417 Walnut Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17101 

717 255-3252 / 800 225-7224 

FAX 717 255-3298 

www.pachamber.org 

PE\\SIllt\LI 

CHAlIBER 

OF Ill sI)Ess 1)I1 I \ 1)1 Sit 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T 

Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2013-0602 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 

Dear Administrator McCarthy, 

July 28, 2014 

The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry is the largest, broad-based business advocacy 

association in the Commonwealth. Our members are of all sizes, crossing all industry sectors throughout 

Pennsylvania. Thank you for the opportunity for the PA Chamber and its members to comment the 

Environmental Protection Agency's proposed plan to regulate greenhouse gas emission from existing 

power plants. 

While many of the PA Chamber's members are directly involved in extracting, refining, transporting or 

moving energy, all of our members need energy to operate. Energy inputs are required for every single 

transaction or exchange of goods or services that contributes to our GDP. Simply put, without affordable, 

reliable, stable and diverse sources of energy, no business, industry or economy can survive. 

For many years, Pennsylvania's diverse portfolio of energy resources, including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, 

solar, wind, hydropower and other renewable, as well as its competitive electricity market, has fostered an 

environment that put Pennsylvania in a position to compete with other states and other countries to retain, 

expand and attract businesses. Because of Pennsylvania's leadership in establishing competitive 

electricity markets, as well as being second in the nation for total power generation, natural gas 

production and nuclear assets, and fourth in the nation in coal production, wholesale electricity prices 

have trended downward significantly in recent years, with a more than 50% decrease between 2008 and 

2012'. 

We are also a net exporter of both natural gas and electricity. This has given Pennsylvania an unparalleled 

competitive advantage and helps us compete despite the challenges presented of the state's business tax 

structure2. Energy prices are one of the reasons that in 20133 more new corporate facilities opened their 

' Pennsylvania State Energy Plan. Office of Governor Tom Corbett, January 2014. http://energy.newpa.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/PA-State-Energy-Plan-Web.pdf 

2 2014 State Business Tax Climate Index. Tax Foundation, Oct. 9, 2013. http://taxfoundation.org/article/2014-statebusiness-tax-climate-index 

Governor Corbett Announces Pennsylvania Ranks First in Northeast Region for New, Expanded Corporate 

Facilities. Office of Governor Tom Corbett, March 5, 2014. http://www.newpa.cominewsroom/pennsylvania-ranksfirst-northeast-region-2013 
Administrator Gina McCarthy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

July 28, 2014 

Page 2 

doors in PA than the rest of the northeastern states combined and one of the biggest reasons our present 

unemployment rate is significantly less than the national average and below pre-recession levels4. 

Industry in Pennsylvania and across the United States has taken great strides to reduce emissions of all 

pollutants, including greenhouse gasses. The power generation sector in Pennsylvania has reduced 

greenhouse gas emissions by 14% since 20055. In fact, America led the world in reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions over that time period6. Industry in the state has also, since 2008, reduced emissions of SO2 by 

68%, NOx by 30% and VOCs by 21%7. These reductions are having a demonstrated impact on air 

quality, with DEP forecasting fewer and fewer severe air quality alerts each year8— a significant 

development considering DEP announced two years ago it added eight additional regions, for a total of 13 

regions. 

Unfortunately, the EPA's proposal threatens Pennsylvania's biggest competitive advantage, which is low 

energy prices. The proposal threatens to drastically change the way Pennsylvania produces and uses 

energy. This change is likely to come with a significant economic impact to the business community, as 

well as threaten reliability across the grid. Even more disturbingly, the significant costs of this rule by the 

EPA's own admission will result in relatively small reductions in global emissions, likely soon to be 

eclipsed by development abroad. The United States contributes a mere 16 percent of global greenhouse 

gas emissions9, and its power generation sector just 40 percent of thatw. The 30 percent nationwide 

reduction by power producers that EPA is seeking equates to a temporary and arguably insignificant 

decrease in greenhouse gasses globally of less than 2 percent. 

Pennsylvania is part of the PJM Interconnection, a grid that provides power to 61 million Americans in 13 

states and the District of Columbia". This past winter, the grid came close to a catastrophic failure as a 

multitude of conditions threatened to disrupt the grid, including historic demand, transmission constraints 

and scarcity of fuels. There were at the time 183 giga-watts (GW) of installed capacity in the grid, but at 

any given time some percentage of that may be unavailable due to maintenance, repair or fuel supply12. 

