1 From: John Pippert [JPippert@rachelcontracting.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 5:54 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: John Pippert [JPippert@rachelcontracting.com]

To whom it may concern,

Pl ease see the following comments regarding the proposed carbon dioxide regulations. We do not support these
new regulations.

• This rule will have a massive economic impact, not just in the electric sector but into the rest of the economy

as well.

• These EPA rules will have no discernible impact on global warming—even though that is the rationale

be hind them. The rest of the world continues to aggressively pursue affordable fossil fuel-based fuel

sources.

If the EPA must act, here are some of our suggestions:

• Ensure that their regulations don’t harm American jobs and the economy while being reasonable and

te chnologically achievable.

• Their regulations must be flexible enough to take into account the diverse needs of many distinct

g e ographical areas while respecting the States rights to retain primary responsibility for developing
performance standards.

• Any regulation must undergo a thorough cost-benefit analysis and be tailored to impose the least burden on

in dividuals and businesses as possible. The analysis should also take into account the cumulative impact of
interconnected industries and regulations and report on potential employment losses.

• The EPA should also seek input from States like North Dakota that have successfully demonstrated how to

ha rness the benefits of coal based electricity in an environmentally sound manner. The EPA should hold at
least one listening session in North Dakota.

Sincerely,



### John Pippert Jo hn PippertJohn Pippert hn Pippert

R a chel Contracting 4125 Napier Court NE St Michael, MN 55376 763.424.1500 (Office)
76 3.424.1508 (Direct)2 763.424.1501 (Fax) 763.244.7031 (Mobile) www.rachelcontracting.com

Description: Description: Rachel Logo for Email Signature

* ********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *******************

This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ***********************3 From: Scott Ressler [sressler@abrasivesinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 5:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal is good



### I’m writing on behalf of coal. The coal industry is an important industry in the US. I live in ND where coal has been used for a number of years to generate electricity. ND is also a state with good air quality! To just label all coal area as dirty is just not a true fact, just as ND has proven. ND also produces electricity from wind and even though we tend to be a windy state there are many time we have no wind or too much wind and not electricity can be produced. Solar energy can’t be produced on cloudy days but coal can be produced every day and it is dependable, 24 hours a day, 365 days a

year.

If the rules are changed regarding coal generation it will have a very harmful effect on our economy. Individuals, cities, country and the state depend on the production of coal. All the companies that support the infrastructure of the coal industry will also negatively affected, and that hurts the employees of those companies and the places they shop.

Changing the rules on our coal production will not affect the global warming since the rest of the world has no regulations at all. Our coal production companies have spent billions in all kinds of safeguards and will continue to do so to generate low cost reliable electricity.

At a time when the overall economy sucks the EPS should not be putting hard working American’s out of work!

It the EPA was serious and being honest about the coal industry maybe the EPA should come to ND to see how you can have quality air as well as healthy coal production.

A tax payer and someone concerned about the real future of the USA.

Scott Ressler

Abrasives Inc. Glen Ullin, ND P: 800-584-7524 C: 701-226-4738
www.abrasivesinc.com4 From: Adrian Citroni [Acitroni@MortgageNetwork.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:34 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

# NO NEW REGULATIONp e riod!!!!

Adrian MNET - pic



## Adrian Citroni Loan Officer
NMLS #144522
MN ET Mortgage Direct: (410) 916-0776
Sec ure Fax: 855-299-5752

Corporate NMLS# 2668 25 1 Najoles Road, Suite G Millersville, Maryland 21108 Start the loan process by visiting my website at: 

### www.newdealfunding.com e-Mail: acitroni@mortgagenetwork.com5 From: Carmen Hartwell [chartwel@yhti.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:48 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Proposed Rules - Comments



### I am the General Manager of Gascosage Electric Cooperative, a small cooperative located in Dixon, Missouri. Th e EPA proposed rules would have a devastating impact on the cost of electricity for the families and business owners in our already economically depressed area. I urge you to please take into consideration that they are barely able to afford their bills now and are certainly unable to withstand the size of increase that these proposed rules would result in. Of course we want the cleanest and safest source of energy for ourselves and generations to come. But we need to use common sense in the way that we reach that goal.

Carmen Hartwell General Manager Gascosage Electric Cooperative P.O. Drawer G Dixon, MO 65459 Phone 1-573-759-7146 Ext. 226 Fax 1-573-759-6188

CONFIDENTIALITY / PRIVILEGE NOTICE This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information

co ntained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to attorney-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited, and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law.

If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please DESTROY ALL COPIES RECEIVED and confirm destruction to the sender via

r e turn transmittal.6 From: Culley, Todd [TCulley@booneelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Hart, Barry (bhart@amec.org); Bullard, Joel; Shaw, Don; Coleman, Mel (mcoleman@naeci.com); Baker, Laura Subject: comments regarding carbon



### Thank you for the opportunity to comment, given I was unable to attend a listening session.

M any of the members my cooperative serves struggle to make ends meet, and I am very concerned that replacing affordable generation sources with more expensive power generation sources would create a reality where many citizens would be unable to afford to pay for energy. Today, our power supplier blends in renewable (wind) energy, despite not being required to do so. Even after the subsidies are applied, our members still pay an additional $20,000,000/year to cover the remaining costs of this non-carbon energy source. This amount ($20M) is nearly half of our power supplier’s budgeted margins for the entire year.

Furthermore, while many individuals say they are willing to pay more money for non-carbon power generation sources, in reality only very few actually do so. Our cooperative was one of the very first in our state to voluntarily offer renewable power (for only $3/100 kwh’s). For over 10 years, we have aggressively advertised this program, and yet today, only 128 members (out of a total of approximately 23,750 members) participate...with only a handful purchasing more than ‘one block’ of renewable power (at $3 each). Interestingly, a few years ago, we even lowered the price to $2/100 kwh’s.

Quality of life is what our industry provides. Electricity provides a safer and healthier existence; please do not play games with this essential service by removing our ability to maintain adequate cost recovery.

Good day-

T o dd E. Culley
CEO & General Manager Boone Electric Cooperative 1413 Rangeline Street, P.O. Box 797
Co lumbia, Missouri 65205-0797 Phone: (573) 449-4181 E-Mail: tculley@booneelectric.com Web site: www.booneelectric.coop

cid:3319616498_2501387

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail or via phone at 573-449-4181 and destroy all electronic or paper copies of the original message.7 From: Oetting, Melanie [moetting@consolidatedelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:58 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution Input for your consideration



### Hello EPA,

I address this message to you today as a plea to enco u rage you to not finalize a rule that removes affordable clean coal from our sources of electricity. I am here to tell you that affordable electricity is absolutely essential to the members that buy their electricity from my cooperative. Those members being rural Americans – young to elderly in age, large industry businesses, local farmers, pipelines, law enforcement agencies, volunteer associations, churches, schools, just to name a few. Adopting a regulatory strategy that will deliberately eliminate one of the most affordable sources of electricity for my members can have only one outcome- their electric rates will increase.

EPA can and should develop regulations which ensure th at ALL consumers have ALL potential sources of affordable electricity available, particularly the affordable electricity generated from clean coal plants that also provide hundreds of jobs for local workers.

I respectfully ask on behalf of our Cooperative employ ees and members , please continue the “All of the Above” strategy which includes clean coal generation.

Thank you,


## Melanie Oetting

M a nager of Administrative Services

Consolidated Electric Cooperative 3940 E. Liberty Mexico, MO 65265 573-581-3630 www.consolidatedelectric.com

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privilegedinformation. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.8 From: Suzanne Stockton [sstockton@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Suzanne Stockton [sstockton@ozarkelectric.com] comment



### Subject Line: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards

Sa mple statement:

I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect t h e fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Th ank you,

Suzanne Stockton Ozark Electric Cooperative 10943 Hwy 39
PO Box 420 Mount Vernon, MO 65712
417-466-2144 x2324 sstockton@ozarkelectric.com

* * ********************* ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *******************

This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ***********************9 From: Jim Barb [jbarb@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:47 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity . Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, 

# including coal

.

Jim Barb Off ice Services Manager Ozark Electric Coop 417-466-214410 From: LMStander [lmstander@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:59 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal



### Please don’t eliminate coal-fired power plants. Our members are already having trouble paying bills. You will

ra ise the rates sky high. Our plants are burning clean coal and meeting ALL YOUR regulations already.



## Linda M. Stander Marketing & Communications
M e mber Services Department Ozark Electric Cooperative, Inc.
P.O. Box 420 10943 Hwy 39 Mt. Vernon, MO 65712 417-466-2144 (phone) 417-466-7239 (fax) lstander@ozarkelectric.com11 From: Beth Kleffner [ekleffner@yhti.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:31 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal Power



## Hi, my name is Elizabeth Kleffner and I am the accounting clerk at Ga scosage Electric Cooperative in Dixon, Missouri. I am happy to work and live in this wonderful community that is rich in pride, spirit and faith, but not in money. Please use common sense in finding economical ways to keep our electric rates down. Getting rid of coal is NOT the answer, for as the results of this action would force rural Americans a tremendous hardship that does not have to be if common sense prevails.



# XÄ|étuxà{ ^ÄxyyÇxÜ

Accounting Clerk
Gas cosage Electric Cooperative

** ********************* ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *******************

This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ***********************12 From: Myles Smith [msmith@hoecoop.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Myles Smith [msmith@hoecoop.org] comment



### To Whom it may concern,

I appreciate the opportunity to briefly comment on the proposed carbon regulations. I would ask that you keep all fuels on the table and not eliminate one fuel (coal) due to the requirement of technology that has not been proven yet and will be very costly for rate payers across the nation.

Myles Smith Manager of Member Services Howell-Oregon Electric Cooperative, Inc. 417-256-2131 1-888-HOE-POWER (463-7693) http://www.hoecoop.org13 From: Nivens, June [jnivens@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:09 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Energy Policy



### To the EPA,

I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy
p o licy — an all-of-the-above approach.

There are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are
op posing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproportionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their
po wer from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from overseas. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other
states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed

to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.14 

### Which leads to our third objection. The Administratio n’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower-cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish

w ith existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Administration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate. Sincerely, June Nivens 

# une Nivens J une NivensJune Nivens

Assistant Manager Co-Mo Electric Cooperative, Inc. PO Box 220 Tipton, MO 65081-0220 660-433-5521 jnivens@co-mo.coop

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.15 From: Mercer, Jennifer [JMercer@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:57 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Energy Policy



### To the EPA,

I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-the-above approach.

There are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproportionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from overseas. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to our third objection. The Administratio n’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower-cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Admnistration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate.

Sincerely, Jennifer Mercer16 

### Customer Service Supervisor Co-Mo Electric Cooperative, Inc.

TEL P hone: 800.781.0157 TEL Direct Fax: 660.433.6103  E mail: jmercer@co-mo.coop

Sign up to monitor your hourly and daily usage at www. co-mo.coop. Click on the Power by the Hour link at the bottom of our home page.

touchstone logo (2)

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.17 From: Sinclair, Cathy [csinclair@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:41 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: please reconsider



## To the EPA, I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-the-above approach.

Th ere are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproptionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from oversees. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to our third objection. The Administrati on’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower-cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Administration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate. Sincerely,18 

## Cathy Sinclair

Customer Service Representative TEL P hone: 800.781.0157 TEL Fax: 660.433.5731

touchstone logo (2)

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

* ********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *******************

This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ***********************19 From: Stacey Smith [stacey@mma-web.org] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments on proposed greenhouse gas rules



### Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding EPA's proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. New federal rules could raise electricity prices, reduce power reliability, eliminate jobs, and have negative economic impacts far beyond the power plants being regulated.

Thousands of megawatts of low-cost coal- fired power have been removed from the nation's electrical grid over the past few years, partly because of new EPA regulations. Remaining coal- fired plants have had billions of dollars of investment in new pollution controls as a result of prior strict EPA regulations, and are meeting or are proposed to meet those regulations. Now requiring additional new controls, for which the technology is so expensive that it's not economical to install, threatens these very investments. EPA may force utilities to close existing low-cost dependable coal- fired power plants, resulting in stranded assets that electricity consumers will have to pay for through higher power rates.

Second, EPA must consider what restricting coal use will do to the dependability of America’s electricity supply. The agency estimated that their recent air rules would result in eliminating 20,000- 30,000 megawatts of coal-fired po wer. To date over twice that amount has been shut down or announced for closure. EPA must make a full and much more accurate accounting of projected power plant closures as a result of any new regulations, especially in light of its gross underestimations to date and in the past.

One need look no further than spiking natural gas prices and threatened power shortages in New England last winter, or reduced electricity power reserves in Texas, to see that parts of the country do not have a megawatt to spare. This analysis of reliability impacts is especially important in light of the large amount of coal-fired power already forced to retire.

Third, EPA must conduct an accurate analysis of job losses resulting from proposed greenhouse gas regulations. As you know, the President's promise of millions of "green energy" jobs has come nowhere near to fruition, while thousands of jobs have been lost in America's coal fields and power plants, partly because of recent new EPA rules. EPA must consider the regional imp act of these job losses, because some parts of the country depend much more on low-cost coal than others. Considering only "nationwide average" job impacts is not meaningful to communities where job losses have been devastating.

Finally, economic impact s from new regulations must be fully calculated, including both direct (increased power costs) and indirect costs. Indirect costs include impacts to coal mine and power plant service and supply providers, increased consumer prices caused by higher electric ity costs, increased costs to business due to brownouts that impair productivity, and adverse health impacts caused by higher power costs, especially to low-income and economically disadvantaged populations that must pay a larger percent of their income fo r their energy needs. Indirect costs also include reduced economic opportunities caused by decisions to avoid business development in regions with expensive and undependable power, and tax losses to governments at all levels. In the spirit of agency trans parency ordered by the President, EPA must account for ALL regulatory impacts, both direct and indirect.20 

### In summary, the EPA must fully analyze proposed regulations and assure that they do not unnecessarily increase power costs, decrease reliability, caus e job losses or negatively impact our economy far beyond the power plants being targeted.

Sincerely,

Jay C. Moon, CEcD, FM, HLM President & CEO21 From: Thomas P. Bradigan [tomb@bradigans.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:18 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Megan Conroy; CLIFF FORREST; John Stilley Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### To Whom It May Concern:

I live and work in western Pennsylvania. My 61-year old business and its 38 employees rely on the activities of the coal industry to make a living. I encourage you to find a way to affordably protect our environment, and, at the same time, keep coal as a major source of energy for our country and the world. To shut this industry down without findingsolutions to the problems at hand will be judged by our successors as short-sighted, parochial, selfish and heavyhanded government intervention.

The future critics of your potential actions against coal will be speaking of us as a government and a society that went too far for protectionism. If we let the coal industry die, our “American” critics may well be writing and speaking their passages in Chinese.

Description: Tom B Signature Block22 From: Connie Ware [cware@gower.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:51 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input; eric.anderson@nacoal.com Subject: EPA Proposed Regulations on Carbon Emissions

Chamber logo small.tif



### November 5, 2013

To Whom It May Concern;

It has come to our attention that potential regulations regarding carbon emission standards are being considered that would impact our community negatively as well as impacting communities throughout the country in the same negative manner. The negative impact would be far- reaching and would increase the burden on households, governmental bodies and the economy as a whole.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on EPA's proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. Empowere d by the Supreme Court, and following its 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gases endanger Americans’ health and welfare, the EPA is now embarking on an a series of regulations that threaten to be among the most costly in the history of the Agency. As state d by the EPA, the feedback from the public and other stakeholders “will play an important role in helping EPA develop smart, cost-effective guidelines.” To this end, Marshall Chamber of Commerce provides the following concerns:

• This rule has great potential to be economically devastating, with impacts that extend beyond the electricity sector and into the rest of the economy.

• EPA’s initial round of regulations will focus on electric power plants, and be most harmful to regions such as East Texas that are dependent on coal for electricity. This follows a wave of EPA regulations on the coal industry that has been cited as a factor in the closure of nearly 300 coal units in 33 states.[1]

• I t is very likely that, after promulgating regulations on existing power plants, EPA will turn to other sectors of the economy. As a result, the ultimate impacts of the regulation could extend to the rest of the industrial economy, from refining to manufacturing, agriculture, mining, etc. Taken together, these rules would have the effect of a massive back-door energy tax that presents a serious threat to American economic competitiveness, as well as the economic viability of Marshall, Texas.

• Adding insult to injury, these EPA rules—ostensibly aimed at addressing climate change—will have no discernible impact on global warming. Any reductions in U.S. CO2 emissions will be rapidly offset by increased emissions in the rest of the world, which is (rightly) ag gressively expanding fossil fuel use to grow economies and raise standards of living.23 

### Rather than implementing rules that will have direct discernible negative impacts to our community, Marshall Chamber of Commerce suggests the following:

• Ensure that any regulation promulgated under 111(d) of the Clean Air Act be cost-effective, attainable, and avoid harming American jobs and the economy. Further, any such rule must be reasonable and technologically achievable, allowing for the continued affordability and reliability of the electric system, and for coal to maintain its role as a vital part of a diverse energy portfolio.

• Ensure that the rule maximizes compliance flexibility. This should include full consideration of the unique circumstances of distinct regions and individual stakeholders. Additionally, EPA should recognize and preserve the longstanding role of the States as having primary responsibility for developing performance standards associated with existing sources under the Clean Air Act. This important principle was recently described in a recent white paper by 17 state attorneys general.[2]

• Undertake a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed regulation, ensuring that, consistent with Executive Orders 12866[3] and 13563,[4] the rule’s benefits exceed its costs and the regulations aretailored to impose the least burden on businesses and individuals. Such analysis should employ a “wholeeconomy model” that takes into account the cascading effects of large regulations across interconnected industries and markets.[5] It should also estimate potential employment losses consistent with therequirements of Clean Air Act section 321(a).[6] Finally, EPA should ensure cost-benefit analysis is peerreviewed and adequate time is afforded for consideration of public comment on this analysis.

