 degree celsius increase in temperatures that is considered the boundary of safety. To keep within the 2 degree consensus, noted IPCC AR4 lead author Richard Somerville and Susan Joy Hassol have come up with an easy to understand graph of possible sce narios by which this could be accomplished.

I cannot get the graph to print here, but they refer to it as the ski slope graph. They show three scenarios, each of which provides a solution for keeping our CO2 emissions under a trillion tonnes worldwide. The easiest solution required that we started in 2011 with a 3.7% reduction per year. The second easiest starts in 2015, but by then the reductions must be 5.3%. Worse still, if we wait until 2020, reductions must be a 9% per year, every year, to stay within the same budget. Yet, our worldwide emissions still continue to rise and the political will to reduce them is nowhere in sight. This brings us to the currently discussed EPA standards for power plant emissions. Doing the math for new power plants, I find the EPA standards exceptionally weak given the seriousness of our need to buckle down in an effort to provide a livable environment for the future. New standards have been set, with some small variation, at around 1100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour. Since 1100 pounds is roughly half a metric ton, we can multiply this number times the 4.101 billion megawatt hours of electricity that were produced in 2011 and see that were all of the 2011 electricity produced at this rate of emission, it would have still resulted in a release of 2.046 gigatonnes of Co2 emissions for that year. When you compare this number to the actual 2.1585 gigatonnes of Co2 released that year from the total US portfolio of electrical production, we see that this is only a status quo reduction of about 5% from the normal rate of emissions. Keep in mind that this 5% reduction only happens the one time that the plant is built, and so the limit curtailment as these plants are averaged in to the current mix is also only 5% total. Yet the world needs, and therefore the US needs, a 5% reduction in all CO2 emissions EVERY SINGLE YEAR, YEAR AFTER YEAR. This tells us that the current endeavor to set standards does not seem to be addressing the problem with the seriousness that is needed. Continuous compounded rates of reductions of greenhouse gases must be achieved for the fossil fuel burning plants. Alternative energy source replacements will probably not happen fast enough to sufficiently lower the rate of emission reductions. I hope the EPA will take into consideration the long term difficulty of15 accomplishing the necessary reductions and will accordingly set standards as tough as can possibly be enacted. David McMinn, Tulsa Oklahoma

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards16 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Eric Stoutenburg [Stouty16@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 20:48
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Eric Stoutenburg Email: Stouty16@hotmail.com Comments: Please confirm the proposed standards on new power plants. No new coal fired power plants should be built in the U.S., when we have economic alternatives such as natural gas, wind, and solar power, all of which produce far fewer or no emissions of mercury, lead, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, or carbon dioxide. It is unacceptable in the world's leading economy to allow the construction of coal fired powered plants that cause tremendous costs on human health and ecosystems. Enact the standards and enforce them immediately. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards17 From: jwarremibc@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments

I just wanted to say that I have petitioned legislatures here in Kansas and was shocked by some of the feed back. One in particular stands out when the reply was the standard " Your issues are important to me and will take your comments into consideration, blah, blah, blah" After which he said "If the United States took a stand on carbon pollution and global warming it would make little difference in the world because of the pollution that countries like China produce" CAN YOU EVEN BELIEVE THAT HE RESPONDED TO ME LIKE THAT? I replied back to him that it would certainly make a difference no matter how small and as I see it, the United States are leaders in the world not followers and if we start something then other countries are sure to follow. I can't believe that this official was elected in the first place much less how he keeps his job! He needs to pull his head out of the sand, "tar sands" that is. Probably his wallet too. Thank you for all you do for us, "We the people". Sincerely, Jane Warrem jwarremibc@aol.com18 From: Ryan Coons [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 7:58 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I just signed "EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants"



### Dear EPA,

I just signed Solve The Climate Crisis's petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " on Change.org.

I strongly support strict limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants is vital if we are going to avoid the worst effects of climate change. I urge EPA to implement the strongest possible carbon standards as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely, Ryan Coons San Diego, California

There are now 10 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented
auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.19 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Greg Todd [gregtodd@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 7:36 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 19:35
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Greg Todd Email: gregtodd@yahoo.com
Comments: We need to take action against carbon pollutants. Life on Earth depends on it. And science backs this up. Here is the great irony, that can very likely threaten our success. Since our political process is one of popular vote, and since limiting carbon pollutants is politically an unpopular idea, politicians can't do much. We have to want to take action. The public is stupid. We need to be educated and we need to understand why this is so important. Absent this, we just need to do all we can to make all the progress we can, with the time we have left. Thanks for your efforts, Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards20 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of James HBroderick [jameshbroderick@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 6:44 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 18:44
S ubmitted values are:

Name: James HBroderick Email: jameshbroderick@sbcglobal.net
Comments: With the recent scientific report showing alarming rises in carbon gases worldwide, the need for action is immediate and forceful. The report recommended increasing energy thru nuclear power. My comments center around the need for the epa to be a facilitator in making this a reality. Major hurdles fall into three areas 1] government backed debt to jund the contruction of the plant, to be refunded when online 2] standardize the plant model to reduce costs and 3] develop facilities to handle nuclear waste. thank you Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards21 From: Alan Ness [alan@tddseattle.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:53 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal fired power plants



### To the EPA: T he United States will eventually stop its use of coal, as supplies dwindle and costs rise. The question is whether we can wean ourselves from Greenhouse Gas pollution sooner rather than later. Later may be too late, in terms of Climate Change.

Please stop more coal burning.

Note: The industrialized country of Germany recently had a day when more energy was produced by clean alternative methods than by conventional power plants. It can be done!

Thank you,

Alan Ness, Architect Ten Directions Design Tel: (206) 323-6677

Re models | New Homes | Interiors Portfolio: www.TenDirectionsDesign.com Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/10Design1?feature=watch22 From: Jane T. Byrnes [jbyrnes@butlercc.edu] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:55 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments for listening session, Lenexa KS 11-4-13



### The energy industry must not continue to freely pollute my air, land and water. That air, land and especially water are
i ndispensable for my grandchildren and your grandchildren, for birds and fish and land animals. The energy industry’s short-term profits and the public’s short-term convenience is not worth spoiling the future of our planet.

Thank you so much for reaching out and listening! Please do the right things to preserve our planet.

Jane Byrnes, 9500 Delano, Wichita KS 67212, 316/729-7012.23 From: Greene, Steven C [Steven.Greene@Honeywell.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:36 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### I am unable to attend the Public Listening Session in Chicago on 11/8/13, but as a resident of a nearby suburb of Chicago I would like to register my opinion in writing.

I am extremely concerned about climate change. The UN's recent report on climate change should be a strong impetus for the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution. Even if all American households drastically reduced our driving and lowered our thermostats, which my family and millions of others already have done, it won't be enough to curb global warming.

We need corporations and utility companies to do more. And as we've seen over the past 2 decades, as the calls to slow global warming went largely ignored, these companies are not motivated to make changes on their own. The new EPA rules could and should be a powerful way to drastically reduce climate pollution in the coming years.

Americans like me and my family are counting on the EPA to create and enforce tough rules that will curb greenhouse emissions, and eliminate coal-fired power plants, which are the dirtiest and most harmful for the planet.

We absolutely need to transition from coal to clean energy as soon as possible. These EPA rules can help make that transition happen. The coal industry is blowing off mountain tops to mine coal, creating terrible environmental repercussions for those ecosystems. And, coal-fired power plant emissions poison the air, creating high rates of respiratory diseases and cancers. Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate.

How can this be justified? It's 2013, and we are using technology that's been in place for more than 150 years!

