Mississippi Manufacturers Association 

July 30, 2014 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

The Mississippi Manufacturers Association (MMA) represents over 2,000 manufacturing companies and 

affiliated businesses in the State of Mississippi. Among its members are a number of the significant generators 

and consumers of electric power within the state. All of our members are concerned that EPA's proposed 

rule, which would institute a new regulatory framework on Mississippi and other states that would transform 

how electricity is generated, distributed, transmitted and used, could eliminate the critical competitive 

advantage that affordable and reliable electricity provides to the American economy. 

Although MMA will continue to review EPA's proposal and to submit additional comments if permitted, it is 

already clear to us that the proposal will be disruptive to and is fundamentally incompatible with numerous 

practical and technical aspects of the electricity system in Mississippi and all other states. It is evident that the 

proposal is based on a flawed interpretation of the Clean Air Act. We therefore urge EPA to withdraw the 

current proposal and substantially revise this rule. In the meantime, we want to highlight five high-level issues 

that are representative of our more detailed objections to EPA's proposal. 

1. Electricity price increases and economic impacts. While EPA's proposal must be thoroughly and 

independently analyzed to better understand its costs and electricity market implications, it is clear that the 

rule presents a significant threat to American jobs and the economy. EPA itself estimates that its rule will 

increase electricity prices between 6 and 7 percent nationally in 2020, and up to 12 percent in some locations. 

These increases will place a heavy burden on businesses in Mississippi and across the U.S. for which affordable 

energy provides a critical operating advantage in competitive global markets. This is particularly true for MMA 

members who are energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries. 

2. Rule Structure and Scope. EPA is pursuing a regulatory standard on one industry source (fossil-fuel power 

plants) based on potential actions taken well beyond the source's physical location and controlling authority, 

and in many cases by entities that are not directly subject to regulation under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. 

This structure raises significant legal and practical questions regarding the viability of the rule. EPA has to date 

failed to answer such questions, and has provided little to no information regarding what authority it is relying 

upon to institute such an expansive regime, and how it intends to proceed if it does not approve of individual 

state implementation plans. This is critical information that EPA should disclose in the interest of maximizing 

transparency and continued cooperation with states and stakeholders. 

3. Technological achievability. As noted above, EPA has asserted that each of the individual targets assigned to 

states under EPA's proposed regulations are based on "reasonably achievable rather than maximum 

720 1\orth l'rC'sidcnt Strcl't • P.O. Box 22607 • Jackson, l'v1S 39225-2607 

Office 601 l)'-1-t\-1222 • Fa:x 601 948-1475 • W\\'\v.mma-\Yeb.org 
performance levels." MMA is concerned that, as with its proposed rule for new power plants, EPA is basing 

enormously impactful mandates on technology assumptions that have yet to be demonstrated as achievable at 

a reasonable cost and in some cases achievable at any cost. Detailed analysis must be undertaken by EPA and 

made available to the public. 

4. Follow-on Regulations. EPA's proposed regulation for power plants is only the first step of the 

Administration's broader greenhouse gas regulatory agenda. As the agency has committed to a number of 

follow-on rules, MMA members will be impacted twice-both as electricity customers and also as industries 

"next in line" for subsequent rules that EPA has committed to pursuing. For example, last month EPA 

proposed new rules restricting emissions from municipal landfills, and the agency's current budget request to 

Congress notes it will soon begin considering new greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations on the following sectors: 

refineries, pulp and paper, iron and steel production, livestock operations, and cement manufacturing. The 

substance, process, and ultimate outcome of the initial proposed regulations on power plants are certain to 

influence the regulations that will be subsequently proposed. 

5. Process and timeline. As stated earlier, states and stakeholders continue to struggle to interpret and react 

to the rule's more than 1,600 pages of highly technical materials. Despite this ongoing confusion, and despite 

EPA's repeated emphasis on responding to stakeholder concerns and ensuring a robust and transparent public 

deliberation process, the agency has scheduled public hearings in only four locations, and has provided few if 

any opportunities for stakeholders and other interested parties to publicly ask the agency direct questions 

regarding the design and potential impacts of its rule. Our concerns with these limited opportunities for open 

and interactive communication with the agency are compounded by what appears to be a rushed regulatory 

implementation timeline. A regulation as complex and far-reaching as the one proposed must prioritize a 

robust, inclusive rule making process over meeting arbitrary and rushed deadlines. 

M MA recognize that addressing each of these significant issues will require substantial time and effort of the 

EPA, states, and stakeholders alike. However, as a first step, we respectfully ask that EPA take two critical 

actions to enhance the public involvement process associated with this rule: 

1. We request that EPA hold additional public hearings on the rule in order to enable a greater number of 

citizens and stakeholders representing a broader range of viewpoints and geographic locations to 

provide input on the rule. Further, and perhaps most important, we ask that at least some component 

of these public meetings be interactive, so impacted stakeholders can ask EPA direct questions 

regarding the intent and implications of its proposed rule. Such a format will help bring clarity to an 

immensely complicated regulatory proposal, and greatly enhance the public-private and federal-state 

cooperation that you have emphasized are essential to the success of the rule. 

2. We request that EPA extend the currently-planned 120-day comment period by at least 60 days to 

ensure that affected stakeholders have sufficient time to assess the rule and consider feedback 

provided at the forthcoming public hearings. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and stand ready to work cooperatively to ensure 

EPA's proposed regulation addresses these critical issues. 

Sincerely, 

Jay C. Moon, CEcD, FM, HLM 

President and CEO