• Perhaps most important, EPA should take the time to get this regulation right. The agency should prioritize ensuring a robust, inclusive rulemaking process over meeting arbitrary and rushed deadlines. Particularly during this pre-rulemaking stage, EPA has an opportunity to work with key stakeholders to address the widespread concerns regarding the design and impacts of this rule. At a minimum, this should include additional listening sessions in states that will be most directly impacted by this rule. EPA should also ensure its comment period deadline is set at least 30 days after the final listening session so stake holders can review and assimilate relevant information before submitting public comments.

As stated above, this rule will have a measurable negative impact to our business community, through increased electricity prices, reduce power reliability, elimination of jobs, and negative economic impacts far beyond the power plants being regulated.

Sincerely, 

## Connie Ware

Connie Ware
P resident/CEO

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *******************

This Email message contained an attachment named24 image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ***********************

[1] h ttp://www.cleancoalusa.org/sites/all/files/Coal_Fact s_July_2013.pdf [2] http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/20130911StateAGWhitePaper.pdf . White paper filed from state AGs from NE, OK, AK, FL, KS, MT, MI, AL, AZ, GA, KY, ND, OH, SD, WI, SC, WV, and IN.
[3] 

### http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf
[4] h ttp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385. pdf [5] See U.S. Chamber’s summary of concerns with recent EPA Clean Air Act cost-benefit analyses: 

### http://www.uschamber.com/reports/impacts-regulations-employment-nera
[6] Section 321(a) requires EPA to “conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment” resulting from air

r egulations, including “investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement.”25 From: Steiner, Andy [Andy.Steiner@nacoal.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 2:58 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### Hello –

I am an electrical engineer for a lignite coal mine in North Dakota. I’d like to express my concern for the impending CO2 regulations that may be placed on America’s existing coal fired power plants. I grew up in a small ND town where the town’s economy is based entirely on coal and agriculture. My father has worked 35+ years for a coal fired power plant and I now work for a coal mine. Coal has provided me and I’m sure many million others like myself throughout the country with a comfortable lifestyle that included food on the table, clothes on my back, and a roof over my head. Coal paid for me to get a college education and now I have a good paying job. My children will hopefully be able to have this same story. Without coal, I don’t know where I would be today, probably not as well off.

See, coal provides good paying jobs for America’s middle class. We are contributing members of society paying billions in taxes. We are not receiving government handouts. In my opinion that is the kind of job America should be creating and trying to maintain.

As an engineer and having grown up in the energy industry, I see what many people don’t understand. Our power grid needs base load generation. Coal is a cheap way to provide that need. Lights just don’t turn on with the flip of a switch like many people seem to think. Renewable energy sources are great, but currently they fail to meet the requirement for base load generation. How many air conditioners can run when its 95 degrees outside and the wind is not blowing? How many computers can run in the dark when solar power is their only means of a power source? How will all the electric vehicles charge without something to provide the charging power? A power plant cannot just start-up on a whim, many take at least 12 hours to get boilers heated up and generators producing electricity.

Placing these CO2 regulations on existing power plants could indirectly stifle innovation for renewable energy. Power companies would be spending money to retrofit power plants and in my case would end up being able to sell less power because of the amount of energy it will take to capture and transport the CO2 gas. This is money they could use to develop renewable energy sources or improving existing renewable sources.

In conclusion, requiring new CO2 capture regulations would be bad for America’s economy and could stifle innovation. Millions of people could lose their jobs, not just coal miners and power employees, but all the secondary markets in which we are customers. I invite you to hold listening sessions in coal country, away from the big major cities where there are no coal mines, but high rates of unemployment and welfare. There are many other side effects I have not mentioned if these laws go into effect and cause electricity prices to soar.

Andy Steiner Electrical Engineer Falkirk Mining Company
PO Box 1087
2801 1st Street SW Underwood ND 58576-1087 Office: 701-250-2432

falkirk logo26 

### N OTICE: This message may contain privileged and confidential information which is protected from disclosure. If you are not the addressee indicated in this communication (or an agent or employee responsible for delivering this communication to such person), you may not read, copy, use or disseminate this message to any other person. In such case, you should destroy this communication and kindly notify the sender immediately by reply email or telephone. Please advise the sender immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. This communication is restricted to the intended recipient and is not to be provided to a third party without the prior consent of The North American Coal Corporation or its representatives.27 From: Egli, Kathy [KEgli@peabodyenergy.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 9:50 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### Coal is the most affordable form of energy that we have in our country. I am proud to work at a coal mine. Please think hard before passing any laws that could jeopardize a lot of jobs and take away that cheap source of energy. Coal has a great history in this country and has been cleaned up so that emissions are now negligible. If you are looking at emissions reductions look more at the automotive side of things. That brown cloud over Denver is not from coal powered power plants.

Thank you,

hy Egli Kat hy EgliKathy Egli

E-mail Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail, and in any accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for the delivery of the message to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system.28 From: Lisa Murphy [lisa@hillcountryenv.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:45 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### Reducing coal-fired generation will have a detrimental impact on our country and cause higher priced energy. Coal- firedpower is affordable, reliable and increases our nation’s energy independence. A balanced energy plan includes coalfired baseload power. It is irresponsible to expect energy producers to invest in expensive controls and then be forced to shut down their plant without realizing the value promised to ratepayers. Our nation’s economy and countless jobs depend on coal-fired power plants that are attacked without sound scientific justification.

Lisa Olson Murphy, PE
Pr e sident Hill Country Environmental, Inc. 1613 Capital of Texas Hwy S., Suite 201 Austin, Texas 78746
O: 512.327.2725
F: 512.327.2750
C: 512.922.0293 www.hillcountryenv.com29 From: Keenan, Jim [Jim.Keenan@nacoal.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 4:35 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal fired Power plants



### Dear Sirs, Please take notice of countries that were on the same bandwagon as Obama on coal like Germany, who have since gone back to coal fired power in the light of costly renewables and lack of another source. We have a resource that is abundant, affordable and it is your job to represent the people of the United States in supporting coal fore generation in this country. Any other stance is close minded and not fact based.



### Jim Keenan Operations Manager Red Hills Mine Cell- 662.285.8745 Office-662.387.5232 jim.keenan@nacoal.com

NO TICE: This message may contain privileged and confidential information which is protected from disclosure. If you are not the addressee indicated in this communication (or an agent or employee responsible for delivering this communication to such person), you may not read, copy, use or disseminate this message to any other person. In such case, you should destroy this communication and kindly notify the sender immediately by reply email or telephone. Please advise the sender immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. This communication is restricted to the intended recipient and is not to be provided to a third party without the prior consent of The North American Coal Corporation or its representatives.30 From: Toni Bell [TBell@abovethelinecpas.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### I live in Gillette, WY with at least 5 coal fired power plants inside the county I reside. I ha ve toured these facilities and am told that 99.9% of what comes out of the smoke stacks is water. We do not have a "haze" in our town or our county. Wild Life is abundant. There is a huge miss-understanding in the public of the TRUTH. I would suggest you come here for a visit of these plants. I'm not sure how much cleaner they could get. Our economy and the WORLD’s energy depends on us. The reclamation efforts here are also astounding! I think that the EPA has done enough. Thanks. Toni

This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use,

co py or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply, and delete the message. Thank you.

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure : Any tax advice contained in this email (including any attachments) is not intended for and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein.31 From: jahumphriespepb@gmail.com on behalf of john humphries [jahumphries@pepb.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:36 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments on EPA Rulemaking: Carbon Controls for Existing Coal Plants



### Listed below is my comments on the proposed EPA Rulemaking on carbon controls for existing coal plants;

EP A Rulemaking: Carbon Controls for Existing Coal Plants

October 2013

High Electricity Costs

The proposed EPA rules would hurt consumers and businesses by dramatically driving up energy costs.

• The rule would nearly double the cost of electricity based on the government’s own

a n alysis:

o Families in Heartland states could face year ly electricity cost increases of as much as $1,000 or more.

o This comes at a time when the U.S. is working its way out of the longest recession in U. S. history and family incomes aren’t keeping up with rising budgets.

• EPA fails to consider those they will hurt the most: Hardworking families who will face what amounts to a regressive tax on energy.

o In the last decade, the cost of energy as a percentage of pre-tax income has nearly doubled for th e middle class.

o Six in 10 Americans say a monthly increase of as little as $20 in utility bills would create ha rdship.

o A record 115 million Americans qualify for energy assistance. [1]

• Coal drives the lowest cost electricity in the U.S.: Coal state residents pay 33% less than non-coal states for

e l ectricity.

o Natural gas averaged more than three times the cost of coal this past decade. [2]32



### o Natural gas is no carbon solution. Some researchers conclude lifecycle carbon emissions from gas are h igher than coal. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study that looked at switching to gas over 40 years concluded there would be “almost no climate value.” [3]



### Bad Policy

EPA’s actions are symbolic at best and will create all pain for no gain by driving up energy costs for no substantive impact on global carbon emissions.

• The EPA is “energy profiling” by picking favorites to drive U.S. energy policy.

• The U.S. economy runs on affordable energy from coal; we should do everything we can to preserve our

n umber one domestic supply of low-cost power.

• Carbon policy experiments have been tried and failed in Europe and more recently A ustralia. They offer a lesson, not a model for America’s energy policy.

o The Australian carbon tax sent electricity costs soaring to average costs that were more
t han 175% higher than the average cost per kilowatt hour in the U.S.

o Outrage over the problems associated with the tax resulted in worst Labor defeat in d ecades during the recent election.

• Less than 4% of global carbon dioxide emissions (CO 2 

### ) come from use of fossil fuels, including coal,

n atural gas and oil. U.S. coal plants account for just two-tenths of one percent of global CO 2 

### emissions. [4]



### • The U.S. has reduced CO 2 

### emissions by approximately 8% over the past decade, as global CO 2 

### emissions h ave increased 32%. If U.S. CO 2 

### emissions had gone to zero during the past decade, global emissions still

w ould have increased. [5]



### Path Forward

Utilities have invested $100 billion into new technology in recent years to reduce emissions. Continued deployment of advanced technology will drive power plant efficiency and is the path forward to achieve our environmental goals.33 

### • U.S. coal-fueled generation has tripled since 1970 as key U.S. emissions have been reduced by 87%. C ontinued investments in advanced technologies will continue this progress.

• Advanced “supercritical” technology, available today, creates more electricity using the same ton of coal
g iven the efficiency of the technology. In the U.S., this technology results in emissions that are one- fifth that of the existing fleet; CO 2 

### emissions are 15 to 30 percent lower.

• Each large supercritical power plant brought on line brings the same environmental benefit as removing

a bout 1 million cars from the road, according to the International Energy Agency.

• Supercritical technology, broadly deployed, is the path to deliver real environmental benefits.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [1] U.S. Census and U.S. Department of Energy, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association National

Poll, “Energy Cost Burdens on American Families,” Trisko et al, 2013, Support LIHEAP, 2012.

[2] EIA Electric Power Monthly.

[3] Bridge to Nowhere? NOAA Confirms High Methane Leakage Rate Up to 9% From Gas fields, Gutting Climate

Benefit, ‘Nature,’ Jan. 2, 2013.

[4] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Working Group I:

The Physical Science Basis, figure 7.3.

[5] EPA’s Carbon Capture Delusion, Sept. 23, 2013; National Review and BP Statistical Review.



### - - John A. Humphries, PE, CEM General Manager Princeton Electric Plant Board 270.365.2031 270.871.2331 c jahumphries@pepb.org34 From: Terry M. Jarrett [terry@healylawoffices.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:19 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments on EPA's Proposed Carbon Standards for Power Plants



### The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator The United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 4101M Washington, DC 20460

RE: Proposed Carbon Standards for Power Plants

Dear Madam Administrator:

I am writing to express my concern about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed strict new limits on

e m issions from coal-fired power plants.

As a former state utilities regulator in Missouri from 2007-2013, my most important responsibility was to make sure

co nsumers in my state received safe, reliable and affordable electricity. To achieve this objective, coal must remain an important fuel source for power generation. Coal provides almost 40 percent of America’s electricity because it is affordable, reliable, abundant and domestic. In Missouri, coal provides about 80% of our electricity as well as providing approximately 6,700 jobs in the coal mining industry. Putting such strict new limits on a fundamental resource that is a key part of this country’s energy mix will have a devastating impact on electricity prices, our economy, and good, family supporting jobs.

I believe in an “all of the above” approach when it comes to energy and the EPA’s proposals run counter to that approach. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and biofuels provide a rich diversity of fuel sources that offers our country a great advantage in generating electricity. With many energy sectors so unpredictable and gas prices always on the rise, coal provides needed stability. By singling out coal, the EPA’s proposals obstruct efforts to provide safe, reliable and affordable electricity at a time when our country needs it the most.

I urge the EPA to reconsider the proposed new limits on coal and to come up with new standards that recognize the im portance of keeping coal in the mix of fuel sources for generating electricity.

Sincerely,

Terry M. Jarrett, Esq. Healy & Healy Attorneys at Law, LLC

514 E. High St.
Suite 22 Jefferson City, MO, 65101 Email: t erry@healylawoffices.com Ph: (573) 415-8379

NOTE: The Missouri Bar Disciplinary Counsel requires all Missouri lawyers to notify all recipients of e-mail th at (1) e-mail communications is not a secure method of communication, (2) any e-mail that is sent to35 you or by you may be copied and held by various computers it passes through as it goes from sender to recipient, (3) persons not participating in our communication may intercept our communications by improperly accessing your computer or my computer or even some computer unconnected to either of us which the e-mail passes through. I am communicating to you via e-mail because you have consented to receive communications via this medium. If you change your mind and want future communications to be sent in a different fashion, please advise me at once. Thank you

.36 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Karla Baye [wworrn@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 3:33 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 12/20/2013 - 15:32
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Karla Baye Email: wworrn@gmail.com
Comments: Thank you for moving forward with carbon pollution limits for power plants, so that we can address climate change as quickly as possible to protect our health, our economy and our future.

We need to make a transition from dirty coal-burning power plants to cleaner fuels and sources of energy such as solar and wind power. We are feeling the impacts of climate change already, with more extreme weather, more droughts, more floods, and more extreme storms.

These pollution limits are long overdue and so we need to act NOW. Thank you for your leadership.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards37 From: DALLAS [hotsyeq@midconetwork.com] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 2:01 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon dioxide regulations



### Whomever,
I have lived in North Dakota all my life and have not had issues with pollution in that time. We have the cleanest air in the USA with the most power plants of any state. As for global warming, we would like to see more warming so we do not have to freeze for 6 months of the year. This rule will have a massive economic impact, not just in the electric sector but into the rest of the economy as well. These EPA rules will have no discernible impact on global warming—even though that is the rationale behind them. The rest of world continues to aggressively Pursue affordable fossil fuel-based fuel sources. If the EPA must act, here are some of our suggestions: Ensure that their regulations don’t harm American jobs and economy while being reasonable and technologically achievable. I know the technology is not available for these rules as of yet. Their regulations must be flexible enough to take into account the diverse needs of many distinct geographical areas while respecting the States rights to retain primary responsibility for developing performance standards. Any regulation must undergo a thorough cost-benefit analysis and be tailored to impose the least burden on individuals and businesses as possible. The analysis should also take into account the cumulative impact of interconnected industries and regulations and report on potential employment losses. The EPA should also seek input from States like North Dakota that have successfully demonstrated how to harness the benefits of coal based electricity in an environmentally sound manner. The EPA should hold at least one listening session in North Dakota. I am thankful that we have the coal to produce the cheapest electricity in our area. Dallas Sailer Dallas Sailer Enterprises 3625 Saratoga Avenue Bismarck, ND 58503
701-222-394138 From: dwdavidson@suddenlink.net Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 6:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal

Unfortunately, there are many residents of West Virginia who cannot afford their winter electric bills now with the price of electricity. With the increase in price, how are people supposed to live? I do not think the EPA is visiting any of the top states which are dependent or reliant on coal for their electricity. Please, please take a closer look at this situation so the people of West Virginia can survive. The EPA regulations are very unfair to many coal reliant electricity states.39 From: Dave Allard [davegallard@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 10:42 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Mccarthy, Gina Subject: Carbon Dioxide Regulation



### EPA Administrator MacCarthy,

Pl ease consider the following items regarding the EPA’s proposed Carbon Dioxide regulations:

• Congress should control the direction of any carbon dioxide regulation.

• The proposed EPA rules will have a massive negative economic impact, not just in the electric sector but

i n to the rest of the economy as well.

• The proposed EPA rules will have no discernible impact on global warming—even though that is the

ra tionale behind them. The rest of the world continues to aggressively pursue affordable fossil fuel-based

fuel sources.

If the EPA must act, here are some common sense suggestions to any regulations:

• Ensure that the regulations don’t harm American jobs and the economy while being reasonable and

te chnologically achievable.

• The regulations must be flexible enough to take into account the diverse needs of many distinct

g e ographical areas while respecting the States rights to retain primary responsibility for developing
performance standards.

• Any regulation must undergo a thorough cost-benefit analysis and be tailored to impose the least burden on

in dividuals and businesses as possible. The analysis should also take into account the cumulative impact of
interconnected industries and regulations and report on potential employment losses.

• The EPA should also seek input from States like North Dakota that have successfully demonstrated how to

ha rness the benefits of coal based electricity in an environmentally sound manner. The EPA should hold at
least one listening session in North Dakota.



### For your consideration, Dave Allard 2220 Grant Dr. Bismarck, ND 58501 701-221-317740 From: Danny Hillerud [dhillerud@bepc.com] Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Dioxide regulation



## Dear Members of the EPA, As a employee of a coal based electrical generating company I would like to express my concerns with some of the proposed carbon dioxide regulations. Here are some points I would like you to consider when developing these regulations.

• 

## En sure that their regulations don’t harm American jobs and the economy while

being reasonable and technologically achievable.

• 

## Their regulations must be flexible enough to take into account the diverse needs of

ma ny distinct geographical areas while respecting the States rights to retain primary

responsibility for developing performance standards.

• 

## Any regulation must undergo a thorough cost- benefit analysis and be tailored to impose

the least burden on individuals and businesses as possible. The analysis should also take

into account the cumulative impact of interconnected industries and regulations and

report on potential employment losses.