In addition, climate change will have huge effects on our GDP, our economy, coastal cities (anyone remember Hurricane Sandy?) and inland areas alike (the drought in Illinois a few years back caused crops to fail and put stress on farmers). How much money and productivity has been lost by unpredictable weather and extreme storms over the last decade? And that will only continue.

The coal companies and their supporters will counter that they create jobs and cheap energy. But we can create so many more jobs and equally if not cheaper energy sources if we develop new, sustainable energy sources--without all the costs that come with environmental devastation.

I want our country to build a robust green energy infrastructure. Let's stop supporting coal and replace it with solar, wind and other sources of renewable, clean energy. My family is counting on us to do this, for the good of the planet and the next generation. We can't do this soon enough.

Sincerely,
Steven Greene 46w473 oak grove dr. Hampshire, IL 6014024 From: Mollie Simon [mollie.g.simon@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:48 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Mollie Simon- testimony from DC Listening Session 11-07



### Mollie Simon

m ollie.g.simon@gmail.com

Testimony: Public Listening Session on Power Plant Carbon Regulation

Hello- thank you for holding these listening sessions. My name is Mollie Simon, I am an intern at the National Wildlife Federation, a concerned citizen and a strong supporter of carbon regulations for existing power plants.

Last year, I went on a faith based mission trip to Costa Rica to work on climate change issues. I had studied climate change extensively at Villanova University. I felt confident that I had a sound understanding of the issues but when I arrived in Costa Rica, my eyes were opened. I heard stories from people who had been forced to relocate due to their home being taken over by rising sea levels. I also got to see firsthand how changing climate, rising sea levels and more extreme weather were affecting the sea turtle populations who used the beaches to lay their eggs. It was truly moving to put a face to these climate issues.

Not soon after I returned home, Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast. And suddenly, climate change wasn’t only affecting the people and wildlife I had met in a developing country. It was affecting my friends and family. The New Jersey beaches, where I had spent countless summer days doing ocean swims with my dad, fishing with my uncle or relaxing with friends, were devastated. For days and weeks, family member and friends were without power. As it began to get colder, one of my friends from Long Island had her mother and brother, who were still without power well into November, come live with her in her college apartment. It was startling to see climate change happening in front of me, not just in books and in the classroom, but to people I knew.

Extreme weather brought on by climate change is being seen across the United States. The people of Colorado have gone from powerful drought to overwhelming flooding. Out west, they are experiencing more frequent and intense forest fires. And those living on the eastern seaboard are at risk for more powerful hurricanes. There are people across America and around the world who are constantly threatened by a changing climate. It is significantly altering their lives and impacting them in a negative way.

I strongly believe that climate change is the greatest challenging facing us today. If we don’t act on climate, we are putting future generations, the American economy and our lives at risk. Carbon emissions from power plants are one of the most significant contributors to climate change. I believe that it is imperative that the EPA use its authority under the Clean Air Act to take meaningful steps to limit power plant carbon emissions. As a young adult, recent graduate and person of Catholic faith, I urge the EPA to take a strong stand when issuing carbon regulations for existing power plants.

Thank you very much for your time.25 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of thessaly anderson [thessaly@kitonlove.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:32 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 15:32
S ubmitted values are:

Name: thessaly anderson Email: thessaly@kitonlove.com Comments: hi, I am thessaly and I am 3 years old. I want to have clean air and to slow climate change. When I am the age that many of the adults in the room are now, if we have not stopped producing ca rbon dioxide the way we are now, I will not be able to enjoy the outdoors like I do now. I love to play outside. The whole world will be in big trouble. When I get in trouble, I get a time out. Let's give carbon producers a big time out. Limit emissions now! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards26 From: david nachman [dnachman@nachmanlaw.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Stop air pollution



### Dear EPA, A s a member and officer of Sustainable Sanctuary Coalition, I implore you to step up actions to stop pollution of all kinds, and especially the air pollution created by coal fired plants. We have a duty to our co-citizens, now and in the future (our children and grandchildren), to leave our world a cleaner and better place than we found it, just like we all learned in kindergarten. It is morally wrong, verging on criminal, for pollution generators to ask the entire society to shoulder the damages and clean up costs of their business; the pollution must be stopped, and the perpetrators required to stop their pollution, and pay for its removal. No other industry is allowed to dump its waste for free and with no consequences. Please stop the special interests w ho want to play by the old rules; make the rules fair for everyone, meaning no pollution.

David R. Nachman
4 550 Belleview Kansas City MO 64111
T: 816.285.6029
F: 816.756.1999 dnachman@nachmanlaw.com27 From: Patty Marshall [pattymarshall@live.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Stop coal and dirty fuel. Outlaw idling cars, trucks.28 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Lauren Dentzman [l.dentzman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 15:15
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Lauren Dentzman Email: l.dentzman@gmail.com Comments: The EPA can most effectively design a program to reduce carbon pollution by enforcing strong limits on carbon emissions. Moreover, it will be important to allow for a smooth transition to clean, renewable energy sources. Climate change is negatively impacting our health, the spread of disease, heat waves and droughts, wildfires, storms, water, rising seas, and plants and wildlife. I encourage the EPA to use a variety of media sources to educate people on the dangers of carbon emission as well as the practical, economical, and hopeful reasons to embrace new energy projects. Please create a plan that is in support of human dignity, the common good, and a sustainable planet. Thank you for your valuable efforts. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards29 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jarret Schlaff [jaschlaff@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 14:55
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Jarret Schlaff Email: jaschlaff@gmail.com
Comments: This comment is in refernce to the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

Please enforce and interpret the Clean Air Act to provide maximum regulations and measures to limit carbon pollution from existing and proposed power plants. There is 2795 gigatons of carbon stored in proven fossil fuel reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas; 5X more carbon than our atmonsphere can handle if we are to av oid the 2 degree C threshold that every government in the world agreed in the Copenhagen Accord was the absolute limit we could not exceed if we are going top avoid climate catastrophe.

Please act in accordance with climate science, and what is required of us to maintain a planet that can support life. That means standing up to industry that will claim profit is more importasnt than people and the planet. Please fight ALL carbon pollution and do not give any more exemptions to new power plants under any circumstances. Life depends on you.

Respectfully,

Jarret Alan Schlaff Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards30 From: Environmental Law and Policy Center [elpcinfo@elpc.org] on behalf of Andrew Zebrun III [andyz7@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:31 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time for strong carbon standards

N ov 8, 2013

U.S. EPA

Dear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow citizens like myself to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. I was pleased when President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan in June, and I hope U.S. EPA follows through with aggressive carbon pollution reduction standards that will make a difference in our fight against climate change.

This is especially important in the Midwest, where we have a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce a lot of air pollution that contributes to our climate change problems and that affects our health.

Climate change impacts are already starting to hurt people in the Midwest. More days of extreme heat are hard in old cities like Chicago, where lots of folks have asthma and other respiratory issues and where lots of folks don't have access to air conditioning. It's also very hard on Midwestern farmers, who deal with droughts one year and floods the next -- and that, in turn, can affect food prices for everyone.

This is hurting our health and hurting our pocketbooks. And it's only going to get worse unless we do something about it. That's why I hope the U.S. EPA designs STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Mr. Andrew Zebrun III
5271 Dorst Dr Hamburg, NY 14075-6619 (716) 312-001131 From: Jim Carpenter [jcarpenter@semano.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Pulbic listening Session



### My name is Jim Carpenter and I am the General Manager of Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative located in
S outhwest MO. Se-Ma-No serves some of the most economically disadv a ntaged members of our society. Our latest survey shows that half of our members are seniors with 35 percent over the age of 65 On the other end of the spectrum, hose younger members just getting started with families and careers earn less than $25,00 a year. These are the people least able to afford a rate increase of the size we see coming if the proposed rules from EPA are enacted. What I hear over and over from my membership is keep the power afford and reliable.