On January 7, 2014, available power totaled slightly more than 142 GW. Demand peaked that day at 141 

GW13, meaning the grid was very close to failure. By the end of next year, we will have seen more than 5 

Pennsylvania's Workforce Statistics. Department of Labor & Industry, April 2014. 

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1216762&mode=2 

5Electric Power Industry Emissions Back to 1990, Pennsylvania. U.S. Energy Information Administration, April 1, 

2014. http://www.eia.govlelectricity/state/pennsylvania/xls/septO7PA.xls 

6Some fracking good news, The Economist, May 25, 2012. 

http://www.economist.com/b1 ogs/sch umpeter/2012/05/ameri cas-falling-carbon-dioxide-emissions 

7

2012 Natural Gas Emissions Inventory. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Air Quality 

Technical Advisory Committee, April 3, 2014. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/advcoun/aqtac/2014/4-3- 14/Marcel lus AQT AC Unconventional Gas 03-13 -2014.pdf 

8Action Days. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality. 

http://www.ahs2.dep.state.pa.us/aqapps/aqpartners/codered.asp 

9Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption of Energy (Million Metric Tons). U.S. Energy Information 

Administration. http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8 

10National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html 

11About PJM. PJM Interconnection. http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm.as_px 

12Testimony of F. Stuart Bresler, III, on behalf of PJM Interconnection, before the Pennsylvania Senate Consumer 

Protection and Professional Licensure Committee, April 1, 2014. 

13 Ibid. 
Administrator Gina McCarthy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

July 28, 2014 

Page 3 

GW of coal-fired power plant shutdowns". EPA estimates an additional 4.6 GW will retire as a direct 

result of the greenhouse gas rule in coming years15. If recent history is any indication, there may be more 

retirements than anticipated. 

While a number of new power plants are in various stages of development, significant questions remain if 

the grid will be in a position to deal with the scenario we faced this past January. Historically, demand in 

PJM peaked during the summer, when demand for natural gas was low. Because the EPA's plan expects 

that natural gas be dispatched over other sources, the PA Chamber questions if existing transmission and 

supply constraints will be eased in time for Pennsylvania to comply with this rule. 

EPA's draft rule proposes a number of approaches for Pennsylvania to achieve a very aggressive 

reduction target of 32% below 2012 levels16, based on a number of assumptions, including that existing 

plants can (and will) become significantly more efficient, that existing and new natural gas plants can 

(and will) run significantly more often, and that Pennsylvania can (and will) deploy considerable 

renewable assets and energy-efficiency measures beyond those already required by law. Each of these socalled "building blocks" will come with a cost. There remain significant questions as to the ability of 

Pennsylvania to comply with this target without additional shutdowns of coal-fired facilities. The 

proposal put forward by EPA is unlike any other emissions reduction strategy ever developed, and we 

believe the sort of approach envisioned in a recent Pennsylvania DEP whitepaper17, where achievable 

reductions at fossil-fuel generating plants are identified, with so-called "outside the fence" measures made 

available — but not required — to achieve compliance, is a more appropriate strategy. 

We urge EPA to give Pennsylvania a realistic emissions reduction target, as well as ensure Pennsylvania 

is given credit for the significant emissions reductions due to previous and future plant retirements, power 

plant fuel conversions, energy efficiency requirements and alternative energy portfolio mandates. The PA 

Chamber also urges that innovative strategies being adopted by businesses across the state, such as 

combined heat and power systems and smart meters, be recognized for their efforts in emissions 

reductions. Finally, the PA Chamber urges that the EPA extend the public comment period by a minimum 

of 60 days, given the breadth and complexity of the rulemaking, and that EPA hold additional public 

hearings and public question-and-answer sessions across the country. 