• 

## The EPA should also seek input from States like North Dakota that have successfully

de monstrated how to harness the benefits of coal based electricity in an

environmentally sound manner. The EPA should hold at least one listening session in

North Dakota.

Thank

You,

Dan

Hiller

ud4142 From: Bill Johnson [billy@teampro.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 4:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Bill Johnson [billy@teampro.net] comment

To Whom it may concern regarding carbon dioxide emissions regulations:

I would like to strongly emphasize my opposition to any new rules imposed by the EPA or any other government agency regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal fired utilities or heavy industry boilers!!!

• This rule will have a massive economic impact, not just in the electric sector but into the rest o f the economy

as well.

• These EPA rules will have no discernible impact on global warming—even though that is the rationale

be hind them. The rest of the world continues to aggressively pursue affordable fossil fuel-based fuel

sources.

If the EPA must act, please note these requests

• Ensure that their regulations don’t harm American jobs and the economy while being reasonable and

te chnologically achievable.

• Their regulations must be flexible enough to take into account the diverse needs of many distinct

g e ographical areas while respecting the States rights to retain primary responsibility for developing
performance standards.

• Any regulation must undergo a thorough cost-benefit analysis and be tailored to impose the least burden on

in dividuals and businesses as possible. The analysis should also take into account the cumulative impact of
interconnected industries and regulations and report on potential employment losses.

The EPA should also seek input from States like North Dakota that have successfully demonstrated how to harness the benefits of coal based electricity in an environmentally sound manner. The EPA should hold at least one listening session in North Dakota.



## Bill Johnson

2604 Snelling Cv Roseville, MN 55113 Direct: (651)450-5417 Main: (651)639-9552 Fax: (651)639-9554 Cell: (612)396-2877 billy@teampro.net http://www.teampro.net/43 

### TeamPro Mission Statement: Our mission is to provide solutions with the application of top quality equipment, engineering and services, from the most innovative and ethical providers, to fulfill our customer's requirements.44 From: WSwanson@otpco.com Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Thankful for Coal



### I am very Thankful for the low-cost electricity that coal powered electricity has given me, my family, and all of us in the

up per Midwest.

Bill Swanson Ma n ager, Supply Engineering Otter Tail Power Company 218-739-820545 From: Obrigewitch, Gregory A [Greg.Obrigewitch@nacoal.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 7:16 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I Am Thankful for Coal



### I am thankful for coal. The United States needs the following done by the EPA for all of its citizens.

• Ensure that the regulations don’t harm American jobs and the economy while being reasonable and

t e chnologically achievable.

• The regulations must be flexible enough to take into account the diverse needs of many distinct

ge ographical areas while respecting the States rights to retain primary responsibility for developing
performance standards.

• Any regulation must undergo a thorough cost-benefit analysis and be tailored to impose the least burden on

in dividuals and businesses as possible. The analysis should also take into account the cumulative impact of
interconnected industries and regulations and report on potential employment losses.

• The EPA should also seek input from States like North Dakota that have successfully demonstrated how to

ha rness the benefits of coal based electricity in an environmentally sound manner. The EPA should hold at
least one listening session in North Dakota.

A concerned citizen that is being burdened economically by regulations from a government entity.

Greg Obrigewitch

North Dakota



### N O TICE: This message may contain privileged and confidential information which is protected from disclosure. If you are not the addressee indicated in this communication (or an agent or employee responsible for delivering this communication to such person), you may not read, copy, use or disseminate this message to any other person. In such case, you should destroy this communication and kindly notify the sender immediately by reply email or telephone. Please advise the sender immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. This communication is restricted to the intended recipient and is not to be provided to a third party without the prior consent of The North American Coal Corporation or its representatives.46 From: Tim Thiel [tim@pumpsystems.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 5:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulations

Wow! I cannot believe the regulations you are attempting to pass and force on the coal industry. I hope you would look at what you are trying to accomplish and the consequences of you actions. Will you even accomplish what your objectives? And at what COST to the nation's economy and the welfare of the people you are trying to protect. Our electric bills will go up, many people will loose their livelihood and for what? ND has some of the cleanest air in the country and we HAVE coal plants providing A LOT of energy to many parts of the country. You seem to be on a power trip and disregarding any common sense on this issue. PLEASE, PLEASE, reconsider you actions and do what is the BEST for the people and the country's economy.

Every time you use electricity, consider the cost now and what it might be if you shut down the coal fired generation plants.

Tim Thiel47 From: James Mansfield [jkmansfield@kc.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Dear Reader;

Th ere is no such thing as "carbon pollution". Carbon dioxide from burning coal and hydrocarbons is not a threat to anyone. There will be no catastrophic weather, gobal warming, or whatever the term of the day is. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life. You, as you read this are exhaling carbon dioxide. Animals emit it. Plants emit it at night.

The term global warming was changed to climate change a while back when the fraud from Mann and Jones was uncovered by someone who got there emails. The planet is not warming. THe IPCC models cannot predict the temperature. Temperature on the planet follows carbon dioxide. Not the other way around.

The evidence is there for anyone who wants to search for it. If you are interested (I know that you are not) I suggest searching for the following on the internet.

1. Oregon Petition 2. Books by Ian Plimer, S. Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Brian Sussman, Chris Horner 3. Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change

The stated goal of mitigating "carbon pollution" is a political goal to benefit politicians around the globe. For others it is a form of religion. THere is no evidence that man is causing a catastrophic warming. Your policies will cause poverty and loss of wealth.

Have a great day.

Sincerely,

Informed Citizen48 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ben Eubanks Sr [bneubanks@nwcable.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:37 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/20/2013 - 17:36
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Ben Eubanks Sr Email: bneubanks@nwcable.net
Comments: Sirs; I was told by your Chicago office that I might be able to comment on the latest changes to the EPA laws on restrictions of carbon. First I was an underground coal miner for 26 years, my ancestors worked many years underground. Your new restrictions on carbon are too stringent. Our president seems to be trying to patronize big oil and the the hugging folks. I feel this is not a done deal and appreciate the chance to express my opinion! Already the threat of new sanctions are closing many mines and coal fired generating facilities , The TVA has spotted sex or seven generating plants as to yesterdays new cast. We here in Southern Illinois have lost several mines and perhaps hundreds if not thousands of mining jobs not to mention the supply vendors that bring in products to be used in the mines. We have a coal facility at our Southern Illinois collage in Carbondale Illinois the experiments in making clean burning coal, guess they will go down too! I am not against clean air but there has to be a half way point! Are you prepared to place all of the out of work workers on aid? If you people would just exert as much energy to cleaning coal as you do to shut it down, we might have something to brag about! You seem to be leaning towards fracking, this in my mind will cause much worse results. You will allow the ground water to be polluted,some earth quakes have attributed to the extreme hydraulic pressures used in the fracking process (44,000)psi. which came from your office. With fracking doing more harem than the burning of coal, I would suggest careful consideration be used before closing coal operations. Then too I have read that we have some ten thousand miles of gas lines on the surface with no inspection. Thanks Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards49 From: bgrossnickle@mris.com Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:34 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

What is going on? Do you want to create more expenses which could cripple first time home buyers and add more debt to existing home owners as well as affordable rentals.

Bobbi Grossnickle Re/Max Realty Plus, 205 E. Ridgeville Blvd. Mt. Airy, MD 21771 301-831-5600, x156, toll free: 800- 475-5128, x156, cell 240-446-9966 Referrals are a very important part of my business. If you know someone that may be buying or selling a home in the near future, please feel free to forward my info to them. You are welcome to call me with their information as well. Thanks for supporting my business. Have a blessed day.50 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Scott [scott@mymail.net] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 11:44 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/18/2013 - 11:43
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Scott Email: scott@mymail.net Comments: Existing regulations are overly burdensome. Please do not add any additional regulations, as they will likely result in cost increases to the consumer. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards51 From: Bloome, Mark [MBloome@archcoal.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:34 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: comments



### As a thirty year coal miner, I am concerned about EPA’s carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordable and reliable electricity. Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in

the nation. For example, coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of 300 existing coal uni ts in 33 states. And recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of- art coal plants.

To begin with, I disagree with EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions

under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulations are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal- fired power plants as a way to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase energy prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the

U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have reduced carbon dioxideemissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coalfired power plants have declined by almost 24 percent.

With that in mind,I believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations must not cause the retirement of any coal plants, under any circumstances, in favor of natural gas or renewable electricity generation.52 

### Second, electricity improves quality of life. Requiring less electricity use is a form of energy rationing that will hurt people, reduce life expectancy, and reduce overall standards of living.

Third, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Fourth, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Fifth, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near- term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and,
therefore, stranded investments in emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coal-fueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost- effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Mark Bloome ACI, Viper Mine 217 652 3237 mobile 217 566 3023 office mbloome@archcoal.com

***Email Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail, and in any accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system.53 From: Alma Engel [engelalma@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

My name is Alma Engel. I have been a resident of Arizona since 1994. I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rule regarding regional air visibility in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona.

In February 2013, the EPA issued a proposed rule aimed at limiting nitrogen oxide emissions at the plant. EPA's proposal would place a tremendous financial burden on me and my family as well as on energy users in Arizona and water users that take Central Arizona Project (CAP) water. The owners of the plant have made clear that the short timeframes in the proposed rule could result in plant closure. Regardless of whether the plant closes or remains open, EPA's proposed rule could cause serious economic hardship in northern Arizona and will force unaffordable water and energy costs upon Arizona businesses and ratepayers.

Because the EPA's proposed rule is unworkable on several levels, CAP and other key stakeholders formed a Technical Work Group (TWG) and developed a reasonable alternative that would protect regional air quality and also the future of NGS. The future economic well- being of Arizona, including the Navajo and Hopi people who depend on NGS for jobs and other income, is at stake. We urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Alma Engel 1209 W. Pepper Place Mesa, AZ 85201 480-775-0730 engelalma@aol.com54 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Larry Clayborne [Claybornebr5@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:30 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 09:29
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Larry Clayborne Email: Claybornebr5@aol.com Comments: No new regulations - Ernegy costs are too high. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards55 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Sandy [srmskm02@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 8:40 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/13/2013 - 08:39
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Sandy Email: srmskm02@msn.com Comments: NO NEW REGULATIONS! Our energy cost enough already! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards56 From: Jason Mick [jam3071@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:39 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Jason Mick, I have lived in Arizona since 2008 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely, Jason Mick Taxpayer from AZ57 From: Steven D Puckett [sdpuckett21@students.tntech.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:10 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

My name is Steven Puckett. While I understand the need for reducing carbon emissions, simply establishing an emissions standard without providing profitable and affordable ways to reduce that pollution is a fool's errand. Put simply, the market will combat it at every turn, in the same manner water "combats" a dam. The best way to regulate carbon pollution is to provide profitable ways for the market regulate pollution, such as promoting research into "carbon recycling", that way those affected, like coal fire plants, can save money by not having to pay for workers to scrap "carbon loving" mold of the stacks, but instead could make revenue by producing ethanol or gasoline from "carbon loving" algae. The economic concept is market realignment, it mimicks an environmental concept called river redirection (which was most notably was applied to the Mississippi River under the FDR administration).

T he other part is that any such regulations must be affordable both immediately and in the long run. A good example is a

ca talytic converter on a car. Most of the time it works, however when it no longer works, it becomes hazardous to environment and extremely dangerous to vehicle as catalytic converters are often cited for vehicle fires, and is unafforadable to replace. It's no surprise that average folks refer to the EPA as the government's catalytic converter. The catalytic converter is the everyday symbol of the EPA to average folks, as such, they veiw the EPA as clueless about the realities that are faced by "small town" America. In "small town" America, loans and tax breaks to farmers and small businesses don't help much, and restrictions and mandates are considered "death sentences" for farmers and small businesses. In "small town" America grants help, but are too often limited to just the intial cost and do not address the maintence cost that is often unaffordable. Of course, for "small town" America, the most thing to keep in mind is that "small town" American farmers and businesses have to compete with farmers and businesses from countries that don't have any environmental regulations which adds cost to products. The EPA should impose import tariffs and and import embargos against the products of companies that are produced in countries with weak, unenforced, or nonexistent environmental regulations in order to create an incentive for other countries to establish and enforce equal or greater environmental protections, help level the playing field for "small town" America, and help boost the revenue side of the EPA budget which can either be used internally or can be contributed to paying down the national debt.

T hank you for your time and attention.

Steven D. Puckett, Jr. Hendersonville, TN sdpuckett21@students.tntech.edu58 From: Newbold, Mark [MNewbold@cepc.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:40 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments



### To Whom it May Concern;

Th e new proposed rules limiting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of new coal and natural gas based power plants is a strategy that runs against the “all-of-the-above” strategy that I thought the current administration supported. We are a country that celebrates a healthy population and standard of living in part because of access to affordable, reliable electricity that is delivered by numerous sources. (Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Hydro, Bio-mass) Limiting the use of specific fuel sources has historically proven to be a very bad decision. In the late 1970’s the Carter administration made the mistake of limiting the use of natural gas and moved many power cooperatives and Investor Owned Utilities to invest in coal and nuclear power production.

Please reconsider the limitations that are being proposed on coal. Coal as a fuel source is much more affordable than many of the other options and helps to maintain a competitive energy market. It is also worth noting, that treating CO2 as a pollutant does not fit the scientific structure of what pollution is. Yes, the use of coal releases CO2 but so does the process of breathing, ocean wave action and normal geologic activities such as volcanos and geysers. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and issues regarding the levels in the atmosphere are still being studied and debated. Providing a direct correlation between CO2 from power plants and modifications to the earth’s atmospheric climate cycle are a stretch at best.

I ask that you please reconsider your approach and work with cooperatives and utilities across the country so that we may continue to provide affordable, reliable electricity to our members.

Thank you.



### Mark J. Newbold, SPHR Manager of Administrative Services
Ce n tral Electric Power Cooperative (573) 761-2843 Office (573) 680-0662 Mobile59 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Charlie [charlie_sheila@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 2:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 14:03
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Charlie Email: charlie_sheila@hotmail.com Comments: The power of the EPA to do unfettered harm to our freedom and/or our economy for unjustified reasons (e.g., the global warming hoax) must be rolled back. REASON and due diligence must return to governance. This country must return to the Rule of Law - real law, not pseudo laws generated by bureaucrats. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards60 From: Receptionist [Receptionist@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 10:34 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: I Support Coal!!



### To Whom It May Concern:

I w ork in the coal industry and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. I have helped put two children thru college with no outside assistance! And I have been gainfully employed with the coal industry for the past 27 years.

Thank You!

Debbie Bowser Debbie Bowser Rosebud Mining Company Rosebud Mining Company 301 Market Street 301 Market Street Kittanning, PA 16201 Kittanning, PA 16201 Phone (724)545 (724)545(724)545 (724)545- 6222 Ext. 221 Ext. 221Ext. 221 Ext. 221 Fax (724)543 Fax (724)543-

- 6375 bbie.bowser@rosebudmining.com de b bie.bowser@rosebudmining.com61 From: gulish1@windstream.net Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 10:09 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: gulish1@windstream.net comment

I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am
ga infully employed supporting myself and m y family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. 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 pollutant The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply false, wrong, and improper The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources lik e coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence it? Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those

r esources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outsidethe prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may not be needed – dogooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China.62 From: Brad Johnson [bjohnson@ntcc.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 10:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments on Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants



### Comments on the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Plants

My name is Dr. Brad Johnson, president of Northeast Texas Community College, Mt Pleasant, Texas. As the chief executive officer of a public community college whose tax district has coal-fired power plants from more than one utility company (Titus County, Texas), and whose students, faculty and staff live in the immediate vicinity of these same plants, I feel a particular obligation to speak to the proposed EPA emission standards for existing power plants.

While I am not qualified to address the scientific questions which are swirling around the issue of carbon emissions, I can verify at the local level that the present approach to reducing CO 2 

### is going to have a serious and permanent negative impact on my community. This impact will be in direct and indirect ways which I will briefly cite:

• Jobs – we have already lost a number of the best jobs in our area as the coal plants have shut down or reduced the operations of the plants in our area. We will lose hundreds of other jobs if these standards are implemented on the proposed schedule. Further, the coal plants are the major employers in our area, meaning any declines in their employment has a ripple effect through the rest of the community as store owners, service and support companies, and most other area employers depend on the spending from these core employees for the profits needed to stay in business.

• Community Institutions – my college has already lost more than a half million dollars in tax support and will likely lose more if the coal plants close any more stacks. The loss of local tax revenues in a rural area like Titus County is devastating since there are no other options to replace these taxes. City, county, and school districts will suffer the same losses as my college.

• Energy dependability – in a state like Texas, who is growing more rapidly than anywhere else in the nation, and who has produced the vast majority of new jobs in the last several years when it has been critical to our national economy, the dependability of electrical energy is crucial. Power plants in our area have been well-run, with outstanding safety records and efficient operational practices. I would argue that it is bad public policy to put these companies in the position of closing down operations because you have artificially forced their operational costs beyond the level of profitability or imposed timelines which are not reasonable.

The proposed federal standards will bring devastating economic turmoil to an area of our country that is already economically and educationally challenged, with few alternatives for our citizens. Every week I face serious decisions about balancing the needs of various college and community interests. I have found that when smart people understand the needs of both sides in a matter, reasonable policies and practices can be found that move the matter toward a necessary outcome without the need for sudden, dramatic steps that irreparably harm one group or another. I would ask our national policy makers to find a different path than that currently proposed. I would humbly suggest the following might provide such a path:

1. Set a timetable for implementation that allows scrubbing technology to catch up to EPA standards at a reasonable cost of installation: 2. Establish a greater concern about preserving adequate coal production. Taking plants offline too fast creates serious risks for power shortages;63



### 3. Find ways to compensate communities like mine who accepted these plants when federal energy policy was encouraging their construction and now, from no fault of our own, face serious economic loss. Until such compensation can be identified, and funded, these policies should be suspended.

Thank you for considering this perspective.

Brad Johnson, Ed.D. President Northeast Texas Community College PO 1307, Mt Pleasant Tx 75456 903-434-8102 bjohnson@ntcc.edu64 From: Don Ishman [donald175@windstream.net] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 9:57 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal

I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively effect my industry.