J im Carpenter, GM Se-Ma-No Electric Coop. Mansfield, MO.32 From: Terry Sullivan [terry.sullivan46@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:13 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal plant emissions regulations

Dear Members of the Commission to gather input on regulations of coal plant emissions:

I have been working for several years now to mobilize our local communities to find ways to lower our carbon footprint in order to lessen the possibility of catastrophi c climate change. As you know, our carbon output is accumulating in the atmosphere and we are locking in now the warming that will occur thirty years from now. The overwhelming consensus of science is that we need to lower our carbon output by 5%/year st arting now. A decrease in carbon output of that scale is unprecedented. It is thought that we can avert the worst consequences by mobilizing an effort on the scale of our buildup for WWII.

You are here to ask us whether we should consider stiffer regulations on coal emissions? OUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE! YES! Please apply the toughest regulations you can as soon as you can! This dallying about because of worries that the economy will be affected is putting the cart before the horse. If we enter a period of catastrophic climate change, there may no longer be a civilization as we know it, much less
an economy.

A massive lack of imagination will condemn us all, as it has previous civilizations. Humans may survive this, but the economy will not.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Yours,

Terry Sullivan
206 463 281233 From: Bonnie Hay [belh@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment in support of new EPA rules for coal-fired power plant carbon emissions



## I am commenting in support of new EPA rules for coal-fired power plant carbon

e missions. Energy production should not come at the price of such environmental degradation. This ruling will help moderate climate impacts that these plants have. Sincerely

Bonnie Hay
9 Deaver Place Wyncote, PA 19095-172634 From: Rosalyn Howard [eulaliamil@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:28 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now cri tical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Rosalyn Howard 899 S Plymouth Ct Apt. 1504 Chicago, IL 6060535 From: Sally Stovall [sallystovall@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:24 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### Comments on the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants must reference D ocket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

To whom it may concern,

I am unable to attend the Public Listening Session in Chicago on 11/8/13, but as a resident of a nearby suburb of Chicago, I would like to register my opinion in writing.

I am extremely concerned about climate change. The UN's recent report on climate change should be a strong impetus for the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution. Even if all American households drastically reduced our driving and lowered our thermostats, which my family and millions of others already have done, it won't be enough to curb global warming. We need corporations and utility companies to do their share. And as we've seen over the past 2 decades, as the calls to slow global warming went largely ignored, these companies are not motivated to make changes on their own. The new EPA rules could and should be a powerful way to drastically reduce climate pollution in the coming years. 

### Americans like me and my family are counting on the EPA to create and enforce tough rules that will curb greenhouse emissions, and eliminate coal-fired power plants, which are the dirtiest and most harmful for the planet.

We absolutely need to transition from coal to clean energy as soon as possible. These EPA rules can help make that transition happen. The coal industry is blowing off mountain tops to mine coal, creating terrible environmental repercussions for those ecosystems. And, coal-fired power plant emissions poison the air, creating high rates of respiratory diseases and cancers. Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate. How can this be justified? It's 2013, and we are using technology that's been in place for more than 150 years! In addition, climate change will have huge effects on our GDP, our economy, coastal cities (anyone remember Hurricane Sandy?) and inland areas alike (the drought in Illinois a few years back caused crops to fail and put stress on farmers). How much money and productivity has been lost by unpredictable weather and extreme storms over the last decade? And that will only continue. The coal companies and their supporters will counter that they create jobs and cheap energy. But we can create so many more jobs and equally if not cheaper energy sources if we develop new, sustainable energy sources--without all the costs that come with environmental devastation. I want our country to build a robust green energy infrastructure. Let's stop supporting coal and replace it with solar, wind and other sources of renewable, clean energy. My children and grandchildren are counting on us to do this, for the good of the planet and the next generation. We can't do this soon enough.



### Sally Stovall Green Community Connections 166 N Humphrey Ave #1N Oa k Park, IL 60302 773-315-110936 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Cheryl Barnes [cbcb816@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 12:19
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Cheryl Barnes Email: cbcb816@gmail.com Comments: I support strict rules on carbon pollution. For those who do not want to improve their plants, how about contributing to the health care of all of those they sicken. How about losing those tax credits. And reviewing generous pensions, perks and planes when they say they can't afford to provide clean energy. My sense then they will find it cheaper to provide clean energy. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards37 From: Rachel Stone [rachel@environmenttexas.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:57 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Angie Summers Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### Statement from Mayor Cluck to EPA for EPA listening session on 11/7/13

F rom the beginning of my time as Mayor of Arlington over a decade ago, I have been concerned about the effect of emissions on air quality and its health impacts. As a physician and hospital administrator, I have seen the effects of poor air quality in patients and in the emergency room. In 2006, I joined a group of concerned mayors and together we were able to make a real difference in reducing the expansion of coal burning power plants in our north Texas region. I truly believe that we are approaching a crisis in environmental sustainability and more efforts like that are necessary to preserve and improve public health.

I support the EPA in its efforts to regulate emissions while balancing the needs of businesses. Mayor Dr. Robert Cluck, Arlington Mayor

via: Angie Summers | Executive Assistant to Mayor Robert Cluck office: 817.459.6121 | fax: 817.459.6120 | email: angie.summers@arlingtontx.gov City of Arlington | 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, TX 76010 | City of Arlington | PO Box 90231 | MS 01-0310| Arlington, TX 76 004-3231 website: www.arlingtontx.gov38 From: Scot Kurth [kurth@starband.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:55 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: no more dirty power plants



### I support the EPA's regulating the carbon pollution from existing power plants and want more bold actions like i t to transition to a renewable future.39 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Seth Johnson [sjohnson@elpc.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:28 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 11:27
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Seth Johnson Email: sjohnson@elpc.org
Comments: First off, I would like to thank the EPA for holding these listening session around the country. These listening session are very important to have imput from all of the different constituents from around the nation who will be impacted by these rules. I believe that EPA needs to issue strong rules on limiting carbon emissions. Our childern need to be protected and our grandchildern need to be protected. Please issue strong rules that will help create new jobs in the renewable energy industry and help combat climate change.

Best, Seth Johnson Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards40 From: Phil and Carol Smith [pandcsmith@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:27 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### To Whom it May Concern,

I am unable to attend the Public Listening Session in Chicago on 11/8/13, but as a resident of a nearby suburb of Chicago I would like to register my opinion in writing.

I am extremely concerned about climate change. The UN's recent report on climate change should be a strong impetus for

t he United States to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution. Even if all American households drastically reduced our driving and lowered our thermostats, which my family and millions of others already have done, it won't be enough to curb global warming.

We need corporations and utility companies to do more. And as we've seen over the past 2 decades, as the calls to slow
g lobal warming went largely ignored, these companies are not motivated to make changes on their own. The new EPA rules could and should be a powerful way to drastically reduce climate pollution in the coming years.

Americans, like us and our family, are counting on the EPA to create and enforce tough rules that will curb greenhouse

e missions, and eliminate coal-fired power plants, which are the dirtiest and most harmful for the planet.

We absolutely need to transition from coal to clean energy as soon as possible. These EPA rules can help make that

t ransition happen. The coal industry is blowing off mountain tops to mine coal, creating terrible environmental repercussions for those ecosystems. And, coal-fired power plant emissions poison the air, creating high rates of r espiratory diseases and cancers. Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate. Coal-fired ferries on Lake Michigan should be eliminated, with no exceptions. Our steel companies have reduced production and closed some steel yards resulting in cleaner water at the south end of Lake Michigan. Stop giving coal-ried power plants extensions to clean up their act. Close them down!

