Summary	of	Region	9	Public	Listening	Session	on

111(d)	for	Power	Plants

November 5, 2013 – San Francisco, CA

On November 5, 2013, EPA Region 9 held a public listening session to obtain public input on how EPA 

can craft carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. 369 people participated in the listening 

session; 255 in-person and 114 via webinar. We had 123 speakers, of which we noted the affiliations of 

107. Over 90 percent of speakers were in favor of EPA’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions from new 

and existing power plants.

Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld welcomed participants and gave remarks regarding the need 

for action. Air Division Director Deborah Jordan, opened the session with the overview of Section 

111(d), and ground rules and logistics were presented by Niloufar Glosson, the meeting moderator.

A high-level summary of the meeting is provided below.

Overview

Speakers included and represented people from state and local governments, industry, labor unions, 

environmental and health groups, faith-based organizations and the general public. 

Support for EPA Action -- Participation was dominated by environmental/public health groups, 

concerned citizens, faith-based organizations and local governments urging climate action. Common 

themes included: need to set strong standards, use science-based approach that recognizes 

environmental need, support renewable energy development, end use of coal, understand external 

costs of coal usage, provide flexibility to states, moral obligation to act, no such thing as clean coal, 

strong public health case for setting stringent controls, we have enough scientific data to proceed, 

extraction of coal equally damaging, should regulate refineries as well, many strong energy efficiency 

opportunities available.

Planning & Compliance Flexibility - Industry representatives asked that EPA provide ample flexibility for 

state implementation plans, recognition of early actions and a gradual/phased compliance schedule. 

Experience with programs that reduce CO2 emissions in the electric power sector

 Industry/Business

o EPA should conduct targeted outreach to communities that are dependent on coal for 

energy and economic development. 

o EPA should use a collaborative process, similar to that used for NOx Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) determination for the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), when assessing 

carbon control strategies. One size does not fit all.

o CA AB32 actions should serve as national model and relevant actions should be reflected in 

EPA rule compliance. CA electricity loading order prioritizes energy efficiency (EE), demand 

response (DR) and renewable energy (RE) before fossil generation. 
o Encourage EPA actions to set carbon pollution standards for existing plants. Company’s 

technology = $15 CO2/ton captured, uses ~5% of plant energy generation capacity for 

carbon capture and storage (CCS) load. Well suited for retrofit into existing coal and natural 

gas plants. 

 California has significant experience with controlling carbon pollution through AB32 and many other 

programs. EPA’s guidelines should draw upon California’s experience.

 Local air districts are applying greenhouse gas (GHG) Best Available Control Technology (BACT). 

How to Set the Standard

 Industry/Business

o Gradual, responsible implementation to maintain viability of the majority electrical fuel in 

US; coal is still half the cost of natural gas. Technological feasibility is a must, and CCS is not 

proven at a commercial, economical scale. CCS is not part of any planned power plant in the 

US. Liability of subsurface storage of GHGs is in question. 

o Set individual source standards with adequate technology flexibility; a system based 

approach will not be sufficient for source-based standards. EPA should identify all 111d 

sources and their compliance schedule for all relevant regulations. EPA needs to consult 

with Tribes

o Support EPA action with flexible state programs that recognize benefits of EE for carbon 

pollution reduction. 

o Support EPA action with consideration of existing state and regional programs. Demand side 

EE investments will result in carbon emission reductions at power plants. EPA should 

standardize emissions reporting for EE measures nationally through the 111d program.

 Environment 

o Carbon intensity limit per unit of energy including any energy load for CCS/aftertreatment. 

o EPA must weigh its options for a fuel/technology neutral standard for CO2 and other GHGs 

versus a fuel specific performance standard (i.e., X lbs CO2e/MWh vs. natural gas = 1000 lbs 

CO2e/MWh & coal = 1500 lbs CO2e/MWh).

o Performance standards based on climate science, aggressive action needed to control 

pollution sources. Maintain global CO2 concentrations at < 350 ppm.

Requirements state plans and flexibility for states

o State Government

 Considerations for 111(d) guidelines:

 States will balance health needs (e.g., affordable electricity vs. public health & 

climate);

 Assess cost of air pollution controls;

 Assess economic impact of plans before federal approval; 

 Determine how states and EPA will achieve 111(d) and other public goals with 

existing and declining resources.