Thank you

Don Ishman65 From: K L [tea4kin@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:31 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: pat.o@azcitrus.com Subject: Carbon Pollution Input from Kin Liang

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Kin Liang, I have lived in Arizona since 1988 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Kin Liang

Taxpayer from AZ66 From: Jean Ann Fulmer [fulmjn@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:50 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

To whom this may concern:

We are a large family of six and my husband supports us solely on his coal mining wages. I understand my job will eventually be impacted by the Co2 regulations. We as a large family do not have any need for government assistance because my husband earns a good wage in the coal fields. Does the government understand how many working people they will put on the unemployment line if they continue to push for shutting down coal fired power plants. Through the millions of years we have had many climate changes from the warm climates to ice ages and we still have a functioning plant. Co2 is beneficial for plants so how can this be pollutant. We have many people in the USA who are poor and spend the majority of their income on energy and heat for there homes and gas for there vehicles. Coal is one of the less inexpensive ways to heat and increasing the cost of these basic needs for the poor folks is absolutely wrong. Please think long and hard before destroying the coal industry that so many Americans depend on as their main income. Our great grandfathers and fathers were all coal miners and have raised families on this industry. Lets keep this as a American Tradition. Thank you for listening to what we have to say. Thank you, The Fulmers from Pa67 From: Maurio Fischbeck [mauriofischbeck@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:13 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: pat.o@azcitrus.com Subject: Onerous EPA rules

Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

We, Dave and Maurio Fischbeck, have lived in Arizona since 19697. We are concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules

re garding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in
op eration. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs in volved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants

o n ly work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

re quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Ca rbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Pr oposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Dave and Maurio Fischbeck,

taxpayers in Arizona since 196968 From: Richard Best [rdbest2002@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 7:24 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Richard Best [rdbest2002@yahoo.com] comment



### I would like you to reconsider thew regulations that are being imposed upon rural electrification coops. It is putting severe hardship on the customers of these coops, raising the elexctric rates too high for most people to afford. Besides, it is ludicrous to believe that these regulations will make a significant difference in "global warming" , which is a farce anyway.69 From: Oakes, Nancy [NOakes@consolidatedelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 6:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Stop EPA Rate Hikes



### My name is Nancy Oakes and I am a member and employee of Consolidated Electric Cooperative. When the EP A establishes regulations that close coal plants, they are putting more people out of work in small communities. Coal is an affordable energy source. I k now that the Associated Electric Cooperative has spent a large sum of money to comply with additional EPA regulations to keep coal a clean source of energy.

We have several members that have installed their own wind and solar units to help with their energy costs. Ho wever, it does not keep up with their own demand. The biggest portion of their energy comes from the electricity we supply to them. I would like for the EPA to consider more realistic options to climate change issues.

Nancy Oakes Administrative Services Coordinator Consolidated Electric Cooperative P. O. Box 540 Mexico, MO 65265 573.581.3630 573.581-0990 (Fax) e-mail: noakes@consolidatedelectric.com

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privilegedinformation. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.70 From: Robertson, Jim [JRobertson@booneelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 6:09 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Affordable electricity

Affordable electricity is absolutely essential to the people that buy their electricity from my cooperative. Adopting a regulatory strategy that will deliberately eliminate one of the most affordable sources of electricity for my members can have only one outcome- their electric rates will go up. Please do not finalize a rule that removes affordable clean coal from our sources of electricity. If coal is eliminated, tens of thousands of rural Missouri families as well as those in other states will be forced to decide if they are going to buy food, medicine, or electricity but they will NOT be able to afford all three. Just imagine the harm to children and the elderly under a regulation that removes their largest source of affordable energy that they depend upon and forces them to choose whether to buy their medicine, food or pay their electric bill. Please consider how the daily lives of these people will change if their electricity costs escalate due to unreasonable EPA regulations. But, this does not have to happen. EPA can and should develop regulations which ensure that ALL consumers have ALL potential sources of affordable electricity available, particularly the affordable electricity generated from clean coal plants that also provide hundreds of jobs for local workers.

Thank you.

Ji m Robertson | Communications Specialist Boo ne Electric Cooperative 1413 Rangeline St. • Columbia, MO 65201 Pho ne: (573) 449-4181 Ext. 348 Email: JRobertson@BooneElectric.com Web: http://www.BooneElectric.coop

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail or via phone at 573-449-4181 and destroy all electronic or paper copies of the original message.71 From: Bill Temple [btemple@hoecoop.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:57 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: concerned citizen



### To w hom it may concern,

Without exception, the public are concerned about the price of electricity. Whether they are parents trying to feed their families, farmers trying to make a living on their land, or business owners trying to stay in business, the price of electricity is a major concern. These are the people least able to afford a rate increase of the magnitude we see coming if the proposed rules from EPA are enacted.

-- B i ll Temple72 From: Aaron Wheeler [awheeler@hoecoop.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:54 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Pubic Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards

Hi, My name is Aaron Wheeler & I live in West Plains, Missouri. I would like to express my concern & disapproval of the EPA's recommendation of an "All but One" approach to energy production. My household consists of 3 members that are supported by a single income. This has forced our family to be as conservative and efficient in all areas, especially electrical consumption. If EPA regulations regarding coal are enforced, all measures that my family currently implements will not be enough to offset the increased costs. Please take my concerns, as well as many others in the same situation as myself, to heart and consideration.

Respectfully, Aaron Wheeler73 From: Ken Brown [kenb@pcec.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:52 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Proposed Carbon Dioxide Rule



### My name is Kenneth Brown and I am the Manager of Finance and Accounting for Platte-Clay Electric Co operative - a not-for-profit rural electric distribution utility headquartered in Kearney Mo. Platte-Clay serves 22,000 meters just North of Kansas City, Missouri.

The Missouri Rural Electric Cooperatives and Platte-Clay Electric strongly oppose this shift of limiting the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of new coal and natural gas based power plants, and believe the proposed rule should be withdrawn. We support using a diverse fuel mix including renewables, natural gas, nuclear, and coal to generate electricity. Please work with the electric cooperatives to find a common sense solution that balances energy needs and environmental concerns.

-- Kenneth Brown Manager, Finance, Accounting, and Customer Service Platte Clay Electric Cooperative Inc.74 From: Jared Wolters [jaredw@pcec.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Proposed CO2 Rule



### My name is Jared Wolters and I am the Manager of Engineering for Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative - a notfor-profit

rural electric distribution utility headquartered in Kearney Mo. Platte-Clay serves 22,000 meters just North of Kansas City, Missouri.

The Missouri Rural Electric Cooperatives and Platte-Clay Electric strongly oppose this shift of limiting the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of new coal and natural gas based power plants, and believe the proposed rule should be withdrawn. We support using a diverse fuel mix including renewables, natural gas, nuclear, and coal to generate electricity. Please work with the electric cooperatives to find a common sense solution that balances energy needs and environmental concerns.

Jared Wolters

Manager of Engineering Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative (816) 903-737075 From: Cheryl Chandler [cherylc@pcec.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Proposed Carbon Dioxide Rule



### My name is Cheryl Chandler, and I am the Human Resources Manager for Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative -

a not-for-profit

rural electric distribution utility headquartered in Kearney Mo. Platte-Clay serves 22,000 meters just North of Kansas City, Missouri.

The Missouri Rural Electric Cooperatives and Platte-Clay Electric strongly oppose this shift of limiting the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of new coal and natural gas based power plants, and believe the proposed rule should be withdrawn. We support using a diverse fuel mix including renewables, natural gas, nuclear, and coal to generate electricity. Please work with the electric cooperatives to find a common sense solution that balances energy needs and environmental concerns.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Chandler Human Resources Manager Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. P.O. Box 100 Kearney, Missouri 64060 Phone (816) 903-7404 Fax (816) 628-3141

cherylc@pcec.coop76 From: Howard, Tom [thoward@callawayelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments to the EPA



### My name is Tom Howard, and I am the CEO/General Manager of Callaway Electric Cooperative, a not-for-profit
di stribution Cooperative located in Fulton, Missouri. I am also a member/owner of Callaway Electric Cooperative. Callaway Electric is owned by some 12,500 members located in Callaway and Montgomery Counties in Central Missouri, a drive of some 5-6 hours from the location of your meeting.

I am concerned about the impact the proposed regulations on new coal generating units, as well as the pending proposals on existing coal generating plants, will have on our membership. Our members reside in a predominately rural area, and income levels ar e modest at best. The proposed regulations on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants will cause an undue hardship on the members. Today, nearly 80% of the electricity generated to serve their homes and businesses comes from a coal plant, constructed during the oil embargo years. The plants have since been equipped with the latest technology for emission reductions. These plants provide safe, affordable and reliable electric power to Callaway Electric Cooperative’s membership.

Again, I am concerned about the impact that the proposed regulations will have on Callaway Electric Cooperative’s membership. I ask you to keep electric power affordable to our members by keeping clean coal as a viable option for electric generation.

Thank you,



### Thomas W. Howard CEO/General Manager
Cal l away Electric Cooperative 1313 Cooperative Drive Fulton, MO 65251 573/642-332677 From: Dave Deihl [daved@pcec.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:29 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Proposed Carbon Dioxide Rule



### My name is Dave Deihl and I am the Manager of Communications and Marketing for Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative - a not-for-profit rural electric distribution utility headquartered in Kearney Mo. Platte-Clay serves 22,000 meters just North of Kansas City, Missouri.

The Missouri Rural Electric Cooperatives and Platte-Clay Electric strongly oppose this shift of limiting the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of new coal and natural gas based power plants, and believe the proposed rule should be withdrawn. We support using a diverse fuel mix including renewables, natural gas, nuclear, and coal to generate electricity. Please work with the electric cooperatives to find a common sense solution that balan ces energy needs and environmental concerns.

Sincerely,

David Deihl Manager of Communications & Marketing Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. P.O. Box 100 Kearney, Missouri 64060 Phone (816) 903-7352 Cell.(816) 807-0202 Fax (816) 628-3141 davidd@pcec.coop78 From: Donna Irvin [dirvin@yhti.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: COAL POWER



## Hi, my name is Donna Irvin and I am the cashier for Gascosage Electric Cooperative in Dixon, Missouri. I am happy to work and live in this community that is rich in pride, spirit and faith, but not in money. Please use common sense in finding economical ways to keep our electric rates down. Getting rid of coal is NOT the answer, for as the results of this action would force rural Americans a tremendous hardship that does not have to be if common sense prevails.

Thank you

Donna Irvin79 From: John Singleton [jsingleton@brec.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: comments regarding new coal regulations

To the Environmental Protection Agency

My name is John Singleton of Fredericktown, Missouri. I am employed by Black River Electric Cooperative, a distribution cooperative which provides electricity to 24,000 members spread over ten economically depressed counties in southeast Missouri.

It is important that the voices of our members are heard clearly. They have told us in no uncertain terms that they have no interest in paying higher electric rates to combat global warming or climate change. In a recent survey 74% of our members said they were opposed to paying even $1 more per month to enact more stringent regulations on power generation. 74%!

The proposed regulations are estimated to have a significant percentage increase in the cost to generate power in Missouri. In BREC's service territory, more 60% of our members are 55 years of age or older. 52% are either retired or unemployed with little to no chance of increasing their income. Additionally, 35% of our membership has a household income of less than $25,000 per year. I encourage you to let that sink in, $25,000 per year for a household!

They simply cannot afford a 40-50% (or more) increase in their electric bills. They truly will have to decide wether or not they can afford to have what we all consider a necessity (electricity) or if it will become a luxury only fondly remembered. The negative pressure on our standard of living will be enormous, while our clean, abundant coal is shipped overseas and foreign countries will receive the benefit of our resource while improving their own standard of living. Please do not enact any regulation which will cause this type of economic hardship and the reduction of our quality of life. Instead, please work with electric cooperatives across the country to find affordable, common sense solutions.

Please remember our cooperative members during your decision making process.Thank you for your consideration.

Sent from my iPad80 From: Jeff Niland [cumorahjn@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input; pat.o@azcitrus.com Subject: We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

Our names are Jeff Niland and Mickie Niland, we have lived in Arizona since August 2001 and we are concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in

o p eration. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs in volved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants

on ly work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

r e quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.81 We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART P roposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Jeff and Mickie Niland

Taxpayer from AZ82 From: Kevin Wheeler [wheelerkdm@msn.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon rule



### I am very concerned about the proposed rules for the coal fired power plants. We are already taxed and

re gulated to death by the government. How can you propose some rule that there in no technology to do and say "we dont know what this will do to the end consumer". I live in a rural area and we all struggle to pay our bills and for our electric rates to increase just so the coastal areas are about the same is a bunch of crap. We are good stewards of the environment and I want to leave a better place for our children, but dont we tell our kids to do their homework before we do anything? So I think we need to make sure we do ours. The issue of climate change is the biggest pile of crap that has ever been placed on the American people, there are numerous studies that tell us that. Please take some time to study and analyze what effect this will have on the American people. Germany did this and they are expecting their electric rates to be around 40 cents per hour by 2020, that is quadruble what ours is currently running. Think about when you increase the cost of electricity how the ripple effect will take place. It will cost farmers more to produce and dry feed, more for coolers and storage before it gets to the store and let alone shelf time there. Please use the common sense approach when considering, Kevin Wheeler83 From: White, Clayton [Clayton_White@IBEW.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:08 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



## In regard to the Existing Greenhouse Gas Controls:

My name is Clayton White, I am writing this letter to you on behalf of myself and the approximately 5,000 people that work in the generation of electricity that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers represent in Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas.

• We feel that the future of job’s and the welfare of ou r families, friends, relatives and communities will be vitally impacted by the EPA’s decisions on the guidelines for existing source greenhouse gas controls for the power plants scheduled to be proposed in June 2014.

• Many people are experiencing unprecedented job losses, due to the shutdowns of coal plants that are occurring in response to EPA’s mercury rule and lower natural gas prices. The U.S. Department of Energy projects that more than 50,000 megawatts of coal capacity will be shut down over the next several years, with some projects approaching over 2000,000 megawatts.

• Most of these closures will occur at the older and sm aller coal plants that are not economically feasible to be already retrofitted with scrubbers and other controls needed to meet the new mercury standards, however the generating companies, such as the utilities will not be able to design and build the modern coal fired plants based on the lack of a proven large scale competitive technology for all required emissions controls.

• In addition to the loss of jobs, we are concerned that with the loss of generation will affect the stability and reliability of the electric grid.

• The generation of electricity by coal plants has alre a dy been reduced by more than 10% over the past five years, which has the potential to increase the rates to all consumers. With the reduction of the megawatts from the coal plants, then the natural gas companies will be able to hold the consumers hostage to the higher prices84



## of natural gas, did we not learn anything from the 1970’s, or has economics changed and the price of natural gas and price of electricity will not be determined by the supply and demand of natural gas.

• Our primary concerns about the EPA’s existing source “guidelines” for CO2 reductions is finding ways to avoid the loss of jobs at plants that have already invested billions of dollars in retrofit controls to comply with other EPA standards. We are aware that the states are going to have a lot of discretion in this program and we do not want to see arbitrary CO2 emission rate targets imposed on states that would force additional plant closures and more job losses. Some environmental people are proposing to set targets, which we are strongly opposed. We believe that the Clean Air Act calls for plant by plant assessments, by the respective states, of what amount of CO2 can reasonably be reduced at existing plants, such as by efficiency improvements. We also must note that CO2 emissions from coal plants are down 23% from the 2005 levels, and will be further reduced as more coal plants are shut down. The U.S. coal generation is only 4% of global energy-related CO2 emissions, so even major reductions would not have any meaningful future impact on the global climate. China, India and other industrial countries have been and will be the principal sources of future greenhouse gas emissions growth, and those countries have not or probably will not agree to any legally binding limits on their emissions growth. The U.S. emissions are declining and are on track to meet the President’s target of a 17% reduction from the 2005 levels by 2020.

• We have and will support reasonable measures to incr e ase energy efficiency at the coal power plants as a proper subject that seeks to reduce the CO2 emissions. However, we cannot support some arbitrary emission targets that would affect the stability, reliability, and close more plants, therefore, causing more job losses.

We appreciate the EPA agency’s consideration of our views of this issue, as we want this very important issue to be addressed by intelligent reasonable measures that is cost-effective, but is also so vital to the electrical grid.

Clayton White International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers International Representative85 From: Ken Johnson [kenkendraj@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: objection to the EPA's current plan on carbon regulations



### To the EPA, I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-theabove approach.

There are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproptionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from oversees. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co- Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to our third objection. The Administration’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower- cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Admnistration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate.86 

### Sincerely,

Kendra Johnson California, Mo Sent from my iPad87 From: Rohlfing, Chris [CRohlfing@booneelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:01 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Rohlfing, Chris; Culley, Todd Subject: Comment on Carbon Pollution Standards



### My name is Chris Rohlfing and I am Manager of Member Services at Boone Electric Cooperative at Columbia, MO.

M y concern is the impact to our electric users with both affordability and ultimately reliability if new standards are put in place that limit the way electricity is generated.

I am all for renewables, but they cannot provide the energy as dependable as what is now in place with coal. Not with the technology available today. It is improving, but it is not there yet.

We need to transition to new ways of generating, but this must be done over time, evolution not revolution, using science and technology that develops dependable energy production.

If this is rushed and the reliability of dependable electric energy is jeopardized, the outcry from the majority of American people will dwarf the cries of those asking for immediate change today.

When the power is not there and it’s cost is such that only the wealthy can afford what was once a basic necessity, the unrest could be serious.

Please consider the ultimate impact of limiting our current power production very carefully.

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail or via phone at 573-449-4181 and destroy all electronic or paper copies of the original message.88 From: Johnson, Ken [KJohnson@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:57 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Objection to EPA's Plan for Carbon

To the EPA, I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-the-above approach.