How can this be justified? It's 2013, and we are using technology that's been in place for more than 150 years!

In addition, climate change will have huge effects on our GDP, our economy, coastal cities (anyone remember Hurricane S andy?) and inland areas alike (the drought in Illinois a few years back caused crops to fail and put stress on farmers). How much money and productivity has been lost by unpredictable weather and extreme storms over the last decade? And that will only continue.

The coal companies and their supporters will counter that they create jobs and cheap energy. But we can create so many

m ore jobs and equally if not cheaper energy sources if we develop new, sustainable energy sources--without all the costs that come with environmental devastation.

I want our country to build a robust green energy infrastructure. Let's stop supporting coal and replace it with solar, wind

a nd other sources of renewable, clean energy. My family is counting on us to do this, for the good of the planet and the next generation. We can't do this soon enough.

Sincerely,

Carol and Phil Smith 1151 N Ripley Street Gary IN 4640341 

### 219 938-4225 pandcsmith@comcast.net42 From: Concerned Citizen [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:13 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I just signed "EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants"



### Dear EPA,

I just signed Solve The Climate Crisis's petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " on Change.org.

I strongly support strict limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants is vital if we are going to avoid the worst effects of climate change. I urge EPA to implement the strongest possible carbon standards as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely, Concerned Citizen New City, New York

There are now 9 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented
auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.43 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Phil [pdb0808@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:13 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 11:12
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Phil Email: pdb0808@gmail.com
Comments: re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

I fully support reducing greenhouse gas emissions through this effort.

I would like the standards to be as strong as possible.

Thanks,

Phil Blackwood Lincroft, NJ Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards44 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Cynthia [callen8888@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:00 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 10:59
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Cynthia Email: callen8888@gmail.com Comments: We need to capture the output from existing power plants. Not only should we filter the emiisions but capture the elements as well. We can use the captured elements and reuse the energy from them. There is energy in every molecule that keeps it together. This natural energy can help sustain power plants without having to use new fossil fuels. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards45 From: Gina Schwieger [gms@lungchicago.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:55 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Gina Schwieger 1301 W Madison St
#218 Chicago, IL 6060746 From: Environmental Law and Policy Center [elpcinfo@elpc.org] on behalf of Giuseppina Ranalli [giuseppina.ranalli@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:30 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It's time for strong carbon standards

N ov 8, 2013

U.S. EPA

Dear EPA,

Are we sure that is the carbon who's changing the clime? I think is heat that causes increasing of CO2 in the atmosphere. We burn wood to produce electricy or biofuel so we release heat. The CO2 in the sea pass in the atmosphere. The exchange surface with universe is the same. I think we have to plant trees so they absorbe CO2 and heat. Sincerely, Giuseppina Ranalli

Sincerely,

Ms. Giuseppina Ranalli via centrale, 79b l'aquila, None 6710047 From: nancy hansen [nancy@glenwood-gardens.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:21 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Fwd: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### May I have the privilege of adding a short note on specific projects slated and due to cause problems:

P lease listen to the facts on the Keystone Pipeline project. It is unfortunate that so much has been done on it so far, without any real look at who has done the studies. Since it has not been a legal process, due to the companies themselves promoting their own self interests, it should not be approved. But, most important, it shouldn't be approved due to the devastating amounts of carbon emissions that will be sure to result. It doesn't matter where on the earth they come from - it will all contributing to the final numbers on carbon. I am positive that the goal is to reduce these numbers, so stopping the Keystone Pipeline just makes sense.

I am not seeing many practical options for using less gasoline on the roads. I would not feel OK in some of the smaller cars on freeways, due to such heavy traffic, including big trucks, all using the same routes and lanes. Is the flywheel technology, from the 1920's - Volvo, being studied/promoted? I see volkswagen is working on this.

Bottom line is that I make a strong statement that any new carbon emissions must be stopped and alternative ways must be found to accomplish the same energy goal. This includes banning products that create more rainforest devastation.

Last comment is that proper time needs to be taken to make certain all angles are tested before any products or processes are approved and put into place. I see this is being done at some points, but only sporadicly. We are particularly concerned about the Fast Tracking of the TPP. If that entire agreement goes through, from what I understand, we will see more fracking, questionable food imports - no labels at all, including no GE labels, and, of course, we know quality of products in general will be lowered since we have already experienced this result since the NAFTA signing. The process of secrecy was remarkably similar to what is going on now with the TPP.

Thank you.

Begin forwarded message:



## From: n ancy hansen < nancy@glenwood-gardens.com > Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website Date: N ovember 7, 2013 6:52:13 AM PST To: c arbonpollutioninput@epa.gov48 

### Concerns and comments re Carbon Pollution Standards:

I, and many others, are concerned to a point of disbelief when we see "business as usual" going on in industry and government re the issue of the extreme amounts of carbons being released into the atmosphere. This is, wish I could think of better words, but it is insane, having the amount of information and facts available today.

I am concerned because if we do not act now, today, it will become a much worsened situation to control.

Scientific studies are numerous. I can quote what I've read, but I believe you know all of these. We do know species are dying at an alarming rate, soon it will be humans along with these other species. In fact, that is happening already, particularly in undeveloped areas, due to pollution and a world unfit to live in.

My biggest concern is that the people who represent us are not standing up and saying "NO" I am older and have seen enough to know that even in a period of difficult times earlier, the sentiment was not the same. Reason was more prevalent. Today, facts are presented and lawmakers and government are pushed so hard away from the truth that maybe they don't know the difference anymore.

I see that "big oil" will have a difficult time without revenue, so why not help them to move towards alternate energy solutions? They could be given incentives to do this. We know the money to do this is there. So, why not try givin g up some of the technology to them, if they will, in turn, help to create a better planet?

Major power companies could certainly be instrumental in a process such as this. Not easy, but I am trusting that there are some out there who use reason to make their judgments. Giving up the norm of a century could not be easy. And, we've all been just as guilty in the use of so much carbon.

Higher penalties need to be put in place for any pollution caused by exports. Selling to other countries and polluting in the process does not make any sense at all.

Thank you for listening.

Nancy Hansen nancy@glenwood-gardens.com 15015 Owl Place SW Port Orchard, Wa 98367 mailing address: PO Box 692 Burley, WA 9832249 From: Frank Costanza [fjc623@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:56 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: It Is time to Llimit Carbon Emissions



### Given that the Earth's atmosphere is measuring 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, we are fast approaching, i f we have not already passed, a point of no return to prevent green house gases from causing the Earth to heat up with catastrophic results for all life. We have seen extreme weather events almost weekly around the world. In fact at the time I am writing this the most powerful storm this year is hitting the Philippines. We MUST not wait to take action to limit carbon dioxide emissions to the greatest degree possible . Burning coal is a losing proposition all the way around the process. Coal is bad for our health, bad for our communities, and bad for the climate. From Appalachia, where the tops of mountains are blown off to mine coal, to communities living with respiratory diseases and cancers in the shadow of power plants, the coal industry has run ragged over our country. It leaves heavy toxic metal such as mercury in our waters and mountains of coal ash that can not be disposed of and have no place in our environment. Coal CEOs continue to reap profits while ripping off workers and the planet -- and it is past time to move our country and our planet beyond fossil fuels. I strongly urge the EPA to enact the new proposed rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions from coal. Frank J. Costanza 5160 Washington Street Hillside, IL 6016250 From: Alexandra Sipiora [lexathegreek@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:53 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer summers will also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Alexandra Sipiora 40 E Chicago Ave 202 Chicago, IL 6061151 From: Margaret Thomas [margaretgthomas@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:41 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: support for carbon reduction at existing power plants



### To whom it may concern:

I was unable to attend the Nov 4 EPA Region 7 listening session in person. So this is my citizen input. THANK GOD FOR OUR EPA and for being finally given the green light to begin to regulate carbon emissions from ALL coal and natural gas-fired power plants! Oh that we had only had the political will to do this 20 years ago!