 Provide tools for state planning; 

 Allow market based solutions; 

 Provide guidance on source performance standards; 

 Provide flexibility on outside the fence line measures; 

 Acknowledge early actions.
 Harmonize with AB32 actions;

 Take science based approach that considers environmental need.

o Industry/Business

 Considerations for 111(d) guidelines:

 States have primary authority; 

 Provide guidance on best system of emission reduction (BSER) within fence line 

while incorporating capital cost and operational data;

 Provide abundant flexibility for states (onsite EE, renewables, credit trading and 

offsite EE); credit for recent programs; facilitate growth

 Maintain baseload generating units for remainder of planned useful life;

 Don’t force curtailment of coal plants

 Address state specific economic needs.

 BSER based on plant type (rate and mass based standards);

 Allow source and system based approaches; 

 Consider remaining useful life of capital equipment; 

 All units within a source subcategory should be treated the same;

 Reflect previous carbon reduction efforts in baseline and timeline for compliance 

(e.g., RPS & AB 32 in CA).

 Set legally defensible standards; 

 Allow state planning flexibility; 

 State primacy for planning and enforcement; 

 Compliance obligations should reflect early actions in advance of 111(d) rule.

 Prioritize loading order as: EE, DR, RE then fossil generation. 

 Determine sub-categories for BSER; 

 Incorporate remaining useful life of capital equipment; 

 Provide transparent guidance on the technology demonstration process; 

 Assess environmental impacts, capital cost and technical feasibility.

o Labor/Unions

 Considerations for 111(d) guidelines:

 Assess impact on electrical cost and reliability;

 Avoid job loss at plants that have already been retrofitted for EPA’s mercury rule;

 Plant by plant economic feasibility assessments.

o Environmental/public health groups, faith-based organizations and concerned citizens 

 Considerations for 111(d) guidelines:

 Allow compliance strategies for EE, DR and RE (centralized and distributed 

generation);

 Price externalities in cost/benefit analyses of compliance impacts; 

 Provide transparent guidance for states; 

 Set useful life thresholds for generating units; 

 Ensure measurable, verifiable and enforceable emissions in 111(d) state 

implementation plants (SIPs);

 Eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel industries;

 Public disclosure of emissions w/ penalties for non-disclosure;

 Limit false advertisement/misinformation capability of fossil fuel industry; 

 Guidance on methods for rewarding the cleanest facilities; 

 Timeline for closing the performance gap between new and existing plants;
 Include power plants that are currently under construction in 111(d) SIPs.

State plan development and implementation

 State Government

 EPA does not have authority to regulate carbon under Clean Air Act (CAA) 111(d); 

express authority is given to states under this section. Program should reflect state 

primacy. States need more time. States should have ability to disapprove federal 

plan.

 CA leadership has shown model for flexible strategies to reduce GHG emissions. EPA 

should use AB32 as a model for national program development for the power 

sector. Consider interstate benefits.

Additional Input

 State Government/CARB – CA supports the President’s Climate Action Plan.

 Local Governments (CA cities and local air districts) – Support EPA action and look forward 

to working with EPA to implement guidelines and projects.

 Industry/Business

 Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) - Supports EPA action on climate change because 

the energy sector must serve long-term national interests.

 Advanced Energy Economy (AEE) - Supports EPA efforts with state flexibility for 

technology options due to the wide range of jobs, products and services that will be 

created from advanced energy projects.

 Wind Energy Association - Supports EPA efforts as wind energy will help meet 

carbon reduction goals.

 Sustainable Business Council – Supports EPA actions that reflect triple bottom line 

outcomes and rapid deployment of renewables.

 Clean Fish (sustainable seafood company) – Supports EPA action because we need 

to reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based energy and develop clean energy 

technologies that create truly sustainable economic/job growth.

 Labor/Communication Workers of America (CWA) - Supports EPA actions to reduce carbon 

pollution and look forward to the green jobs created as a result of program implementation.

 Environmental/public health groups, faith-based organizations and concerned citizens -

Strong support for rapid, aggressive action to address the anthropogenic drivers of global 

climate change.

 Is Climate Change occurring? - Only one speaker challenged the factual/scientific basis 

behind the need to reduce carbon emissions.