There are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproportionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from overseas. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aim ed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to our third objection. The Administration’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower- cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Admnistration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.89 Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate. Sincerely,

Ken Johnson General Manager Co-Mo Electric Cooperative, Inc. Tipton, Mo

Sent from my iPad

________________________________ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.90 From: Woodson, Mark [mwoodson@aeci.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:53 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPD Listening Session



### My concern is affordable electricity, by finalizing a new rule that removes clean coal the cost of electricity will rise for all
Am ericans. Many on fixed incomes will be forced to choose how they spend their limited funds to buy food, prescription, or electricity.

Mark Woodson91 From: Ed Harter [ejharter@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:45 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Jane Brewer Subject: Coal



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

I respectfully ask the EPA consider that foreign countries such as Germany and Japan are moving away from non polluting nuclear energy in favor of fossil fuel sources. Developing countries such an India and China continue to construct old technology coal fired electric plants that will more than offset any emission reduction of the entire United States coal fired generation fleet.

I respectfully ask the EPA to consider that the present technology for renewable energy sources will not allow for an ‘always there on demand’ electric grid that we now have with our present generation mix that includes coal fired generation. Elimination of coal fired electric generation will profoundly affect electric grid reliability.

One of my engineering professors moved to the USA after World War II. He was Austrian and fought Germany in English Armed Forces. His profound quote to his class in 1972 was that “ Rural Electrification of the U.S. in the 1930’s changed a class of peasants to the middle class.” Please do not undo this transformation. Keep electricity affordable and reliable.

E d Harter, PE Ozark Electric Cooperative, Inc.
417-466-496192 From: Maurio Fischbeck [mauriofischbeck@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: pat.o@azcitrus.com Subject: epa

Air and Radiation D ocket and Informati on Center, Envir onmental Pr otection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsyl vani a Ave., N W, Washi ngton, DC, 20460

carbonpolluti oninput@epa.g ov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & R E: EPA-R 09- OAR- 2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Maurio Fischbeck, I have li ved i n Arizona since _1969 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed r ules r egar ding carbon regul ati ons in ar eas surrounding the N avajo Generati ng Station i n northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants i n Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a rol e in reducing air polluti on fr om power plants that ar e already in oper ati on. T he law dir ects EPA to establish gui deli nes, which states use to design their own programs to r educe emi ssions.

We obj ect to the Car bon r egulation proposed for existi ng coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs invol ved in differ ent geographi es.

AZ has no oil wells to pump C O2 into which makes it unfeasi ble in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new car bon r egul ations that force the r epl acement of coal wi th Natur al Gas plants onl y wor k i n states that have N atural Gas. AZ has no such opti on.

The States impl ementation pl an is the best soluti on for long ter m tr ansi tion to l ess car bon, and the 10 th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Pl an in these reg ulations.

We ar e opposed to the stacki ng of regul ati ons on power pl ants that force them to cl ose, swi tch to N atural Gas or joi n a Car bon C AP and T AX mar ketplace li ke the one i n C alifor nia or R EGI.

Because the EPA's proposed r ules ar e unwor kabl e on sever al levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the T WG BART Proposal as the final rul e for N GS. We also urge the EPA to gi ve exclusions to the r ules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice i n AZ.

Sincerel y,

Maurio Fischbeck Taxpayer fr om AZ93 From: Eileen Bauman [EBauman@cecmo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments on EPA's Proposed Carbon Regulations



### My name is Eileen Bauman and I work for and am a member of Citizens Electric Corporation (CEC), a not-for-profit el ectric utility operating on the cooperative business plan. CEC provides electric service to approximately 27,000 members in southeast Missouri. It is our mission to provide our members with reliable and, most importantly, AFFORDABLE electricity.

During President Obama’s campaign, he spoke of an “all-of-the above” strategy which kept coal in the mix of generation resources. Now, EPA is proposing to adopt an “all-but-one” strategy, taking coal-fired generation out of the mix. Electric utilities have spent billions of dollars to meet previous EPA regulations regarding sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury. Now, it wants to impose restrictions on carbon which will cripple the electric utility industry. Theseproposed regulations will essentially shut down existing coal-fired generation and prohibit construction of any new coalfired generation. Without coal, the generation mix will be limited to wind and solar. These renewable resources are great when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. But what happens when the wind is NOT blowing and the sun is NOT shining? How are electric utilities supposed to “keep the lights on” when these resources are not producing?

Coal is still a crucial part of generating electricity in this great nation because it is a plentiful and cost-effective resource. Taking coal off the table will only result in higher generation costs, which costs will ultimately be passed along to the end-consumers. It is time for EPA to do its part in this regard: Pursue a balanced, common-sense approach to carbon regulations.

Eileen Bauman

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented auto matic download of this picture from the Internet. The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is

un authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender by return e-mail and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail message or attachments and any printed originals and copies. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, or for any damage caused by any virus which arises as a result of e-mail transmission.94 From: Scott, Denise [DScott@booneelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Rate Increases



### As we all know climate change issues are very important however many of us feel our electric rates have taken enough of a hit lately. Is anyone considering all the aerosol sprays in the world and what the harm they are doing? So many of the rural electric cooperative members are working very hard and will not be able to stand another increase. Can we all work together to hold the rates down and not hurt the little guy out there fighting to make a living this once? Thank you for taking the time and listening to our cry for not raising our electric rates for the little people.........

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail or via phone at 573-449-4181 and destroy all electronic or paper copies of the original message.95 From: Kevin Findley [kfindley@semano.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: commit



### My name is Kevin Findley, i'm the Member Service Coordinator for Se-Ma-No Electric Cooperative.The latest Member survey shows our av. members are 55 yrs. of age or older, these are people least able to afford the rate increase if the proposed rule from EPA is enacted. Please help protect our rates for electricity.96 From: Kathy Gann [klgann@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 4:03 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: carbon



### I ask the EPA to recognize the fact the electric cooperatives in Missouri have followed every regulation when we

co nstructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any of the options for affordable electricity. Please develop a rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable reliable NON-PROFIT electric to our members from all sources, including coal.

Thank You.97 From: Delana Stokes [djstokes@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Please hear our voices!



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.98 From: Dee Parks [Dee.Parks@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### I W OULD LIKE TO TAKE THE TIME TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ON THE EPA’S PLAN TO PUT EVEN MORE REGULATIONS ON COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS:

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry.

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that mayor may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns.



### PL EASE TAKE THESE COMMENTS AS A SINCERE ATTEMPT TO MAK E THE EPA SEE ANOTHER SIDE OF THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS VERY IMPORTANT MATTER.



# DeirdreParks

1755 DIME RD. V A NDERGRIFT, PA 15690 DPARKS52@COMCAST.NET OR DEE.PARKS@ROSEBUDMINING.COM99 From: Connie Gilmore [connie@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:44 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal



### Subject Line: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

e v ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Dav id Gilmore
Cus tomer of Ozark Electric Coop
Missouri100 From: Patty Killingsworth [patty@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:44 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Patty Killingsworth [patty@ozarkelectric.com]



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Pat Killingsworth101 From: Connie Gilmore [connie@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal



### Subject Line: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards

:



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

e v ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Si ncerely ,
Con nie Gilmore102 From: Dan Lohkamp [dan@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:32 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Dan Lohkamp Ozark Electric Cooperative, Inc. 724-5507 desk 838-4283 mobile103 From: Kendall Stephenson [kendalls2320@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Reasonable regulation

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code:
28 22T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460 carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is_Kendall Stephenson, I have lived in Arizona since _2000 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the C arbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or
REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Kendall Stephenson Taxpayer from AZ104 From: Cope, Coty [ccope@consolidatedelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Concerns with energy rate hikes



### My name is Coty Cope and I am an employee and member of Consolidated Electric Cooperative in Mexico, Missouri. I ask the EPA to please be sensible and keep in mind the many rural electric consumers that will be effected if outrageous rate hikes are passed. I believe we must protect our environment for future generations to enjoy, however extreme measures that will place additional financial burden on the many rural electric consumers we serve is not the answer.



# oty M. Cope C o ty M. CopeCoty M. Cope

Co nsolidated Electric Cooperative 3940 E Liberty Mexico, MO 65265
573-581-3630

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privilegedinformation. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.105 From: Justin Bass [jbass@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### I r espectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Thank you

Justin Bass106 From: Willingham, Carol [cwillingham@consolidatedelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:19 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Listening Comments

The Administration has repeatedly said that it supports an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. Electric co-ops have pursued “allof-the-above” by spending billions on innovative, clean and efficient technologies.

But the EPA’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at new power plants seems to be an “all-but-one” approach.



### My name is Carol Willingham, and I am an employee at Consolidated Electric Cooperative in Mexico, Missouri. Our

co operative serves nearly 8,000 homes, farms, and small businesses in a seven-county rural area in central Missouri. We are primarily an agricultural area that helps feed this country. My family also owns a grain and livestock farm. Farmers in our area depend on affordable electricity for many activities such as grain drying, livestock feeding and watering systems, irrigation and much more.

I am concerned about the impact these regulations will have on our ability to provide safe, affordable and reliable electric power to our members. These regulations on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants will cause an undue hardship on our membership. The cost of power makes up about 60% of our costs. Much of the electricity supplied to our members comes from coal generation that was built during the oil embargo years. These plants when built were outfitted with the latest technology for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Over the years our power supplier has spent billions of dollars to upgrade these power plants. As you can imagine we are very concerned on how these EPA regulations will impact these plants and the price of electricity that we provide to our rural members.

Administrator McCarthy, please withdraw this proposal and work with electric cooperatives on a common sense solution that balances energy needs and environmental concerns.



### Sincerely,
Carol Willingham

Manager of Finance & Accounting Consolidated Electric Cooperative P. O. Box 540 Mexico, Missouri 65265 Phone 573-581-3630 Fax 573-581-0990

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privilegedinformation. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.107 From: Kendall Stephenson [kendalls2320@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:13 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Navajo Power Plant in Page Az.

The Navajo power plant is a great benefit to the Navajo nation. It is essential to the Arizona economy. The pollution issue is blown way out of proportion. The cost of shutting it down far out weigh the any perceived benefits. Those that are pushing to close down coal powered generating plants are not trying to save the environment, they are trying to destroy the U.S. economy.108 From: Ted Zeugin [tzeugin@swec.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Enough is enough



### Nuclear is the only base load power supply with no carbon emissions but the EPA or some other government agency has

reg ulated that option off the table. Now the EPA is getting ready to regulate Coal off the table. So your position is to bet the farm on Natural Gas? I see a pattern here. Are you all just waiting for one big fracking issue to regulate that option away also? Wind, Solar, Biomass and Energy Efficiency is playing a larger role but will never be able to meet ALL of our nations base load power needs. So after all three base load options are made so expensive due to your regulations then what? I need to let our members know.

Thanks, Ted F. Zeugin

Ted F Zeugin
Man ag er of Member Services and Communications Southwest Electric Cooperative
800-262-0326
417-326-5244 tzeugin@swec.coop109 From: Pj O'Malley [pjomal@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Fwd: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA, I have lived in Arizona since 1958. I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona. The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions. I object to the carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies. Arizona has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state. Arizona has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. Arizona has no such option. The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

re quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations. We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to natural gas or join a carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI. Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no gas, no oil, no choice in Arizona. Sincerely,
Peter 

### J.O'Malley
T a xpayer from Arizona110 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Bart Buckley / Buckley Associates, Inc. [mbartbuckley@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:02 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 15:02
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Bart Buckley / Buckley Associates, Inc. Email: mbartbuckley@aol.com
Comments: The coal industry supports nearly 42,000 jobs and contributes $7 billion annually to the economy, just here in Pennsylvania. Taxes on mining jobs generate $700 million annually at the federal, state and local levels. The recently proposed EPA carbon emission standards will do little to curb carbon emissions globally, and other countries such as China and India are switching to more coal because they know how and what drives their economies.

These proposed regulations are insignificant to the environment and unnecessary , and our country will suffer greatly from these regualtions. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards111 From: Stacy Estes [stacy@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:59 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Clean Air Act



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

S t acy Estes
Oza rk Electric Cooperative (Missouri)112 From: Gene Dorrel [gdorrel@ueci.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Polllution Standards



### I am the CEO of United Electric Cooperative in Maryville and Savannah Mo.. United serves approximately 10,000

se rvices and over 4,000 miles of line. As you can see that averages to 2.5 per mile. With this low density it is very difficult to keep our rates affordable. We also serve some of the poorest counties in Missouri. As you decide on the new pollution control standards I hope you will keep in mind the people who will be affected the most. The low income and the elderly on fixed income. I am trying to be the voice for these folks as I know they will not contact you themselves.

Thank you for your concern.

Gene Dorrel113 From: Annette Freeman [anetfreeman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:55 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Navajo Generating station

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Annette Freeman and I have lived in Arizona for over ten years now ,and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Annette Freeman 4th Vice-chairman LD12 Republican party anetfreeman@gmail.com 480 577 6688114 From: BARB JIM [bimjarb@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Jim Barb Mount Vernon, MO.115 From: Jason Wilson [jgwilson@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:48 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### To Whom It May Concern,

I r espectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

R e spectfully, Jason Wilson116 From: Debbie Doyle [ddoyle@yhti.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:41 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal Power



## Hi, my name is Debbie Doyle and I am Payroll/Human Resources for Ga scosage Electric Cooperative in Dixon, Missouri. I am happy to work and live in this wonderful community that is rich in pride, spirit and faith, but not in money. Please use common sense in finding economical ways to keep our electric rates down. Getting rid of coal is NOT the answer, for as the results of this action would force rural Americans a tremendous hardship that does not have to be if common sense prevails.

Thank you, 

# Wxuu|x WÉçÄx

Debbie Doyle Pa yroll/Human resources Gascosage Electric Cooperative PO Box G Dixon, MO 65459 ddoyle@yhti.net 573-759-7146 ext. 244117 From: Holly Hodgson [holly@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:41 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.118 From: Jennifer Grossl [jenniferg@pcec.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:33 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Affordable Electricity Concerns



### My name is Jennifer Grossl, and I am the Director of Marketing at Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative. We provide affordable, reliable electric service to over 20,000 members north of Kansas City, Missouri. I can tell you that affordable electricity is absolutely essential to the people that buy their electricity from my cooperative. Adopting a regulatory strategy that will deliberately eliminate one of the most affordable sources of electricity for my members can have only one outcome- their electric rates will go up. Please do not finalize a rule that removes affordable clean coal from our sources of electricity. If coal is eliminated, tens of thousands of rural Missouri families as well as those in other states will be forced to decide if they are going to buy food, medicine, or electricity but they will NOT be able to afford all three. Just imagine the harm to children and the elderly under a regulation that removes their largest source of affordable energy that they depend upon and forces them to choose whether to buy their medicine, food or pay their electric bill. Please consider how the daily lives of these people will change if their electricity costs escalate due to unreasonable EPA regulations. But, this does not have to happen. EPA can and should develop regulations which ensure that ALL consumers have ALL potential sources of affordable electricity available, particularly the affordable electricity generated from clean coal plants that also provide hundreds of jobs for local workers.

If EPA’s approach causes additional changes to our power plants, our electricity rates will rise, which will create an additional burden on many of our members who already struggle to make ends meet. I have dealt first-hand with members who have had electric service shutoff for non-payment, and believe me it is extremely difficult for everyone involved. Further, the impact upon our industrial and commercial members will impact jobs which our rural communities can’t afford to lose.

We rely heavily on coa l because it is the lowest cost source of generation and has been since the late 1970’s when Congress banned the use of natural gas. These coal units still have significant remaining useful life. When these units were built, we installed the best available control technology for emission reduction, and since 1994, we have spent over $1.1 billion more to reduce emissions. Our members continue to pay for that investment today. Last year, over 10% of our members’ electricity came from renewable resources, both hydropower and wind. Missouri electric cooperatives led the way in bringing wind power to Missouri, and today we purchase electricity from 5 – soon to be 6 – wind farms. We also developed an energy efficiency program that is helping members use electricity more efficiently. We invested in these resources because of our concern for doing the right thing and not because a regulation required it.

I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to119 

### provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Grossl Director of Marketing Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative (816) 903-7310 office (816) 809-1460 cell jenniferg@pcec.coop120 From: Don Jester [donj@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:24 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Subject Line: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### Sa mple statement:



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

e v ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Donald Jester 104 west Alice st. Mt. Vernon, Mo. 65712121 From: Chris Robertson [cmrobertson@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal



### I respectfully request that the EPA recognize and respect the fact that MO electric cooperatives fo llowed laws and regulations when our power plants were constructed. We cannot afford to lose an option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow Missouri Electric Cooperatives to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non- profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Thank You

Christine M Robertson CSR Oz ark Electric Cooperative, Inc PO Box 1050 Nixa MO 65714 T(417)725-5160 F(417)725-1548 cmrobertson@ozarkelectric.com122 From: Chris Massman [cmassman@amec.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Listening Session



### Good afternoon,

As a person in his 20’s who is about to start a family, I am very concerned about the upcoming cost of electricity due to the future coal regulations. Providing for my family comes first, so I encourage you to use common sense when writing these regulations. As an employee of an electric cooperative, I ask that you think about the millions of members we have around the country and the devastation these regulations will cause them. Electric cooperatives in Missouri serve some of the most economically disadvantaged members of our society. Our latest survey shows that half of our members are seniors 55 years old or older, with 35 percent over the age of 65. One third of these senior members earn less than $25,000 a year, and one third are retired and living on a fixed income. On the other end of the spectrum, those younger members just getting started with families and careers also earn less than $25,000 a year.

Please keep electric cooperative members and my family in mind.

Thank you,

Chris Massman
As s n of MO Electric Co-ops Member Services
573-659-3437 cmassman@amec.org123 From: Jeff Sullivan [jsully@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:19 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: : 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal124 From: Suzette [suzem@att.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: New regulations



### I have been hearing about the proposed changes that would effect my electric costs immensely. I am retired, ha ving had to take an early retirement to care for my 90 year old mother until her death last month. During the time I was caring for her, she lived with me and we watched our bills very carefully; however, I had to maintain the temperature in our home in order that she could be comfortable. Last year, our power company (which has a coal powered system) had to raise our rates for the first time in many years. We adjusted to the increase and managed as well as we could. Since my mother’s passing, I am having to be extremely careful with my finances, as I am totally dependent on my Social Security income. I had a retirement plan where I worked, but since I had to take early retirement, it is not lasting as long as I hoped.