The adverse impacts from greenhouse gases are so terrifying and so real it is impossible to make a simple statement of "why" this is important for EPA to do. But climate disruption has a human face and the droughts and wildfires in the northwestern US are ruining the places I care most about. To give one real life example, while I live in Kansas City I have a beloved cabin in north Idaho. Droughts and resulting wildfires last summer in Idaho blew smoke across the whole region. I cannot imagine how much wildlife and timber and tourist dollars were lost. And the grey skies reduced visibility and greatly compromised the beauty of the area, which in turn had great adverse economic impacts.

On a smaller scale, and in my own back yard, the frightening loss of butterflies from the drought of 2012 in the midwest has been unbelievably sad.

We need a true and deep commitment to solar and wind energy in our country, and this will ultimately be one of the best economic development strategies our nation could undertake, both in terms of local jobs and incomes and in terms of export of new technologies to other nations.

Stand strong, EPA - you are our last hope!

Respectfully submitted, Margaret Thomas 8401 Roe Prairie Village, KS 66207 913-341-5805 MargaretGThomas@gmail.com52 From: William Kelly [William.Kelly@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 6:14 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### • The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions.

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant53 From: jean_elliott@juno.com Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:52 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: reducing carbon emissions

We should have started reducing greenhouse gas pollution years ago.

The United States needs to set a good example for the world by cutting our carbon emissions. If this isn't done quickly, human civilization may not survive. Since electric power generation is a major source of carbon pollution and non-carbon power sources exist that could be increased to produce more power, it makes sense to cut down the amount of coal and natural gas burned to generate electricity.54 From: Robert Johnson [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:35 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I just signed "EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants"



### Dear EPA,

I just signed Solve The Climate Crisis's petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " on Change.org.

I strongly support strict limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants is vital if we are going to avoid the worst effects of climate change. I urge EPA to implement the strongest possible carbon standards as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely, Robert Johnson Ste. Genevieve, Missouri

There are now 8 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented
auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.55 From: Jennifer Pasiuk [jennifer_pasiuk@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:06 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Establish strong carbon pollution standards for power plants

D ear EPA,

Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow people like me to share our thoughts on the upcoming carbon pollution standards. Though I was not able to attend a session in person I wanted to make my concerns known.

Large coal-fired power plants remain a threat to lung health. The Midwest still has a large concentration of old, dirty coal power plants that produce far too much air pollution that both worsens climate change and affects our lung health. Smog and soot pollution created by these facilities already increases the number of asthma attacks, respiratory emergency room visits and hospitalizations and premature deaths. But emissions that drive climate change will only worsen the risk to vulnerable people in the Midwest. More extreme heat waves will put people living with lung disease at increased risk of illness or death; Hotter, longer

summers w ill also worsen smog and soot pollution. Exposure to mold from extreme flooding and increased exposure to wildfire smoke driven by stronger droughts are other unacceptable lung health threats that are being increasingly driven by climate change.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat is only growing larger with time, making action now critical to preserving our health and protecting the air we will leave future generations. For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement STRONG standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Pasiuk 915 W Oakdale Avenue Apt. D2 Chicago, IL 6065756 From: jess b [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:54 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I just signed "EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants"



### Dear EPA,

I just signed Solve The Climate Crisis's petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " on Change.org.

I strongly support strict limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants is vital if we are going to avoid the worst effects of climate change. I urge EPA to implement the strongest possible carbon standards as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely, jess b portland, Oregon

There are now 6 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented
auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.57 From: Alice Woldt [awoldt@alicewoldt.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:34 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments re: current coal-fired power plant emissions



### Thank you for accepting comments regarding the EPA’s efforts to set standards for carbon emissions from existing coalfi red power plants. I attended the meeting at the Federal Building in Seattle and concur with the overwhelming amount of testimony in favor of setting the most stringent standards possible and to start with cleaning up the largest and dirtiest first. We are blessed in the Northwest with relatively clean air, but it won’t last if other states don’t do anything to stop pollution from carbon emissions. Climate change is radically altering the environment. We need to do all that is humanly possible to stop the destruction of the planet. Powerful economic interests will do what they can to control the outcome of your rulemaking. I am concerned that we’ve allowed these interests unlimited influence already, which has delayed a more deliberate transition to renewable energy sources and conservation. Please let the public know when the EPA is feeling the heat from special interests that want to delay stringent standards that will make a difference in significantly reducing carbon pollution. We cannot help if we don’t know. Alice Woldt

**Alice Woldt**
**Executive Director Washington Public Campaigns** 58 From: Susan Lannin [susan82@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:58 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### Comments prepared for EPA's public "listening session," Friday, November 8, 2013, in Chicago from S usan Lannin, susan82@earthlink.net , 7100 N. Greenview Ave., Chicago, IL 60626

My name is Susan Lannin. I submit my comments as a resident of Chicago and a concerned American.
T hank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow the public to share our views on the upcoming carbon pollution standards that EPA will set. Despite the recent closing of three of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the Chicago area, the M idwest still has a large concentration of fossil fuel power plants discharging air pollution that exacerbates climate change and endangers public health. You will hear or perhaps have already heard expert testimony from energy experts and public health specialists that fossil fuel power plants are the largest single sources of climate-disrupting greenhouse gas emissions and that your agency should regulate carbon dioxide emissions to protect public health and the environment. I am grateful for those experts and join with them in asking EPA to require existing power plants to reduce the amount of fossil fuels they burn, increase the use of cleaner sources of energy, and decrease the amount of pollution these plants discharge into the air we breathe. But, as volunteer at my local farmers’ market and as a board member for a nonprofit in central Illinois th at works to train new farmers and to keep working land in agriculture, my comments focus on how greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants threaten communities’ food security, our region’s agricultural economy, and our water resources. Climate change hurts agriculture in the Midwest in many ways: Wetter springs increase soil erosion and make it hard for farmers to work their fields, forcing many to have to delay planting until later in the growing season. Hotter, drier summers stress the plants as well as the farmers, who see their investments literally wither away. Warmer temperatures in winter give pests and pathogens like West Nile virus a foothold in areas further north where their appearance previously was rare. (1) Unchecked carbon pollution is bringing about changes in weather and precipitation patterns, and

c hanges in ecosystems, habitats, and species diversity. Instead of predictable dates for the appearance of the first robin or the chorusing of frogs that was once such a staple in the Farmer’s Almanac, farmers now must contend with ever greater surprises: heavier downpours that beat down crops and flood fields in the spring, followed by summer droughts, storms, and multiple-vortex tornadoes that threaten not only livelihood, but lives. Strict carbon pollution standards are key to taking action now to mitigate the climate change we are

e xperiencing. Unless we begin to reduce the amount of carbon pollution emitted, Chicagoans and residents in other communities in our region will experience more consecutive days of temperatures in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Hotter temperatures will increase smog and soot pollution, as more homes and businesses use electric fans and air conditioners to cool buildings. Such heat waves will put children, seniors, and other vulnerable populations at a higher risk of illness and death from heat exhaustion and heat stroke, while also jeopardizing our ability to grow food. Water availability and quality will pose greater challenges for agriculture.59 

### Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat will grow larger with time, making action now critical to preserve our health and protect the Earth. There is enough knowledge for decision-makers to improve climate resilience. The people and agencies that are responsible for critical infrastructure and community preparedness need to take the potential impacts of a changing climate into account now, rather than wait for greater and more damaging evidence of how pollution from human activity impacts our planet. Chicago does not have rising sea levels like New York City and the coastal communities do, who were stunned by Superstorm Sandy’s wallop. But our Great Lakes reveal the effect of diminishing ice cover on Lakes Superior and Michigan, showing an average water temperature increase of 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit and lower lake levels due to increased evaporation. Warmer water surface temperatures lead to less mixing of water layers and more low-oxygen “dead zones,” with unsightly and often toxic algal blooms, visible to boaters and beachgoers. Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water, recreation, and livelihood for millions of people, must be protected. We cannot allow carbon pollution, coal ash, or tar sands oil pipelines to despoil its waters. (2) For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement strong standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health. References: (1) “West Nile Virus,” Illinois Department of Public Health, http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/wnv.htm (2) “Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region,” Great Lakes Integrated Sciences & Assessments. http://www.glisa.msu.edu/docs/fact_sheets/GLISA_clim ate_change_summary.pdf60 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Susan Lannin [susan82@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:53 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 03:52
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Susan Lannin Email: susan82@earthlink.net
Comments: Prepared for Friday, Nov. 8, 2013 EPA public "listening session" in Chicago, IL.

My name is Susan Lannin. I submit my comments as a resident of Chicago and a concerned American. Thank you for conducting "listening sessions" across the country to allow the public to share our views on the upcoming carbon pollution standards that EPA will set.

Despite the recent closing of three of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the Chicago area, the Midwest still has a large concentration of fossil fuel power plants discharging air pollution that exacerbates climate change and endangers public health. You will hear or perhaps have already heard exp ert testimony from energy experts and public health specialists that fossil fuel power plants are the largest single sources of climate- disrupting greenhouse gas emissions and that your agency should regulate carbon dioxide emissions to protect public heal th and the environment. I am grateful for those experts and join with them in asking EPA to require existing power plants to reduce the amount of fossil fuels they burn, increase the use of cleaner sources of energy, and decrease the amount of pollution t hese plants discharge into the air we breathe.

But, as volunteer at my local farmers’ market and as a board member for a nonprofit in central Illinois that works to train new farmers and to keep working land in agriculture, my comments focus on how greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants threaten communities’ food security, our region’s agricultural economy, and our water resources. Climate change hurts agriculture in the Midwest in many ways: Wetter springs increase soil erosion and make it hard for farmers to work their fields, forcing many to have to delay planting until later in the growing season. Hotter, drier summers stress the plants as well as the farmers, who see their investments literally wither away. Warmer temperatures in winter give pests and pathogens like West Nile virus a foothold in areas further north where their appearance previously was rare. (1)

Unchecked carbon pollution is bringing about changes in weather and precipitation patterns, and changes in ecosystems, habitats, and species diversity. Instead of predictable dates for the appearance of the first robin or the chorusing of frogs that was once such a staple in the Farmer’s Almanac, farmers now must contend with ever greater surprises: heavier downpours that beat d own crops and flood fields in the spring, followed by summer droughts, storms, and multiple-vortex tornadoes that threaten not only livelihood, but lives.

Strict carbon pollution standards are key to taking action now to mitigate the climate change we are experiencing. Unless we begin to reduce the amount of carbon pollution emitted, Chicagoans and residents in other communities in our region will experience more consecutive days of temperatures in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Hotter temperatures will increase smog and soot pollution, as more homes and businesses use electric fans and air conditioners to cool buildings. Such heat waves will put children, seniors, and other vulnerable populations at a higher risk of61 illness and death from heat exhaustion and heat stroke, while also jeopardizing our ability to grow food. Water availability and quality will pose greater challenges for agriculture.

Carbon pollution is hurting our health and scientists say the threat will grow larger with time, making action now critical to preserve our health and protect the Earth. There is enough knowledge for decision-makers to improve climate resilience. The people and agencies that are responsible for critical infrastructure and community preparedness need to take the potential impacts of a changing climate into account now, rather than wait for greater and more damaging evidence of how pollution from human activity impacts our planet.

Chicago does not have rising sea levels like New York City and the coastal communities do, who were stunned by Superstorm Sandy’s wallop. But our Great Lakes reveal the effect of diminishing ice cover on Lakes Superior and Michigan, showing an average water temperature increase of 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit and lower lake levels due to increased evaporation. Warmer water surface temperatures lead to less mixing of water layers and more low-oxygen “dead zones,” with unsightly and often toxic algal blooms, visible to boaters and beachgoers. Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water, recreation, and livelihood for millions of people, must be protected. We cannot allow carbon pollution, coal ash, or tar sands oil pipelines to despoil its waters. (2)

For these reasons I urge the EPA to design and implement strong standards to curb carbon pollution from power plants that will make a significant difference in addressing climate change and in preserving human health.

References:

(1) “West Nile Virus,” Illinois Department of Public Health, http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/wnv.htm

(2) “Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region,” Great Lakes Integrated Sciences &
Assessments. http://www.glisa.msu.edu/docs/fact_sheets/GLISA_climate_change_summary.pdf

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards62 From: Adam Gaya [adgaya@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:39 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I Support The Strongest Possible Carbon Pollution Rules for Power Plants

Hello,

My name is Adam Gaya and I live in Seattle, Washington. I am writing to urge the EPA to adopt the strongest possible rules for controlling carbon pollution and in fact all forms of Global Warming Pollution from Power Plants.

Extreme weather caused by Climate Change costs Americans an estimated $140 Billion each year in droughts, storms and wildfires. Power Plants are one of the largest sources of global warming pollution, and one of the biggest contributors to this extreme weather. While our communities pay the cost, power plant operators get a free pass to pour global warming pollution into the atmosphere. The EPA should adopt the strongest rules possible to limit global warming pollution from power plants. In particular th e agency should ensure that the costs of implementing these rules is borne by the power plant operators and not by rate hikes on marginalized and poor communities. The industry has profited off their pollution for long enough, they should pay to clean it up not pass those costs onto consumers.

Furthermore the EPA should not accept unproven technology like carbon sequestration for reductions and should consider all the global warming pollution from gas fired power plants including leaks and the impacts of unconventional gas extraction like hydraulic fracturing.

Sincerely, Adam Gaya63 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ronni Solman [solm2@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:07 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 03:07
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Ronni Solman Email: solm2@aol.com Comments: As a retired teacher who still volunteers at the school at which I taught for over 30 years, I am passionate about the future of our planet and the future of our school children who will be inhabiting it for much longer than i will. Please impose the very STRICTIST of carbon pollution standards upon our existing power plants. Planet Earth and its children are counting on you! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards64 From: Marianna [taraihito@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:38 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments on Carbon Pollution standards for existing plants

Regulating and quickly reducing carbon pollution is probably the most important thing that the EPA can do at this point to protect human health. Burning of fossil fuels for power plants is both directly hazardous (to those who live near mining, and to those who live near waste products or breath polluted air) and indirectly hazardous through the effects of climate change. We need to move quickly to drastically reduce reliance on fossil fuels as there is already a build up of CO2 which is beyond what is safe for human civilization.

I would like to ask EPA to stress working on lowering the demand by encouraging industrial and home fuel efficiency, but not to be afraid to create strict regulations which make fossil fuels less economically viable.