Further Discussion Re2ardink EPA's Proposal and Implications to Pennsylvania's Economy 

On June 25, 2013, President Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum, "Power Sector Carbon 

Pollution Standards,"18tasking the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with reducing 

14Pennsylvania Electric Power Generation Association Presentation to the Greater Reading Chamber, Feb. 2014. 

http://www.epga.org/documents/GreaterReadingChamberPresentation-FEB2014000.pdf 

15Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 2, 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 

05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf 

16Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 2, 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 

05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf 

17 Recommended Framework for the Section 111(d) Emissions Guidelines Addressing Carbon Dioxide Standards 

for Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, April 10, 2014. 

http://www.elibrary.dep. state. pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-100322/2700-UK-DEP4446%20comb ined.pdf 

18Presidential Memorandum -- Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards. Office of the White House Press 

Secretary, June 25, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandumpower-sector-carbon-pollution-standards 
Administrator Gina McCarthy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

July 28, 2014 

Page 4 

greenhouse gas pollutants from power plants. The Memorandum directed EPA to develop two separate 

rulemakings: one under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act°, entitled "Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units" and another 

under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, involving greenhouse gas emissions for modified, 

reconstructed and existing power plants. 

Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to issue New Source Performance Standards for 

categories of sources that are determined to cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which can 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, using "best systems of emissions 

reductions" or BSER to reduce emissions of such pollution. On January 8, 2014, EPA published in the 

Federal Register a notice announcing proposed rules for new fossil fuel-fired plants20. The rule proposes 

to establish an emissions limit of 1,110 lb CO2/MWh for new coal-fired power plants, based on a 

requirement to use carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). New natural gas-fired power plants would, 

under the proposal, face an emissions limit of 1,000 or 1,100 lb CO2/MWh, depending on the size of the 

units. Natural gas-fired power plants would not be required to operate using CCS as an emissions control, 

and industry estimates that nearly all existing natural gas power plants could meet the more stringent 

standard of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh. 

More pressing, though, is the fact that at present, CCS is a prohibitively expensive emissions control, one 

that adds, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), an additional 

80% to the cost of building a power plant21 . As DEP notes in a comment letter to EPA, the Clean Air Act 

requires that BSER that have been "adequately demonstrated." CCS has not been deployed commercially 

at any electric generating plant in the United States, with only a handful of such projects existing at the 

planning stages22. 

Putting aside concerns with whether or not CCS legally constitute BSER when it has not been adequately 

demonstrated, EPA's 111(b) greenhouse gas proposal for new sources at minimum identified a pollutant, 

a source, and an emissions limit for that pollutant for that source. This is similar to the approach 

historically undertaken by EPA with respect to a variety of pollutant emissions from solid waste landfills, 

copper smelters, steel plants, automobile painting operations and other industrial source categories. 

The EPA's proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for existing sources under 111(d) is, however, a 

significant departure from this type of approach. 

Proposed Carbon Pollution Emissions Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units 

On June 2, 2014 (one day later than prescribed by the Presidential Memorandum), EPA Administrator 

Gina McCarthy unveiled the agency's proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from EGU's. The 

19The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7626. http://www.epw.senate.gov/envlaws/cleanair.pdf 

20 Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating 

Units. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, Jan. 8, 2014 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/08/2013-28668/standards-of-performance-for-greenhouse-gasem issions-from-new-stationary-sources-electric-utilitv#11-9 

21 Re: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, June 25, 2012. 

22 Power Plant Carbon Dioxide and Storage Projects. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 2013. 

http://sequestration.mitedu/tools/projects/index capture.html 
Administrator Gina McCarthy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

July 28, 2014 

Page 5 

proposal seeks a nationwide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. 

Each state is given interim (2020-2029 average) and final (2030) reduction mandates, identified as pounds 

of CO2 per mega-watt hour for their fossil fuel electric generating fleet. Each state's target is different, 

based on, according to EPA, each state's ability to approach GHG reductions from fossil fuel plants using 

various "building blocks23." 

These building blocks include: 

• improving efficiency at fossil fuel-fired plants; 

• dispatching more electricity from units that are less or zero-carbon emitting; and 

• implementing demand-side energy efficiency. 

There is, according to EPA, a cost for each of these strategies that will ultimately be borne by consumers 

and businesses. Pennsylvania's target is an aggressive one, especially when compared to neighboring or 

other energy producing states. 