Please rethink your changes. I know the environment is important, but the day to day lives of Americans is also important. I don’t want to have to chose between food/medicine and high electric bills. Surely there would be some way to protect both the environment and the people who depend on coal both for their livelihood and for their electricity.

Please do not do this to your citizens.

Thank you.125 From: Tracy Brower [tntbrower@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:14 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution Standards



### I respectfully ask the EPA to consider the impact of the increased cost of power, which would result from these

re gulations, on rural America and develop a final rule that will allow safe, affordable, reliable electric power from all sources, including coal.

Sincerely, Tracy Brower

--126 From: Samantha Smoot [smoot@yhti.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:01 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: COAL POWER



### Hi, my name is Samantha Smoot and I am a consumer service representative at Gascosage Electric Cooperative in Dixon,
Mi ssouri. I am happy to work and live in this wonderful community that is rich in pride, spirit and faith, but not in money. Please use common sense in finding economical ways to keep our electric rates down. Getting rid of coal is NOT the answer, for as the results of this action would force rural Americans a tremendous hardship that does not have to be if common sense prevails.

Thank you, Samantha Smoot Gascosage Electric Cooperative127 From: Phillip Hood [phillip@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: COAL AS A FUEL SOURCE



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.128 From: Debbie Alexander [dalexndr@yhti.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal power



## Hi, my name is Debbie Alexander and I am a customer service rep for Ga scosage Electric Cooperative in Dixon, Missouri. I am happy to work and live in this wonderful community that is rich in pride, spirit and faith, but not in money. Please use common sense in finding economical ways to keep our electric rates down. Getting rid of coal is NOT the answer, for as the results of this action would force rural Americans a tremendous hardship that does not have to be if common sense prevails.129 From: Donna Cole [dcole@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Sincerely, Donna R. Cole130 From: Pat Walter [pwalter@ueci.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:58 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### My name is Pat Walter and I am the Member Service Manager for United Electric Cooperative. I visit with a lot of

me mbers of our cooperative and these people are very concerned about the cost of electricity. The average age of our members is very high and a lot of them are on a fixed income. In the rural Midwest the average income is very small compared to the East and West coast so if we take rate increases it effects them traumatically. I ask the EPA to reconsider and please “Don’t raise our rates.” Thank you, Pat Walter131 From: Jacob Bradley [JBradley@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:51 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: 11.04.13 Lenexa, KS Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed

ev ery law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Jacob E. Bradley, P. E. J a cob E. Bradley, P. E. acob E. Bradley, P. E. Asistant Manager of Engineering

Oza rk Electric Cooperative
P. O. Box 420 Mt. Vernon, MO 65712 Phone: (417) 724-5501 Fax: (417) 466-7239 jbradley@ozarkelectric.com132 From: Stacey Smith [stacey@yhti.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal Power Plants



## Hi, my name is Stacey Smith and I am the billing supervisor for Gascosage Ele ctric Cooperative in Dixon, Missouri. I am happy to work and live in this wonderful community that is rich in pride, spirit and faith, but not in money. Please use common sense in finding economical ways to keep our electric rates down. Getting rid of coal is NOT the answer, for as the results of this action would force rural Americans a tremendous hardship that does not have to be if common sense prevails.



# Stacey Smith
Stacey Smith Bil ling Supervisor Gascosage Electric Cooperative Po Box G Dixon, MO 65459 stacey@yhti.net Phone 573-759-7146, ext. 223 Fax 573-759-6020133 From: Jane Humphrey [janeh@yhti.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Getting ride of coal is NOT........



### Hi, my name is Jane Humphrey and I work for Gascosage Electric Cooperative in Dixon, Missouri. I am happy to work in th is wonderful community that is rich in pride, spirit and faith, but not in money . Please use common sense in finding economical ways to keep our electric rates down. Getting rid of coal is NOT the answer, for as the results of this action would force rural Americans a tremendous hardship that does not have to be if common sense prevails.

Thank you,

Jane Humphrey Gascosage Electric Co-op Customer Service Dept.
573-759-7146 Ex: 229134 From: Glen Cantrell [gcantrell@semoelectric.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Response to EPA's



### My name is Glen Cantrell and I am the communications manager for SEMO Electric Cooperative in southeast Missouri.
We serve parts of six counties with close to 16,000 meters and around 10,000 members. It roughly takes 2,500 miles of electrical line for us to our members.

Since I came to the Cooperative in 2008 I have had the privilege of meeting a lot of our members. They come from all walks of life. Teachers, Sheriff’s Deputies, business owners, nurses, gas station attendants, and of course, the occasional
retiree.

They all have unique stories to tell. Some happy stories like one of our members who is a retired superintendent who turned a hobby into a business and is about to go national.

Sometimes the stories aren’t so happy. We recently had a member tell us the story of how two of her children were murdered in two unrelated separate instances. It moved us to tears.

Then we have members who only have one story to tell. One of hard work and hardship. These members could be the hardest working people you will find, yet what they have to show for that hard work is next to nothing. Some are retiree’s who solely rely on what they receive from social security. These members rent their homes, live pay check to pay check and struggle to pay their bills. They don’t waste their money on tvs, cigarettes and alcohol. They couldn’t afford those things. The homes they live in would be condemned in most major cities. They may pay their bills on time, but barely have anything left.

These are the people I am speaking up for today. The ones who have no voice to speak for them. The ones who will be devastated if you, the E.P.A., allow these regulations to commence. What little they do have will be gone.

No one understands the importance of clean air than electric Cooperatives, but at what cost are we willing to make sweeping changes?

I urge you not to implement this plan.

Glen Cantrell Communications Manager SEMO Electric Cooperative Sikeston, Mo.
573-471-5821135 From: CHRISTIAN HERRE Owner [christianherre@centurylink.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:17 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Capture

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460 carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Do cket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA, My name is Christian Herre, I have lived in Arizona since 2011 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona. The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions. We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies. AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state. AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option. The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

re quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations. We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI. Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ. Sincerely, Christian Herre Taxpayer from AZ136 From: Kim Doyle [kdoyle@yhti.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Common sense solutions



## Hi, my name is Kimberly Doyle and I am the executive secretary for Gascosage Electric Cooperative in Dixon, Missouri. I am happy to work and live in this wonderful community that is rich in pride, spirit and faith, but not in money. Please use common sense in finding economical ways to keep our electric rates down. Getting rid of coal is NOT the answer, for as the results of this action would force rural Americans a tremendous hardship that does not have to be if common sense prevails.

Thank you, 

# ^|ÅuxÜÄç WÉçÄx

Kimberly Doyle Ex ecutive Secretary Gascosage Electric Cooperative PO Box G Dixon, MO 65459 kim.doyle@gascosage.com 573-759-7146 ext. 222 573-759-6020 fax 573-308-5800 cell

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted in this e-mail, including attachments if any, is intended only for the addressee and may

c o ntain confidential and/or privileged material. Any interception, review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited by law and may subject them to criminal or civil liability. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and destroy the communication from any computer or network system. Thank you137 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kenzie Watson [shea715@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:07 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 13:06
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Kenzie Watson Email: shea715@gmail.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards138 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Drew Hill [rudy223_mv@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:06 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 13:06
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Drew Hill Email: rudy223_mv@yahoo.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards139 From: Chasity Anderson [chasity@fec-co.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:03 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: An "All-But-One" Energy Strategy is NOT the answer



### I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Thank you.

Chasity Anderson Farmers’ Electric Cooperative
P.O. Box 680 Chillicothe, MO 64601 660-646-4281, ext. 20 660-973-3104 (cell)140 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Braeden Hill [jbrewer@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 13:05
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Braeden Hill Email: jbrewer@ozarkelectric.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards141 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of David Watson [david.watson@coxhealth.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 13:04
Su bmitted values are:

Name: David Watson Email: david.watson@coxhealth.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards142 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Shea Watson [shea715@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 13:04 Sub mitted values are:

Name: Shea Watson Email: shea715@gmail.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards143 From: Mark Stefanov [Mark.Stefanov@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### To whom it may concern,

I work in the coal industry which pays a person a living wage and provides their families with good health insurance and the government is trying to kill that industry. Curbs on carbon dioxide emissions will lead to the destruction of the coal industry and the hopes and dreams of many American families, hardworking American families. I ask you, why are we trying to kill our own people’s hopes and aspirations? There isn’t one country on this planet that would do this to their own people, yet ours is trying to do this because we have been high jacked by an uneducated movement that proclaims superior intelligence.

I implore you not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

Respectfully,

Mark Stefanov

Mark A. Stefanov
Ro sebud Mining Company 301 Market Street Kittanning, PA 16201
724.545.6222 ext. 314 724.525.0785 cell144 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Andrew Wlson [jwilson@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 13:03
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Andrew Wlson Email: jwilson@ozarkelectric.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards145 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kim Wilson [jwilson@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:03 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 13:03
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Kim Wilson Email: jwilson@ozarkelectric.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards146 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kellen Davis [kdavis28wvu@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:02 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 13:01
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Kellen Davis Email: kdavis28wvu@gmail.com
Comments: In considering the proposed carbon dioxide emissions standards on existing power plants it should be considered the impact they will have on the lives of the people of Southern Illinois. This is a carbon intensive region where coal, gas, and oil are all produced and many rely on these resources to make a living. Fairness would dictate that people of certain regions should not bare all of the cost of these proposed regulations which will shut down coal fired power plants. The people of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and other coal producing states need these high paying jobs. Coal mining jobs often exist in areas where there are few other opportunities to make a decent living. When coal fired plants shutdown the resulting loss in jobs from the plants themselves and the mines that supply them will most certainly be devastating to these places. It is one thing to require environmental controls which can be easily adopted but to require a technology, carbon capture and sequestration, which does not exist and will not exist the near future cannot be accepted by me or my fellow coal miners. These proposed regulations say to me that my job does not matter and my voice will not be heard; regulatory bodies like the EPA must follow the will of people and the laws written by their representatives in Congress. The EPA should not create such wide sweeping rules based upon presidential decree rather; the EPA should wait until Congress has decided what should be done about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It should be remembered that this is a government by the people and for the people, it is a government which should take remember the interests of all of its citizens not just the ones in large urban areas. The economic future of this country is at stake with these regulations. The natural gas boom which we are currently under will not last forever and there may be a time in the not too distant future in which we need the cheap and reliable electricity provided by this nation’s coal miners. The U.S. has a rap idly aging nuclear fleet with few units currently expected to be replaced. Solar and wind power are currently not feasible without generous subsidies. Hydroelectric power faces stiff opposition and requires vast amounts of land. As can be seen above, this nation’s future may be energy poor. Coal is the only reliable, safe, and cheap source of power we have. The EPA must remember that the risk of no power is certainly greater than a small rise in average temperature. Our nation is built on cheap energy and our standard of living will certainly suffer without it. Thank you for considering my comments, Kellen A. Davis

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards147 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Christopher J. Van Arsdale [cvanarsdale@peabodyenergy.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:00 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 12:59
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Christopher J. Van Arsdale Email: cvanarsdale@peabodyenergy.com
Comments: I am a resident of Evansville, IN and am entering these comments as a citizen to express my concern and dismay for this carbon regulatory process. I work in the coal mines of Indiana; I am a mining engineer by trade; my wife also works in the coal mines; and we, like everyone else, enjoy the quality of life that is achievable in this country due in no small part to the abundant, clean, and affordable energy we have access to.

Regulating carbon in any manner will have a detrimental impact to all people in this nation. Most impacted will be those who lose their livelihoods and careers; and this will not be limited to those of us in the mines, railroads, and power plants. The U.S.’s competitive power costs will be eroded and more industry and business will leave, affecting more and more families. All rate payers will feel pain at the plug, just like they do at the pump. As this continues, the impact will spread to all as the ge neral quality of life decreases as the costs to attain that quality rise out of reach.

Stepping back, a look through history can show that man’s advances are tied to his energy sources. Several hundred years ago wood for heat and horses for tractive effort were available to a portion of the population; even with these, life was neither always pleasant nor long. Unfortunately today billions around the world are still in similar situations and the impact on their lives shows. They live half as long as we do and must work very hard for that. Because of this, many yearn for what we have: abundant, clean, affordable energy, most of it from coal; and someday, barring environmentalist obstruction, they too can enjoy what we do.

Carbon policies are regressive; a veiled attempt to push a flawed ideology and transfer wealth from the people to a politically connected few.

All who can see know the effort to justify anthropogenic global warming was based on falsified data and a convenient political agenda. All attempts to model and predict have failed; by the way, wasn’t 2013 the year all the arctic sea ice was to be gone? Seems that it is still there.

Maybe it’s time the human race stops thinking so much of itself in this big world. And maybe it’s time to see the other side put their money where their mouth is and live like they want us to live. Go ahead, disconnect from the grid, and put those solar panels on your roof and windmills in your yard. Let us know in February how that’s working for you: how’s the bank account, what’s the temperature in the house?

Regulating carbon in this country will have no significant impact. By the EPA’s own numbers, approximately 19% of the world’s carbon emissions are from the U.S., of which 33% are from electricity generation. Even at 100% regulatory effectiveness, which could not happen, 94%148 of the world’s emissions will be cranking away. And at what cost to us – money, livelihoods, quality of life?

The energy mix we have in this country provides the basis for our quality of life; and coal is the biggest part of that mix. Regulating carbon will hurt all of us and do it at a significant cost.

If the agency wishes for guidance, I would suggest to open and truly free the markets. Let the people enter into the contracts that they want; paying for what they believe is in their best interest. Let that market do the work of driving change and developing technologies to fit the consumer’s desires. Innovation will flourish and quality of life will continue to improve.

In closing, a quote from Robert Heinlein:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded – here and there, now and then – are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right- thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.””

The EPA must avoid this ‘bad luck’; it must allow the people to be free in their choices, as no central planning can choose what is best for an individual. Our current power system gives us great advantage in our lives and a big reason for that is the use of coal.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards149 From: Tippie, Brenda [btippie@cmecinc.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:52 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Public Listening Session for Carbon Pollution Standards



### My name is Brenda Tippie and I am Office Manager of Central Missouri Electric Cooperative. We are a rural distribution

co operative and serve over 10,000 members in rural Missouri.

We are concerned with the price of electricity for our members. We are very concerned about providing affordable electricity to our rural members. A good portion of our members are family farmers. Affordable electricity is a must for them to be able to continue with their farming businesses.

I am speaking today on behalf of our members, farmers and families in rural America, who cannot afford to see electric
costs rise.

I urge you to consider common sense solutions to the climate change concerns you oversee.

Sincerely,

Brenda Tippie 

### Office Manager
660-826-2900 Central Missouri Electric Cooperative, Inc. btippie@cmecinc.com150 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jason Wilson [jwilson@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:50 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 12:49
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Jason Wilson Email: jwilson@ozarkelectric.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards151 From: Laura Hengstenberg [l.hengstenberg@crawfordelec.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:48 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: common sense required



### RE EPA’s proposed new regulations on existing coal-fired power plants:

Co mmon-sense timelines, funding for carbon reduction technologies & achievable targets are required unless you want to drastically raise electricity rates and harm reliability by forcing current base-load power plants off line.

Rural America, where incomes are lower than elsewhere in the country, already spends a disproportionate percentage of household income to power their homes and businesses. Steep, fast rate hikes caused by unrealistic carbon pollution targets would be devastating to our economy.

Laura Hengstenberg, CCC
M an ager of Administration & Communication Crawford Electric Cooperative 10301 N. Service Rd.
PO Box 10 Bourbon, MO 65441
800-677-2667 ext. 127
Direct: 573-679-2014 Cell: 573-680-2453 llgh110@crawfordelec.com

Follow us on: Web: www.CrawfordElec.com Facebook: www.facebook.com/CrawfordElec
Twitter: www.twitter.com/CrawfordElec

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and pr ivileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.152 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Anita Williams [anitasuewilliams@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:47 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 12:46
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Anita Williams Email: anitasuewilliams@yahoo.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards153 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Dan Brewer [jbrewer@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:46 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 12:46
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Dan Brewer Email: jbrewer@ozarkelectric.com Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards154 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Leno Rainero [lrainero@damascuscorp.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:45 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 12:45
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Leno Rainero Email: lrainero@damascuscorp.com
Comments: EPA Listening Sessions

Damascus Corporation is concerned about EPA’s carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordab le and reliable electricity. Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the nation. For example, coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states. And recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of-art coal plants.

To begin with, we disagree with EP A’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulations are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change. But, since EPA is developing these regulations anyway, I want to offer Damascus's perspective.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants as a way to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase energy prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coal- fired power plants have declined by almost 24 percent.

With that in mind, we believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Second, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Third, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near-term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional pre mature closures of coal units and, therefore, stranded investments in emission controls.155Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost-effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for your attention.

Leno Rainero Vice President Sales Damascus Corporation 26864 Watauga Rd. Abingdon, VA 24212 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards156 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jane Brewer [jbrewer@ozarkelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:45 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 12:45
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Jane Brewer Email: jbrewer@ozarkelectric.com
Comments: I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

I encourage you to consider common-sense solutions to climate-change issues you address. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards157 From: Carol Clesceri [carol.crwomen@cox.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Capture letter

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Carol Clesceri, I have lived in Arizona since 1994 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon

re gulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law dir ects EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in dif ferent geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in

s ta tes that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment requires the EPA

to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP

an d TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Carol Clesceri

Taxpayer from AZ158 From: Walters, Rett [rwalters@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Obama Administration Energy Policy - Please do not push forward with Policy on Coal plants!



## To the EPA, I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-the-above approach.

Th ere are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproportionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from overseas. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to our third objection. The Administratio n’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower-cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Administration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate.