Northern Europe has a similar standard of living with a significantly lower use of energy due to much better management and design for energy efficiency.

Some other points: Since local industries and communities depend on power plants and mining of fossil fuels, be sure to encourage alternate fuel use in the power plants (cogeneration) and alternate power generation (solar/wind) in areas heavily dependent on mining or extraction of coal or natural gas, such as Wyoming. Please don't structure rules and incentives in such a way that nuclear power is encouraged. Nuclear power generation requires too much water, and is too vulnerable to the growing effects of climate change (especially sea level rise and storms of increased intensity). In addition there is no way to safely store wastes.

In regards to whether to emphasize state or regional approaches, please emphasize regional approaches. The effects of fossil fuels go across a large region and are dependent on natural environmental features rather than human-created boundaries.

I don't support carbon trade/credits as a whole, but I do think that aggressive tree planting and support of existing forests is essential. Credits if given, should be given for strengthening existing carbon sinks. THis should be cheaper and more useful in the long term than installing carbon sequestration equipment on power plants.

Lastly, rules should encourage increasing local independence and sufficiency, rather than focussing entirely on improving the grid and maintaining long distance transmission lines. Long distance transmission and huge grids leave large areas vulnerable to extreme weather events and terrorism. Local self-sufficiency (at city or county level, or at a large-size industrial plant) should be encouraged to reduce the demand on the grid and to allow more flexibility when there are disasters.

Communities should be encouraged to develop smaller scale options which increase independence in the case of disasters or fuel shortages, such as for example solar cooking and water heating, solar panels at schools and other community buildings, and local scale wind and hydro projects.

Marianna Tubman 100 Dexter Ave Redwood City CA 94063 Founding Member of 350 Silicon Valley Life Member Sierra Club Contractor for Environmental Protection Agency Region 965 From: Gayla J. Gatling [mail@changemail.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:58 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I just signed "EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants"



### Dear EPA,

I just signed Solve The Climate Crisis's petition " EPA: Limit CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants " on Change.org.

I strongly support strict limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants is vital if we are going to avoid the worst effects of climate change. I urge EPA to implement the strongest possible carbon standards as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely, Gayla J. Gatling Waxahachie, Texas

There are now 5 signatures on this petition. Read reasons why people are signing, and respond to Solve The Climate Crisis by clicking here: http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-limit-co2-emissio ns-from-existing-powerplants/responses/new?response=1e2ea64ba3d0

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented
auto matic download of this picture from the Internet.66 From: Bob Fusinato [BobFusinato@tx.rr.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:46 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### Please accept the following comments regarding carbon pollution standards for existing sources. These

c omments reflect my experience with this issue as a concerned citizen living in Texas for the past 33 years.

-- B est Regards, Bob Fusinato 408 Northview Drive Richardson, Texas 75080



### Let me say a that I realize some people don't think climate change due to global warming is real. I am not one of them. But do I think it will lead to catastrophe? Maybe maybe not. I do think it is a strong possibility and I'm not anxious to find out. Phrases like playing Russian roulette with all chambers loaded come to mind. Do we really want to play this game?

Scientists say that if we continue as we are, we will reach a tipping point where regenerative feedback mechanisms accelerate global warming and climate change leading to the end of life on earth as we know it. Some think it is already too late that we have waited too long. Perhaps they are wrong. But if we wait till we know for sure, it will be too late. Do we really want to play this game?

What we do know for sure is that Earth's climate is changing and we are already paying a price economically because of the changes.

The global average temperature increased by more than 1.3°F over the last century. The average temperature in the Arctic rose by almost twice as much. The buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and the warming of the planet are responsible for other changes, such as:

Changing precipitation patterns Increases in ocean temperatures, sea level, and acidity Melting of glaciers and sea ice.

Those things are happening now. We can see the costs and we are having to adapt to these changes in order to mitigate the effects.

Some consequences of global warming are spectacular and easy to see. Super-storm Sandy is an example. First, there is the direct cost of damages. I have seen one report that super storm Sandy caused $65 billion in damage in the U.S., making it the second-costliest weather disaster in American history behind only Hurricane Katrina, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Next there are interim measures people, corporations, and governments are taking to mitigate damages next time this happens. People are building higher sea walls. Companies are replacing underground utilities and electronics with newer waterproofed designs. Ultimately, people are talking about erecting barriers against the sea like those used in Holland. While it is hard to blame climate change for any specific instance of disaster, we know that rising sea levels contributed to the problem. None of this comes cheap.67 

### Other consequences are not so easy to see. Increased acidity of oceans, for instance, effects the bottom levels in the food chain that we ultimately depend on. The consequences may not be immediately noticeable. But it will become increasingly difficult to feed the world's populations due to these effects.

So, what do we do? Suppose you are out in the middle of the ocean your boat gets a hole in it and you are taking on water. What do you do then? You plug the leak and start bailing. The sooner you plug the leak and the better job you do of it, the less bailing you will have to do. It's that simple. We have to do our best to stop the carbon pollution leaking into the atmosphere.

WHAT SHOULD EPA DO TO REDUCE CARBON POLLUTION IN POWER PLANTS

When tackling any problem it usually makes sense to begin with the largest causes - plug the big holes first then work on the smaller ones. We know that the power sector accounts for approximately 40% of U.S. carbon pollution. So this is a good place to start. We are here today to discuss rulings for existing power plants because we know that you can't get there from here fast enough by just dealing with new construction. Here are my comments on a few of the questions posed:

* How should EPA set the performance standards for existing power plants? In my opinion, performance standards should be set in terms of emission reduction targets that are based on what climate science says need to be implemented. They should be set in terms of an end-result that can be measured or derived from measurements.

Furthermore, we need a ruling that covers all fossil fuel sources (not just coal). The ruling needs to include emissions during extraction and transport of fuel as well as burning in power plants.

In my opinion the same targets should apply to all power plants. (After all, we are all living on the same planet.) As a practical matter, reduction targets for existing plants should be phased in to eventually have same requirement as new plants.

I also believe there should be no funding for carbon sequestration or other boondoggles. These only reward polluters and delay real solutions.

Keep it simple - if it pollutes tax it. If it pollutes more, tax it more. Proceeds should go to funding cleanrenewable alternatives.

* What is state & stakeholder experience with programs that reduce CO2 emissions in the power sector? While there has been some effort to reduce carbon pollution here in Texas, the response from state leadership has not been that great (to say the least).

Back in 2006 many Texans, like so many across the country, got a wake up call when they went to see Al Gore's documentary, Inconvenient Truth. The problem seemed so huge that it would be impossible to tackle. But, some of us were encouraged by the fact that, although Texas was a large part of the problem, we had the potential to be a large part of the solution. Studies from wind survey data showed that wind power could supply on the order of 3 times the electric energy that we were consuming at the time. Renewable standards passed back in 1999 has been credited with accelerating the development of some of that wind potential.

So we were horrified to find that our governor, Rick Perry, had issued an executive order fast-tracking the permitting process for coal-fired power plants. With federal standards against carbon pollution on the horizon, the response was to get as many of the dirty coal-fired power plants built and grand-fathered as possible. Why?68 

### Because at the time coal was probably the cheapest solution. And this was largely because utilities were getting away with passing the cost of "externalities" on to the rest of us. By the time the legislature met in early 2007 there were something like 19 coal-fired power plants in the permitting process.

TX Legislature 80th session, 2007 Stop the Coal Rush: A number of environmental organizations called for a "Stop the Coal Rush" rally in February of 2007 to ask that Texas legislators put a moratorium on the permitting process and pass legislation to require that the process effectively addresses public h ealth, safety and environmental issues. Approximately two thousand people rallied in front of the south steps of the Texas State Capitol and over 250 people participated in the lobbying effort the next day.