State 

2012 

Emissions 

(million 

metric tons of 

CO2) 

2012 Energy 

Output 

(TWh) 

2012 Emission 

Rate 

(Fossil, 

Renewable, and 

6% Nuclear) 

(lbs/MWh) 

2030 State Goal 

(lbs/MWh) 

% rate 

reduction 

Rate 

Reductions 

(lbs/MWh) 

Colorado 38.45 49.45 1,714 1,108 35 606 

Kentucky 82.89 84.69 2,158 1,763 19 395 

Louisiana 44.52 66.97 1,466 883 40 583 

Maryland 18.30 21.57 1,870 1,187 37 683 

Montana 16.26 15.97 2,245 1,771 21 474 

New Jersey 11.83 27.98 932 531 43 401 

New York 31.58 70.85 983 549 45 434 

North Dakota 30.27 33.47 1,994 1,783 11 211 

Ohio 92.86 110.65 1,850 1,338 28 512 

Oklahoma 47.86 76.07 1,387 895 35 492 

Penns Ivania 105.83: 51. 6 1',540 ,05 488 

Texas 223.15 378.96 1,298 791 39 507 

West Virtinia 65.61 71.64 2,019 1,620 20 399 

Wyoming 45.36 47.28 2,115 1,714 19 401 

ource: EPA Clean „ June 

Issues with the Proposed Rule 

23 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 2, 2014. http://www2.epa.govisites/production/files/2014- 

05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf 
Administrator Gina McCarthy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

July 28, 2014 

Page 6 

EPA set each state's target using 2012 data — a troubling baseline given the fact that several coal-fired 

power plants in PJM territory had either shut down at that point24or invested significant capital to 

improve efficiency25. Also, in 2004, Pennsylvania enacted legislation creating Alternative Energy 

Portfolio Standards, requiring the increased deployment and use of alternative, low-carbon power 

generation sources. EPA should move the baseline back to 2005 in order to capture the significant 

reductions achieved by these actions in Pennsylvania. Further, Pennsylvania must be given credit for 

these reductions or it is likely that additional coal-fired units will shut down. 

EPA's formula for setting the targets includes an expected 6% improvement in heat rate at coal-fired 

power plants26. Such investments are likely to require significant sums of capital27. Pursuant to the Clean 

Air Act, significant investments into an existing source may cause the facility to undergo New Source 

Review, meaning it is subject to regulations applicable to new, not existing sources. If EPA's 111(b) 

regulation for new EGUs is finalized as proposed, coal plants investing the capital to achieve the expected 

6% improvement might then be expected to deploy CCS, which, as discussed above in this testimony, 

would render the project economically unviable. Even in the absence of finalization of EPA's 111(b) rule, 

EPA's NSR requirements create perverse environmental incentives, and can actually impede the 

deployment of newer and more efficient technologies. 

Further, Pennsylvania's electric generators operate in a competitive market, not a rate-based market. 

Generators compete for the ability to provide electricity on an economic basis. Other states that remain in 

a vertically integrated, rate-based utility structure have "captive" ratepayers that would bear the cost. In 

contrast, Pennsylvania generators will have to incorporate the costs of facility improvements into their 

bidding price. Generators may very well find that the combination of upfront capital costs to achieve 

these improvements, paired with tremendous uncertainty about the ability to ever recover them, will lead 

to a decision to close the plants. The loss of additional coal plants, and by extension a loss of competition 

among generating units, likely translates to a significant economic impact to all consumers of energy, 

including business, in the state. 

EPA's rule also expects states to dispatch at minimum 70% of the nameplate capacity of natural gas-fired 

plants. Generators in Pennsylvania must bid into PJM's capacity markets. Currently, generators do so on 

an economic basis. Historically, coal has provided baseload power given its low costs. The forced 

incentivizing of natural gas over coal threatens to imprint a significant distortion on the market. 

It is also a significant concern to the PA Chamber if enough infrastructure and fuel supply will be 

available to ensure that this much generation from natural gas occurs. In its proposed rule, EPA itself 

estimates that this forced demand increase will drive up natural gas spot prices by 12.5% in 202028. This 

24Exelon, Progress to Shutter More Than 2,400-MW of Coal-Fired Generation; AMP Pulls Plug on Ohio Project, 

December 2, 2009. http://www.powermag.com/exelon-progress-to-shutter-more-than-2400-mw-of-coal-firedgeneration-amp-pulls-plug-on-ohio-project/ 

25AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations, June 9, 2011. 

http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1697 

26Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 2, 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 

05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf 

27Coal-Fired Power Plant Heat Rate Reductions. Sargent & Lundy, January 22, 2009. 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/resource/docs/coalfired.pdf 

28Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 2, 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 

05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf 
Administrator Gina McCarthy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

July 28, 2014 

Page 7 

will impact not only electricity ratepayers, but manufacturing and other industries that rely heavily upon 

natural gas as a production feedstock. 