Sincerely,159 

### Rett D. Walters, a Missouri Electric Cooperative Member and Employee.



### Rett D. Walters Network and System Administrator - C o-Mo Electric Cooperative, Inc. PO Box 220, Tipton MO 65081 direct line - (660)433-6161 rwalters@co-mo.coop

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.160 From: Sulltrop, Amber [asulltrop@howardelectric.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:09 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Keep Electric Affordable



### My name is Amber Sulltrop, I work at Howard Electric Cooperative, a not-for-profit distribution cooperative.

I take numerous phone calls each day from our members who in today’s economy struggle to pay their electric bills. Our members are hard working parents trying to feed their families, farmers trying to make a living on their land, or business owners trying to stay in business. Keeping electric rates affordable is a major concern for them and as well as my family.

I respectfully ask the EPA to recognize and respect the fact that the electric cooperatives in Missouri followed every law and every regulation when we constructed our power plants and we cannot afford to lose any option for affordable electricity. Please develop a final rule that will allow us to continue to provide safe, affordable, reliable non-profit electric power to our members from all sources, including coal.

Sincerely,

Amber Sulltrop Ho w ard Electric Cooperative Executive Assistant Phone #: 660-248-2663 Toll Free #: 877-352-0122161 From: Miller, Debbie [dmiller@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:54 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon pollution



## To the EPA, I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-the-above approach.

Th ere are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproportionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from overseas. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to our third objection. The Administratio n’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower-cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Admnistration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate. Sincerely,

Debbie162 

### Debbie Miller Consumer Service Co-Mo Electric Cooperative, Inc. P O Box 1279 Laurie, MO. 65038 800-781-0157 ext. 97404 or 573-374-5499 (fax no) E-mail: d miller@co-mo.coop

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.163 From: Bookout, Nancy [nbookout@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:53 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Regulations



### To Whom It May Concern:

There are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproportionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from overseas. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to fl ow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Whi ch leads to our third objection. The Administration’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower-cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Administration's aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate. Sincerely,

Nancy Bookout164 

### Nancy Bookout Systems Control Operator Co-Mo Electric Cooperative P.O. Box 220 Tipton, Missouri 65081

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.165 From: Cleveland, Hayley [hcleveland@co-mo.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:48 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: intelligent way to proceed on energy policy



## To the EPA, I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-the-above approach.

Th ere are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproptionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from oversees. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to our third objection. The Administrati on’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower-cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Admnistration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate. Sincerely,166 

### Hayley Cleveland

Customer Service

Co-Mo Comm.
PO Box 220 Tipton, MO 65081

Direct: (660) 433-6163 Fax: (660) 433-6135

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.167 From: Miller, Debbie [dmiller@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:47 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution



## To the EPA, I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-the-above approach.

Th ere are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproptionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from oversees. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to our third objection. The Administrati on’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower-cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Admnistration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate. Sincerely,168 

### Debbie Miller Consumer Service Co-Mo Electric Cooperative, Inc. P O Box 1279 Laurie, MO. 65038 800-781-0157 ext. 97404 or 573-374-5499 (fax no) E-mail: d miller@co-mo.coop

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.169 From: Petree, Barbie [bpetree@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:44 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Energy Policy



### To the EPA,

I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-the-above approach.

T h ere are four main reasons Co-Mo and electric cooperative across the country are opposing this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproptionately on Co-Mo members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from oversees. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co-Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit our members here in rural Missouri worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to our third objection. The Administrati on’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower-cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason we’re objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Administration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate.

Sincerely,170 

### Barbie Petree Special Projects Coordinator Co-Mo Electric Cooperative, Inc. PO Box 220 - 29868 Hwy 5, Tipton, MO 65081 Direct Phone #: (660)433-6160 Toll Free Phone#: (800)781-0157 E-Mail: b petree@co-mo.coop

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.171 From: houserbrenda@gmail.com on behalf of Brenda Houser [houserbrenda@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:34 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Voice my opinion



### • I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry.

• 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 pollutant

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply false, wrong, and improper

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lBCghts. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest

• The EPA ou tsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns.

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence it?

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may not be needed – do-gooding, well- meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns.

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China. Curt Houser Rosebud Mining172 From: Agliata, John [jagliata@co-mo.coop] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:34 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: All-of-the-above, please



### To the EPA, I want to encourage you at the EPA to return to the intelligent way to proceed on energy policy — an all-of-theabove approach.

I work for an electric cooperative in rural Missouri. There are four main reasons I oppose this plan. The first is that the burden of these new regulations would fall disproportionately on our members.

Cooperative members in the state of Missouri get upwards of 75 to 80 percent of their power from coal. The reason is simple: It’s plentiful and affordable. It’s an American resources that doesn’t need to come from oversees. And it’s reliable. Coal plants produce electricity when we need them to and at the levels that Missouri co-op members require. The Administration’s executive orders are, in effect, a tax on coal. Remember, electric cooperatives are not-for-profit. Extra costs have a strong tendency to flow downhill to the member. This is why we say your bills WILL go up, not MAY go up, as a result of this plan. States that don’t rely on coal and have other options not readily available to Missourians, such as states labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as good for wind or solar, have choices that Co- Mo members don’t. Only a small section of Missouri is labeled as good for wind, and it’s not Co-Mo Country. Solar is an even worse option here. So the bottom line is that a tax on coal is going to hit YOU worse than it will those from other states.

The second reasons we oppose this plan is that it wouldn’t address the problem it is aimed to address. The Administration’s stated aim is threefold. First, it wants to cut carbon pollution in America. Second, it wants to prepare the U.S. for the impact of climate change. And third, it wants to lead international efforts to cut global emissions. So say for a second that the Administration is successful in lessening the use of coal to produce electricity in America. That coal is not going to sit unmined in the ground. Developing countries such as China and India welcome the use of coal, so it is going to — and already is going — overseas. And the plants that will burn them do not have the strong controls on them that U.S. plants already do. In a matter of days, the very pollutants the Administration is trying to control will drift over the U.S. The big loss will be that American businesses did not have access to the low-cost power that foreign businesses have.

Which leads to my third objection. The Administration’s plans would hurt the economy. All businesses would face higher electricity costs, everything from agriculture to manufacturing, commercial to retail. American companies’ global competitiveness would be hurt, leading to more jobs being shipped overseas, where plants could be operated with lower- cost electricity. For a country still struggling to recover from the Great Recession, this is bad timing to be messing with one of our great competitive advantages.

The final reason I'm objecting to this plan is that it is simply not realistic to accomplish with existing technology. No technology currently exists that would meet the Admnistration’s aims. Coal plants would face huge retrofitting costs and still wouldn’t be able to meet their goals, so many would have to be shut down and move overseas. What would replace them? At what cost? To whom? How reliable would the grid be under the new system? What would the effect of an unreliable grid be on American businesses and families? All of these questions are, at best, unanswered by the plan being put forward.

Please reconsider your current approach to our President's mandate. Sincerely,173 

### John Agliata

-- 

# John Agliata, Certified Cooperative Communicator
Communications, Member Services and Key Accounts Manager
P hone: (800) 781-0157 Direct Extension: (660) 433-6174 Fax: (660) 433-5631



# F ollow us online!

www.co-mo.coop • www.facebook.com/comoelectric • www.twitter.com , @comoelectric • www.youtube.com/comoelectric

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are Co-Mo property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient's or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.174 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Tim Brown [tim.brown@whiting.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/08/2013 - 11:19
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Tim Brown Email: tim.brown@whiting.com Comments: Leave this alone completely. Look at the science - global warming is not happening, it is a sham. Shutting down coal power plants will cripple our economy and result in brownouts. Check supply/demand before adding more unecessary regulations. Have you noticed global cooling??? Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards175 From: Barbara Yates [backtosquare1@live.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:19 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA'S Proposed Carbon Regulations

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Barbra Yates. I have lived in Arizona since birth and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules

re garding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in
op eration. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs in volved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants

o n ly work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

re quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Ca rbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Pr oposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Barbara E. Yates Taxpayer from AZ176 From: Javier Cisneros [jcisneros99@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:53 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### To whom it may concern,

I appreciate the fact that the EPA is accepting the public’s comments and concerns about the EPA’s plans to write new regulations restricting greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. However, it would be short sided to issue new federal regulations without conducting an independent study of the true economic, health, and worldwide effects of imposing such restrictions towards existing power plants.

In my opinio n, America’s most abundant fuel source, coal, provides the end user [Americans] with dependable and affordable power. With new federal regulations, the price of electricity will surely rise and America’s poorest would be hit the worst. In addition to, exis ting coal fired plants would surely not be able to continue to operate and would result in an economic disaster. The coal fired generation and coal mining industry provides tens of thousands of high paying jobs and provides thousands of secondary jobs as w ell. Also, this industry that the EPA is “targeting” provides billions of dollars of taxes nationwide, which ultimately supports our schools, highways, police & hospital centers, and our essential services for the United States. Because of the points liste d above, I strongly believe regulations that restrict or eliminate America’s use of coal will not only cut jobs but will definitely hurt our economy and most likely put us back
into another recession.

To me, it’s most unfair and unnecessary that American s bear the repercussions of restrictions of greenhouse gases without similar requirements of other countries such as China, which today is the number one emitter of CO 2 

### . I understand the EPA is attempting to reduce CO 2 

### in the US; unfortunately the overall worldwide
decrease of CO 2 

### would be insignificant if other nations across the globe aren’t imposing similar restrictions.

We all want a better environment for ourselves, our children, and our children’s children, however this must be balanced with avail able and proven technology tosupport both coal and reductions in greenhouse gases. To me this creates a WinWin scenario. Conversely, on a global scale, issuing new federal regulations177 

### restricting greenhouse gas from existing power plants provides Ameri cans with a
Lose-Lose Scenario.

Extremely Concerned US Citizen, Ignacio Javier Cisneros178 From: John Reynolds [johnjen@reynoldsnet.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:51 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: pat.o@azcitrus.com Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

We, John and Jennifer Reynolds, have lived in Arizona since 1996. We are concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules

re garding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in
op eration. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs in volved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants

o n ly work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

re quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Ca rbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Pr oposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

John and Jennifer Reynolds Ta xpayers from AZ179 From: Sandi Bartlett [sbartlett5@cox.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:18 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Sandi Bartlett I have lived in Arizona since 2006 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

r e quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Marc and Sandi Bartlett Gilbert Resident AZ Taxpayer180 From: Horn, Tara [THorn@senategop.state.il.us] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 9:52 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



# Hello, my name is Sue Rezin and I am the Illinois State Senator for the 38 th 

# District.

I will keep my remarks brief as others here will be making similar points.

I am strongly concerned about the EPA’s new carbon regulations because of their impact on short term and long term electric prices in my district.

Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the nation, and that is especially true in North Central Illinois.

For example, coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people.

Unfortunately, we have seen the effects that the EPA regulations have already caused.

The closure of over 300 plants is not something to be ignored.

These recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of-art coal plants and further hurt the coal industry and the pocketbooks of the people I represent.

This will directly impact people in my district, not only in the way of jobs but in the way of higher utility prices.

To begin with, I disagree with EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.181 

# I believe this is an ineffective way to address the issue, and given the fact that it has other negative implications for the coal industry and the people the coal industry serves, other alternatives should be considered.

This is especially true considering that carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase energy prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change.

We are burdening our coal plants and businesses with these regulations – regulations that places like China and other areas of Asia that do not have to abide by.

Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy.

With that said, I stand with the groups who believe the following principles should be followed when developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Second, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Third, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near- term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore, stranded investments in emission controls.182 

# Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coal-fueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost-effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

It is my hope that the regulations and their negative impacts are seriously considered before they are implemented, and possibly be prevented altogether.

Thank you for your time and attention to this issue and allowing me to voice my

concerns.183 From: Kathryn Hancock [kathryn@hancock1.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 9:33 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: pat.o@azcitrus.com Subject: Fwd: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

To: ' carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov ' Cc: Patrick O'Malley

pat.o@azcitrus.com
Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

We have lived in Arizona since 1977. We are concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in
op eration. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs in volved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.184 AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

r equires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a C arbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART P roposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,



### K athryn Hancock

Taxpayer from AZ185 From: MRichar182@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:49 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Fwd: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

We are residence in Arizona since 2001. Like most Arizonans, we derive our living here and depend on a thriving economy for our families, friends and fellow citizens. We are very much concerned with the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and our other coal fired power plants.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which the states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing NGS coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different environments, or the devastating impact that implementation will bring to the quality of life and the financial stability to Arizona.

The EPA is well aware that Arizona has no oil wells to pump CO2 into, which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th
A m endment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, and the theories concerning global warming have pretty much been debunked. We urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,186 Michael and Kay Richardson

Taxpayer, voters from AZ187 From: Judy [jjbrittain@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:04 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal

Gentlemen:

Reasonable regulations regarding coal burning power plants are to our benefit, however, intelligent guidance must be a major consideration or we will all suffer from shortages of electricity and costs to the public and businesses that will be severely detrimental to our society.

Tremendous progress has been made in controlling emissions and more will come from the research being done at this time. It would be foolish to prohibit new construction and the use of existing power plants in the U.S., thinking that we alone should be responsible for reducing the world's emissions.

Please use great care in determining what, if anything, needs to be amended at this time.

Sincerely,

James J. Brittain St. Louis, MO188 From: Mike Green [Mike.Green@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 6:27 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

R.M.Green 28 0 Ford city rd Freeport Pa, 16229

To who it may concern, I am writing to you to express my concern over proposed carbon standards on power plants in this state and also in the rest of the country. I have worked in the coal fields for 35yrs and many of my family and friends also do. It has provided a good living for all of us and many others. We fear with these standards will kill our jobs. How can you be ok with doing away with so many good paying jobs when are economy is so poor with unemployment off the charts. This will make matters much more difficult, why is it always the good hard working people the ones that suffer most. We are not collecting welfare or food stamps we just want the chance to provide for are selfs. We do not want the government to take care of us like so many people do anymore. Coal is cleaner that it's ever been. The new standards proposed are unrealistic and the technology to meet them is not practicable the cost would be to great they would be forced to close. A abundant of coal in this country it doesn't make good sense not to use our resources rather that be dependent on other country's. The rest of the world has no standards at all. The is no proof at of the greenhouse effect at all . They can't even predict the weather for next week, I been around for 55yrs there has very little changes in the weather, some years are hot and some years are cool some rainey, some years have lots of snow some don't it goes in cycles. Please fight for me and all hard working Americans. Let's use coal and keep people working. Thanks sincerely, Regis Michael Green , Pa coal miner

Sent from my iPad189 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Donna Goss [glenndonnagoss@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:00 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 22:59
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Donna Goss Email: glenndonnagoss@verizon.net
Comments: EPA Listening Sessions Good morning/afternoon, my name is Donna Goss.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about EPA’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

I am concerned about EPA’s carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordable and reliable electricity. Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the nation. For example, coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states. And recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of-art coal plants.

To begin with, I disagree with EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulations are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change. But, since EPA is developing these regulations anyway, I want to offer [organization’s] perspective.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants as a way to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase energy prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coal- fired power plants have declined by almost 24 percent.

With that in mind, I believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Second, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.190 Third, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near-term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore, st randed investments in emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost-effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for your attention.
Donna M. Goss Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards191 From: Barry [retired64@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:58 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

We, Barry and Phyllis Spinka, have lived in Arizona since 1994. We are concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules

re garding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs in volved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants

o n ly work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

re quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Ca rbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Pr oposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Barry and Phyllis Spinka

Taxpayers of Arizona192 From: Rebecca McCormick [mccormick.3@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:44 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Supporting Coal



### I work in the Coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. 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 Greelnad 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 pollutant? Th e EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply FALSE, WRONG, and IMPROPER. THe poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts themas simply wrong and not in anyone's best interest. If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence it? We need to protect our jobs and be able to provide for our families the way we always have.

Respectfully,

Mike McCormick 25 years working in the Coal Mines193 From: Alan Pisarcik [adpisarcik@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Listening Session



### America has relied on coal as a cheap, dependable energy source for decades. The federal government has attempted to create an environment in where production of coal is forced to decline. Federal politicians should not be creating polities and regulations that effect the role of coal in our Country. We need to stop wasting time, money and energy on unnecessary regulations that will lead to loss of a great number of jobs due to the technology not being economical or practical. We need to work together, with the technology that is already available, to help produce cleaner coal.

Sincerely, Alan Pisarcik194 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of EDWARD LITTLE [elittle@jennmar.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 7:50 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 19:50
Su bmitted values are:

Name: EDWARD LITTLE Email: elittle@jennmar.com
Comments: WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT FOUNDING FOR THE COAL POWER PLANTS. GOVERNMENT GIVES FOUNDING FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. WHY CANT THE GOVERNMENT HELP OUT THE COAL POWER PLANTS TO KEEP UP WITH THE EPA REGULATIONS. WHY ABANDON COAL THAT KEPT THIS COUNTRY GOING FOR DECADES. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards195 From: Ken Fletcher [fletcherk66@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 7:46 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Dont shut down coal fired power plants



### I work in the coal fields and have a job that co2 regulations will impact. I am employed supporting my family and have no need for government assistance. The climate has changed for millions of years. 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 pullutant. If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now , how can they forecast and model complex global weather patterns decades in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence it. Our globle economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and giving an economic edge to those countries we compete againts, such as China.196 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of S Hughes [myRepublic@reaganemail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 7:29 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 19:29
Su bmitted values are:

Name: S Hughes Email: myRepublic@reaganemail.com Comments: As a citizen of Pennsylvania and the United States of America I do NOT support the EPA's orverregulation of the coal industry. Furthermore, the emission of carbon dioxide is not having a substantial effect on our climate on Earth. Stop overreaching overegulation of our energy resources! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards197 From: Gary Ripley [itsgaryinaz@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 6:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Gary Ripley, I have lived in Arizona since 1977. I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

I object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

I am opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely, Gary Ripley198 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Micah Knapp [micah_knapp@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 6:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 18:11
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Micah Knapp Email: micah_knapp@hotmail.com Comments: I have been informed your department is looking at toughening regulations further on power plants in Texas (and elsewhere?). Effects ethanol regulations was bad enough mechanically and financially. Reconsider tightening coal, or any other regulations. Instead focus on how to get modern, clean refineries implemented without bankrupting organizations. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards199 From: Weber, Adam [AWeber@cepc.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:57 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards



### Hello, My name is Adam Weber and I am an electrical engineer at Central Electric Power Cooperative in Jefferson City, MO. My wife and I are lifelong residents of central Missouri and know many people who would be affected greatly by the regulations you are proposing due to their impact on the electric rates for all Midwest residents and business. Of course as business electricity rates go up, the prices of other goods and services also increase. Although you say that the science behind climate change is unquestionable, I would argue that your solutions to climate change are most certainly questionable. I do not believe that climate change is a direct threat to the health, safety, and welfare of my fellow United States citizens. I also do not believe that we as human beings have the ability to control weather regardless of whether we think it is changing or not. I get this viewpoint from reading Job chapter 38 and I recommend that you read it as well. While I again think that our ability to keep the weather from changing is extremely questionable, the effect these regulations will have on our economy are not. Your proposed regulation will have a detrimental effect on lower income and fixed income families in the Midwest due to the current amount of coal fired generation in the Midwest and the extra cost of other generation options. Please reconsider these regulations and work toward a solution that includes clean coal and natural gas electric generation options, and is fair to all citizens of the United States. Thank you.