In late February of 2007, TXU announced (in con junction with a proposed buyout by a private investment firm) that it was dropping its plans to build 8 of its 11 proposed coal plants in Texas. But three permit requests remained; and, there were still 8 permit applications being filed by other utilities. In the meantime, while there was some progress on energy efficiency and renewable energy, the Texas Legislature failed to do much to improve the permitting process.

TX Legislature 81st session, 2009 Clean Energy & Green Jobs: In the 81st session, members of both parties showed unprecedented support for developing more renewable energy and energy efficiency. But the results were disappointing. Major renewables bills like the non- wind RPS and distributed solar incentives bill passed the House or Senate but not both. The net metering law passed both but could not be reconciled in the House. Likewise bills to update statewide building codes and appliance efficiency standards fell by the wayside.

Ultimately politics trumped progress on a clean renewable energy future for Texas. "The bottom line", says the Alliance for Clean Texas, "we didn't make the kind of progress on clean energy and clean air issues we had hoped to make." Two reasons they say was strong industry opposition and a session that fell behind from the beginning and ended in partisan stalemate.

On the other hand, in a press release issued June 4th, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity says, "This was a banner session for clean coal technologies and Texas lawmakers have positioned Texas as ground zero for advanced clean coal projects..."

The main story for coal fired power plants since then has been dominated by the fact that the increased abundance of natural gas has driven the price down making it cost competitive with coal. Turns out that those who where counting on coal as a good investment made a bad bet. Those will be the one's in the audience wailing against the high cost of regulation.

* What requirements should state plans meet, and what flexibility should be provided to states in developing their plans? Personally, I would not bother with state implementation plans for Texas. In the many years that the Dallas- Fort Worth area has been found to be out of compliance with Clean Air act requirements, neither local nor state government has been able to come up with an implementation plan that would put us in compliance.69 From: sandra freda [sandrafreda@me.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon pollution fromm existing power plants

Existing power plants are causing a great deal of carbon pollution.. this leads to air pollution and climate change. Carbon pollution is a public health hazard - children and the elderly are especially vulnerable. There should be a strong carbon pollution rule for these plants.

Sandra Freda70 From: Kathryn Dittemore [kdittem21@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:41 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: testimony



### Because of its unique position within the solar system our planet is alive. It’s a miracle that we bear witness to each and every moment of our lives. Yet we fail to see, fail to appreciate, fail to celebrate. I have never considered my self to be a religious person. In the past, I had viewed the bible, especially the Old Testament as an entertaining book of stories. But climate change has caused me to question my view. Maybe those ancient writings are not all that far fetched. The word “biblical ” has been used by reporters to describe the immensely powerful weather events we have been witnessing with increasing frequency.. Wild fires, floods, famine, and drought. In the bible, these events were viewed as punishment from god. Adam and Eve lost paradise because of greed and temptation. Like Adam and Eve, short-sited greed and a sense of personal entitlement tempt us. Have we no regard for the future inhabitants of our planet? This includes all species that we have not yet driven to extinction. In the vernacular of my grammar school nuns, this is a mortal sin. Our children, and their children’s children, will be the victims of our short-sited self-indulgent greed. Yet we obsess over safety, wearing our helmets, buckling our seatbelts, monitoring our allies communication, while at the same time we poison the air we breath, the water we drink, and the soil we plant. Yesterday in Geneva, the world meteorological organization released its annual greenhouse gas inventory. From the report, we learned that that the world carbon dioxide pollution levels in the atmosphere are accelerating and have reached a record high in 2012. In fact, the increase of co2 in 2012 has outpaced the past decade average annual increase of 2.02ppm. I find it horrifying that my species is responsible for all the suffering and destruction that is occurring throughout the world due to the green house effect caused by our continued use of fossil fuels. A recent report heard on NPR predicts that the world’s food supply will decline by 2% every decade as a result of climate change. We are rapidly contributing to our own demise. Climate change is a global emergency that continues to accelerate. The balance has been tipped and we must make every effort to curtail the emerging devastation. Technologies and innovations exist to create clean, renewable, sustainable energy that will benefit both the economy and the environment. The wind industry now employs over 80,000 American workers. The US installs a new solar power system every four minutes. Some day, burning fossil fuels will become a thing of the past. But for now, we must move quickly to issue strong standards for both coal and natural gas plants and hold polluters accountable for the high costs associated with rising sea levels, epic storms, devastating floods, and scorching heat. Economics aside, we have a moral obligation to support policies that can improve conditions for the well being of future generations. Thank you.

Kathryn Dittemore 3005 W Fulton Chicago IL 60612 773-330-177671 From: Kevin [kevinmcm12@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



## EPA administrators;

As I write this comment (Nov 7, 2013) on carbon pollution standards for existing sources I

s ee on today’s CNN news the following story: “Tens of thousands of people in vulnerable areas of the central Philippines were

e vacuated earlier as the monster storm spun toward the islands. With sustained winds of 315 kph (195 mph) and gusts as strong as 380 kph (235 mph), (Typhoon) Haiyan was likely the strongest tropical cyclone to make landfall anywhere in the world in recorded history.” Science has predicted for over 30 years that fossil fuel carbon dioxide dumping into our

a tmosphere was increasingly causing global climate change. There is no economic advantage and no sane reason in delaying rapid reduction of all fossil fuel carbon dioxide dumping into to our planet’s atmosphere. A present time fossil fuel carbon dioxide is dumped into the sky for free. I live in a democracy but I never was allowed to vote on this process of encouraging pollution. There must be a process of accessing the cost of pollution and adding that cost to our economic system so as to encourage zero emissions as soon as possible. Thank you.

Kevin McMahon Maple Valley, Washington72 From: Emily Johnston [enjohnston@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources (brief expansion of brief comment at listening session)

Dear EPA Staffers,

In his article " Gambling with Civilization " in the New York Review of Books two weeks ago, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman joked that he might lose his "economist card" if he didn't support a carbon tax, because efforts to reduce emissions need to take place on so many levels (all of which are effectively reached by a carbon tax). However, he also pointed out that a single effort--that of greatly reducing emissions from coal-fired electric plants--would, by itself, accomplish the great bulk of the work of a carbon tax.

I was at the Seattle listening session tonight, and I know that you're all very clear what the stakes are: without hyperbole, climate change is far and away the biggest threat humanity has ever faced--an existential threat to civilization, and to uncountable numbers of our sibling species.

I support conservation measures with all of my heart (and my attention, and my wallet), but coal-fired electrical plants render individual choices dishearteningly meaningless by comparison. I heard tonight that 100 of our existing coal-fired plants produce as much carbon pollution as every car on the road in the US today. How many light bulbs, exactly, would each of us have to change, to make up for those plants being allowed to keep spewing carbon? How much carpooling would we need to do?

How can we ask every American to do her part and conserve--and we must ask this--if these plants are not regulated as stringently as is humanly possible?

As I mentioned tonight, this week an eight year old girl died in China of lung cancer attributed to coal pollution. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, tragedies of this extreme nature don't happen in the US. If we'd left it to industry to regulate themselves, though, we all know that there would be no Clean Air Act; our air would be like China's, and acid rain would still be devastating New England waterways; they have fought, and will continue to fight, every step of the way. We must take the clear dangers of GHG emissions--carbon AND methane, at the plant AND at the wells/mines/extraction sites-- at least as seriously as the more visible threats of particulates.

Please do everything you can to make the regulations as stringent as the threat is profound; this is the most important thing you will ever do.

Many thanks. Emily Johnston73