Given that EPA purported to examine each state's individual conditions, it is unreasonable that it should 

be expected that 70% of each state's total natural gas-fired power plant capacity run at minimum year in 

and year out. EPA should review recent PJM capacity auction results for an understanding of realistically 

achievable natural gas dispatch. In particular, a review of the dispatched generation in 2012 would be 

particularly instructive, given that that year was one in which natural gas prices were at their lowest point 

in years and dispatched natural gas-fired capacity did not approach 70%.29Further, the homogenous 

energy mix resulting from such explicit preference in fuel sources could leave the grid more vulnerable to 

supply constraints and price shocks due to unforeseen production and transmission disruption. 

Increased reliance on renewable fuels raises a number of reliability and cost concerns. As a recent report 

noted, "[als the auctions deal with a fungible capacity product, there is no way to distinguish between 

resources on the basis of environmental attributes . . . . In many cases renewable or otherwise 

environmentally preferred resources are more expensive. State attempts to support such resources have 

run into concerns of buyer-side market power."3° The same report also noted that wind and solar at 

present cannot be dispatched at times of peak demand, such that "increased reliance on these resources 

places additional stress on the system."31 

Further, EPA's proposed renewable targets—which are based on a complex formula that expects states to 

adopt renewable portfolio standards at or similar to levels mandated in neighboring states—appear to 

disproportionately burden Pennsylvania. Under EPA's proposal, PA would have to add more than 30,000 

Gigawatt-hours of renewable generation by 2030—the second-most of any state in the country and an 

increase of almost 800 percent over current levels.32 This appears to have been the result of EPA 

effectively punishing Pennsylvania for having implemented a renewable portfolio standard before the 

baseline 2012 year, as a cursory review of carbon emission states in regions of the country where states 

by and large have not adopted such standards indicates such states are not expected to significantly 

increase renewable generation targets or reduce their carbon emissions to the degree that Pennsylvania is. 

EPA also appears to have included Washington, D.C.'s renewable electric supply mandates into the 

northeastern region's renewable building block – even though Washington, D.C. is not a state and does 

not have any power generation. 

The PA Chamber also urges EPA to recognize the significant reductions achieved by converting a coal 

plant to other fuels, as there are several recent projects underway in Pennsylvania to do just that. For 

example, one PA Chamber member announced it would be converting a plant in southwestern 

Pennsylvania to natural gas by May 201633 and another along the New Jersey border to low-sulfur diesel 

29 2012 State of the Market Report for PJM. Monitoring Analytics, LLC, March 14, 2013. 

http://www.monitoringanalytics.com/rePorts/PJM State of the Market/2012.shtml 

30 Markets Matter: Expect a Bumpy Ride on the Road to Reduced CO2 Emissions. Navigant Consulting, May 2014. 

http://www.navigant.com/—/media/WWW/Site/In sights/Economic s/ECONMarketMattersNOCOVERTL052214. ash 

x 

31 Ibid. 

32 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 2, 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 

05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf 

33 NRG Energy to burn natural gas at coal-fired power plant. Pittsburgh Tribune Review, June 25, 2013. 

http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4249970-74/burn-coal-gas 
Administrator Gina McCarthy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

July 28, 2014 

Page 8 

oil'''. According to NRG, the switch to low-sulfur diesel oil would reduce CO2 emissions at the plant by 

93 percent, in addition to significant reductions of other pollutants. At present, EPA's rule does not 

clearly recognize the emissions reductions of such conversions. 

EPA's rule also flirts with requiring CCS for natural gas plants, noting that the agency "invite[s] comment 

on whether incremental emissions reductions from new NGCC units that outperform performance 

standards for such units under CAA section 111(b) based on the use of CCS should be allowed as a 

compliance option to help meet the emission performance level required under a CAA section 111(d) 

state plan."35 The PA Chamber opposes the inclusion of CCS requirements for any natural gas-fired 

power plant in Pennsylvania's state implementation plan, given the significant costs associated with such 

technology. 

Finally, it is unclear whether the timeline proposed by EPA for states to both develop and implement their 

plans is sufficient. Once the final rulemaking is issued, states will have until June 2016 to submit a draft 

implementation plan for EPA approval. The PA Chamber questions, given the significance of this 

rulemaking and its complexity, if this timeframe is adequate. The comment period for the proposed 

rulemaking should be extended beyond the proposed 120 days, as was recently done for another 

significant rulemaking involving the Clean Water Act36. 

As demonstrated by steps already undertaken by industry, significant greenhouse gas reductions have 

been achieved. However, as Pennsylvania determines the path forward in which additional reductions are 

achieved, a careful consideration to the limits of available technology, the costs associated with various 

reductions strategies, the impact to the business community's ability to comply and bear such costs, and 

current and future global economic and environmental trends must be factored in. 

EPA's Clean Power Plan Contradicts President Obama's Outlined Remulatory Framework 

EPA's Clean Power Plan and the public participation process fall far short of President Obama's Jan. 18, 

2011 executive order outlining how regulations should be crafted and implemented. Executive Order 

1356337 holds as a "general principle" that the nation's "regulatory system must protect public health, 

welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and 

job creation. [...] It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote 

predictability and reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least 

burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take into account benefits and costs, both 

quantitative and qualitative." 

34 Portland Generating Station to convert coal-fired boilers to use diesel fuel. Power Engineering, June 10, 2014. 

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2014/06/portlan d-generating-station-to-con vert-coal- fired-boilers-to-use-diese Ifuel.html 

35 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 2, 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 

05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf 

36 Definitions of the "Waters of the United States" Under the Clean Water Act. Federal Register, April 21, 2014. 

https://www. federalregister. gov/articles/2014/04/21 ited-states-under-theclean-water-act 

37 Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Office of the White House Press 

Secretary, Jan. 18, 2011. http://www.whitehousegov/the-press-office/2o 11/01/1 8/improving-regulation-andregulatory-review-executive-order 
Administrator Gina McCarthy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

July 28, 2014 

Page 9 

As previously discussed, the Clean Power Plan is likely to increase electricity costs and destabilize grid 

security and power reliability due to overreliance on certain fuel sources. Further, such a homogenous 

mix of fuels, combined with each state having different emissions targets (and different state 

implementation plans) yet each largely operating in a multi-state or regional grid, will only result in 

additional unpredictability and more uncertainty. Finally, EPA's minimal public hearings, with the 

exception of Pennsylvania, are taking place in states that do not produce a significant share of the nation's 

coal reserves or rely on coal for a majority of their electricity. EPA should schedule additional public 

hearings in such states, as well as host open public question and answer sessions across the country to 

further discuss this rule with the public. EPA should also extend the public comment period by minimum 

of 60 days, given the breadth and complexity of the rule. 

EPA Seeks Further Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Other Sectors 

EPA has asked for funding in its upcoming federal budget to develop emissions limits for a number of 

other industries, including petroleum refining, pulp and paper facilities, solid waste landfills, iron and 

steel production, animal feeding operations, and Portland cement manufacturing38. Such a sweeping 

strategy of emissions limits could have significant impacts on these industries by discouraging or 

diverting investment, resulting in job losses and reduced GDP output. 

For these reasons, the PA Chamber has joined the Partnership for a Better Energy Future, a national 

coalition of organizations resolved to urge EPA to develop and implement sensible energy regulations. 

Our fellow partners in Pennsylvania include the Associated Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania, the 

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association, the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Federation of 

Independent Business, the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, PIOGA, ARIPPA, the Pennsylvania Waste 

Industries Association and the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce. 

By discouraging domestic investment and, in turn, encouraging investment abroad — particularly in 

countries that lack pollution control programs — this regulatory approach is essentially exchanging 

American jobs for increased global greenhouse gas emissions. 

We appreciate the attention and consideration of EPA's staff with regards to our comments and concerns. 

We believe the recommendations included in this comment letter can help achieve our mutual goal of a 

strong economy and clean environment. 

Sincerely, 

/2, 

Gene Barr 

President and CEO 

Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry 

38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2015 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the 

Committee on Appropriations, March 2014. http://www2.epa.govisites/production/files/2014- 

03/documents/fy2015 congressional justification.pdf