Adam Weber, P.E.
Man ager of Transmission Operations Central Electric Power Cooperative Jefferson City, MO (57 3) 761-2869200 From: John Ochs [John.Ochs@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### To Whom It May Concern;

I a m writing to voice my opposition to the proposed CO2 regulations currently under review. The politicized EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting of the international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. In addition, the EPA itself has stated that the proposed rule will not result in notable CO2 emission change. Someday coal will be replaced by an alternative energy source and we all will have to adjust to the changes, but there is no need to arbitrarily contribute to the death of an entire industry for purely political purposes. The economic harm caused from these regulations will be for nothing. Please base your decision on facts, not flawed and discredited climate change modeling. Sincerely,

John M. Ochs201 From: mike elliott [mike.elliott.wslb@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: mike elliott Subject: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen Comments



## Seattle, WA.

11/07/13

Mike Elliott, Spokesman

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

Washington State Legislative Board

Good afternoon, my name is Mike Elliott and I make these comments on behalf of the

m e n and women represented by the BLET-Washington State Legislative Board. Our state board represents over 700 members working on four railroads (BNSF, UP, AMTRAK, & Tacoma Rail) in Washington State.

The future of our jobs, the welfare of our families, and of our communities will be vitally impacted by the direction EPA 's takes with regards to its guidelines for existing source greenhouse gas controls of power plants scheduled to take effect in June 2014.

Many of us in rail labor, as well as in other union craft jobs, are experiencing
unp recedented job loss due to the shutdowns of coal fired power plants associated with EPA's emission standards and account of record low natural gas prices over the past several years.202 

## The U.S. Department of Energy projects that more than 50,000 megawatts of coal-fired generating capacity will be shut down over the next few years. Most of these closures will occur at older, smaller coal fired plants where it is not economically viable to retrofit scrubbers and other emission control technologies needed to meet new EPA standards.

These job losses will accelerate in 2015 and 2016 when the additional EPA emission

s tandards take effect. Rail labor, along with other union crafts involved in maintenance, supply chain, and operation of coal fired power plants, will lose tens of thousands of high-paying, family-wage jobs if natural gas is allowed to further supplant coal as a fuel source.

Of particular concern, many natural gas generating plants are remotely controlled and ha ve fewer permanent employees. Additionally, oil field natural gas fracking jobs are mostly temporary and notoriously non-union.

Our primary concern with EPA's existing source "guidelines" for CO2 reductions is
f inding ways to mitigate job loss at plants that have just invested billions of dollars in retrofit measures for cleaner coal fired operations.

We believe the intent is for states to have wider discretion in this program. We do not

w ant to see arbitrary CO2 emission “guidelines” imposed on states that could further accelerate natural gas proliferation and subsequent coal-fired plant closures. Unfortunately, some special interest groups are urging EPA to do exactly that. We strongly urge you NOT to take this drastic course.

We believe the Clean Air Act calls for plant-by-plant assessments, by each affected

s overeign state, as to what levels of CO2 can reasonably be reduced by power plants within their jurisdiction.203 

## We must also point out CO2 emissions from coal fired plants are down 23% from 2005 le vels, and will be further reduced as older plants are de-commissioned. U.S. coalfired electrical generation is less than 4% of the global “energy-related” CO2 emissions footprint. Even total elimination of coal-fired energy generation in the U.S. would have little overall impact on the global Greenhouse Gas emissions issue.

India, China and other countries desiring modern electrical power grids for their

c itizens are the principal sources for future Greenhouse Gas Emissions growth. Noteworthy in this conversation is these countries have not agreed to any legally binding limits on their projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions growth . Also, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions are declining and, in fact, are on track to meet the President's target of a 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Further, overly stringent emission standards are unwarranted and unnecessary.

We are supportive of reasonable measures to increase energy efficiency and reduce
C O2 and other Greenhouse Gas Emissions at existing U.S. coal-fired plants. However, we do not support arbitrary, unattainable, target “guidelines” that would force a new wave of power plant closures and associated job loss.

We appreciate the agency's careful consideration of our membership’s views on this
im portant issue. Thank you. Mike Elliott204 From: Vicki Miller [vicki8788@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:59 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: coal fueled power plants



### carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

We are writing to request no financial burdens be placed on coal fueled power plants. This would put burden on the public and not substantially reduce emissions. Coal drives the lowest cost electricity in the U.S. Coal state residents pay 33% less than non-coal states for electricity.

Marian Combs

Harold Combs

Vicki Combs Miller205 From: Ben Jones [jonesbenjamin37@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Ben Jones [jonesbenjamin37@gmail.com]



### I work on the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed

su pporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry.206 From: Matthew McKean [mckean.matthew@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Navajo Generating Station, AZ



### Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, En vironmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 Carbon regulations on existing power plants

Dear EPA,

My name is Matthew McKean. I am a native Arizonan and I very am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona. As a Mortgage Banker who has managed several billions in AZ real estate transactions I am conscious of the economic impact to housing affordability related to higher energy prices.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plants that do not take into account the costs involved in different geographies and that discriminate between the various energy alternatives. Arizona depends on coal fired power plants as its major energy resource. Arizona has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with natural gas as fuel really only work in states that have natural gas.

The EPA's proposal imposes huge, potentially economically devastating, costs on Arizona while obtaining NO demonstrable benefit in the stated purpose of improving visibility at the Nation's parks. Why the EPA would even consider imposing the "death knell" on Arizona economic growth, while gaining NO environmental improvement is beyond comprehension.207 

### Arizona has proposed its own implementation plan. While the State's plan was born primarily out of a desire to mitigate the damages caused by the EPA's plan, the state’s implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to a less carbon, and the 10 th 

### Amendment requires the EPA to use t he state plan in these regulations. I am opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to natural gas, or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI. There are much more viable approaches, like clean coal technologies, to accomplish the best options for all stakeholders.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. Finally, we encourage EPC to incentivize clean coal technologies. 

## Matthew T. McKean

Di rect: 602-509-0950 mckean.matthew@gmail.com208 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Robert J. Onyshko [ronyshko@harsco.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 15:03
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Robert J. Onyshko Email: ronyshko@harsco.com Comments: The EPA is single handidly trying to kill an entire industry. Years ago coal power plants were dirty. That is no longer the case. The exhaust from cars is far more harmful to people than power plant emissions. I do not see the EPA pulli ng al cars off of the road. Coal is clean. Coal has been a part of what made this country great. Coal is America! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards209 From: Mike Outlaw [mike.outlaw54@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:57 PM To: Jeff Shumway Cc: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Re: Navajo Generating Station



### Sent mine a d forwarded template to 20+ buddies and to spread the message

On Nov 7, 2013 12:57 PM, "Jeff Shumway" < jashumway57@gmail.com > wrote:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 Carbon regulations on existing power plants

Dear EPA,

My name is Jeff A. Shumway. My family has lived in Arizona for five generations. I very am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plants that do not take into account the costs involved in different geographies and that discriminate between the various energy alternatives. Arizona depends on coal fired power plants as its major energy resource. Arizona has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with natural gas as fuel really only work in states that have natural gas.

The EPA's proposal imposes huge, potentially economically devastating, costs on Arizona while obtaining NO demonstrable benefit in the stated purpose of improving visibility at the Nation's parks. Why the EPA would210 

### even consider imposing the "death knell" on Arizona economic growth, while gaining NO environmental improvement is beyond comprehension.

Arizona has proposed its own implementation plan. While the State's plan was born primarily out of a desire to mitigate the damages caused by the EPA's plan, the state’s implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to a less carbon, and the 10 th 

### Amendment requires the EPA to use the state plan in these

r egulations. I am opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to natural gas, or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI. There are much more viable approaches, like clean coal technologies, to accomplish the best options for all stakeholders.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. Finally, we encourage EPC to incentivize clean coal technologies.

Jeff A. Shumway Shumway Law Offices, PLC 7729 E. Greenway Road, Suite 500 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 602-738-4992

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this email is attorney privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication has been received in error, please immediately notify the sender by email and delete this message.211 From: Jeff Shumway [jashumway57@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:58 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Navajo Generating Station



### Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Env ironmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 Carbon regulations on existing power plants

Dear EPA,

My name is Jeff A. Shumway. My family has lived in Arizona for five generations. I very am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plants that do not take into account the costs involved in different geographies and that discriminate between the various energy alternatives. Arizona depends on coal fired power plants as its major energy resource. Arizona has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with natural gas as fuel really only work in states that have natural gas.

The EPA's proposal imposes huge, potentially economically devastating, costs on Arizona while obtaining NO demonstrable benefit in the stated purpose of improving visibility at the Nation's parks. Why the EPA would even consider imposing the "death knell" on Arizona economic growth, while gaining NO environmental improvement is beyond comprehension.212 

### Arizona has proposed its own implementation plan. While the State's plan was born primarily out of a desire to mitigate the damages caused by the EPA's plan, the state’s implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to a less carbon, and the 10 th 

### Amendment requires the EPA to use the state plan in these

r egulations. I am opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to natural gas, or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI. There are much more viable approaches, like clean coal technologies, to accomplish the best options for all stakeholders.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. Finally, we encourage EPC to incentivize clean coal technologies.

Jeff A. Shumway Shumway Law Offices, PLC 7729 E. Greenway Road, Suite 500 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 602-738-4992

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this email is attorney privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication has been received in error, please immediately notify the sender by email and delete this message.213 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ryan Sitton [ryan@ryansitton.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 13:19
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Ryan Sitton Email: ryan@ryansitton.com Comments: My name is Ryan Sitton and I have been an oil & gas professional in Texas for my entire professional career. I am gravely concerned about your proposed rules regarding the Clean Air Act. Our state leads the nation in energy production, and we are doing it cleaner and safer than ever. In Texas, our technology and innovation have lead to the largest economic growth industry in the country. Electricity developed through coal fired power plants is vital to our national economy as well. If the EPA intends to mask these listening sessions as cover for onerous one size fits all rule making to advance an environmentalist agenda that will do nothing but kill Texas jobs, and raise electricity prices for Texas families I plan to join with millions of my fellow Texans to fight you every step of the way. It is my hope that when you arrive in Texas today you hear what I hear everyday....Texans can take care of Texas. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards214 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of J Doyle Corman [jcorman1230@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:01 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 13:00
Su bmitted values are:

Name: J Doyle Corman Email: jcorman1230@comcast.net
Comments: RE: Docket ID EPA -HQ-OAR-2013-049

Good morning/afternoon, my name is J. Doyle Corman. I am Manager of Government Affairs of the R.J. Corman Railroad Group.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about EPA'splan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

R.J . Corman is concerned about EPA's carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordable and reliable electricity. Coal plays a critical role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the nation. For ex ample, coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collectively population of more than 175 million people. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states and recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of-art coal plants.

To begin with, we disagree with EPA's decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulations are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change. But, since EPA is developing these regulations anyway, I want to offer R.J. Corman's perspective.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants as a way to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S.coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase enery prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants have declined by nalmost 24 percent.

With that in mind, we believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA's carbon regulations must not cause the retirement of any coalnplants, under any circumstances, in favor of natural gas or renewable electricity generation.

Second, electricity improves quality of life. Requiring less electricity use is a form of energy rationing that will hurt people, reduce life expectancy, and reduce over all sta ndards ofr living.215 Third, EPA's carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Fourth EPA's carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Fifth, coal plant operators are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near-term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore standard investments in emission control.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost-dash effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for your attention.

J. Doyle Corman Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards216 From: Gene Dufoe [gdufoe@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:58 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code:
28 22T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Mr. and Mrs. Gene Dufoe, I have lived in Arizona since 1986 and I am concerned about the EPA's proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal-fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal-fired power plants that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in this state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long-term transition to less carbon, and the 10th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or
REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas, no Oil, no choice in AZ.

The Navajo Nation is a sovereign nation and there should be a joint agreement between the EPA representing the government of the United States and the Navajo Nation concerning the Navajo Generating Station. Has the EPA secured such an agreement with the Navajo Nation?

Sincerely,

Gene Evan Dufoe Ellen Loretta Dufoe Taxpayers from AZ217 From: Mike Outlaw [mike.outlaw54@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:35 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA proposed rules



### Dear EPA,

My name is Michael Outlaw, I have lived in Arizona since 1967 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations i n areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power supplies in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution fr om power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plants that do not take into account the costs involved in different ge ographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it un feasible in the state. Carbonating underground waters supplies is not good water resource

ma nagement.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the

r e placement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to a less carbon, and the 10th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force th em to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we

ur ge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,218 

### Taxpayer from AZ219 From: Tonia Yockey [Tonia.L.Yockey@gsk.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:44 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: Tonia Yockey Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Importance: High



### To whom it may concern:

P l ease note that my husband has been working in the coal industry since he graduated from high school in 1980. The job that he holds at Rosebud Mining, Kittanning, PA has been able to provide a way of living for our family. His job has provided his family with food on the table and clothes on our back and we have never had to be on government assistance. As you know, coal mining is a very very hard job and I know that not one politician would be able to do the job that my husband and his colleagues’ do each and every day!! I would really love to see if anyone could stand up to the endurance that each of these men do every day in their jobs! I seriously doubt it.

Please don’t proceed and have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people out of work because of foolish government regulations!! We are begging you to please reconsider and here are some additional insights:

• As you know, t he poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns.

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that mayor may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns.

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China.

Please don’t put more Americans out of work with all t his crazy government regulations, we need to keep the jobs here in the US!! Bad enough the government had to shut down a few weeks ago because of all the crazy games you like to play with our lives!!!

Tonia Yockey & David L Yockey, Jr.220 From: Erin Monrean [erin.monrean@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:14 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: LISTEN TO US!!!



### • I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry.

• 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

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply false, wrong, and improper

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns.

• • Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activi sm is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns.

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China. Pete Monrean221 From: Mort, Scott [Scott.Mort@nacoal.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:01 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### North American Coal is concerned about EPA’s carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordable and reliable electricity. Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the

nation. For example, coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states. And recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of- art coal plants.

To begin with, we disagree with EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions

under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulations are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change. But, since EPA is developing these regulations anyway, I want to offer North American Coal’s perspective.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal- fired power plants as a way to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will in crease energy prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have reduced carbon dioxid eemissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coalfired power plants have declined by almost 24 percent.

With that in mind, we believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:222 

### First, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Second, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Third, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near- term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and,
therefore, stranded investments in emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coal-fueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost- effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for your attention

Scott E Mort, Sr N orth American Coal 196 Grange Hall Rd P.O. Box 245 Armagh, PA 15920 Office: 814 446 5631 Cell: 814 241 5745 Fax: 814 446 5632

N OTICE: This message may contain privileged and confidential information which is protected from disclosure. If you are not the addressee indicated in this communication (or an agent or employee responsible for delivering this communication to such person), you may not read, copy, use or disseminate this message to any other person. In such case, you should destroy this communication and kindly notify the sender immediately by reply email or telephone. Please advise the sender immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. This communication is restricted to the intended recipient and is not to be provided to a third party without the prior consent of The North American Coal Corporation or its representatives.223 From: Doug Pitts [jdouglaspitts@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:56 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: jdouglaspitts@aol.com; 'Mark Lewis'; 'Jeff Shumway'; 'Matthew McKean'; 'Joe Witherspoon' Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
En vironmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460 carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 Carbon regulations on existing power plants

Dear EPA,

My name is Doug Pitts. I have lived in Arizona since 1996 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbo n regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plants that do not take into account the costs involved in different geographies. Arizona has no oil wells in which to pump carbon dioxide, which eliminates this option in the state. Carbonating underground water supplies is not good water resource management. Arizona has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with natural gas as fuel really only work in states that have natural gas.

The state’s implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to a less carbon, and the 10 th



### Am endment requires the EPA to use the state plan in these regulations. I am opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to natural gas, or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI. There are much more viable approaches, like clean coal technologies, to accomplish the best options for all stakeholders.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are un workable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. Finally, we encourage EPC to incentivize clean coal technologies.

Sincerely,

Doug Pitts +1-623-760-6021 (US) jdouglaspitts@aol.com Pitts and Associates, LLC224 

### 41638 N Emerald Lake Drive Anthem, AZ 85086 www.PittsandAssociatesLLC.com (Ctrl+Click)

.....CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE......

The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named as the addressee above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. Thank you.225 From: Bobby [bjboddorf@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:50 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA listening sesion

I work in the coal field and have a job that co2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively effect my industry.

Sent from my iPhone226 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Judy [judygriffi@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:43 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 11/07/2013 - 08:42
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Judy Email: judygriffi@gmail.com
Comments: Why shut down coal industry by nonsensical regulations? In doing this you are cutting out a primary source of good energy production for our nation and killing jobs. why don't you focus on supporting our energy resources instead of shutting them down? Is it too difficult for you to be creative instead of destructive? Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards227 From: CherryTree Foreman [CherryTreeForeman@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:05 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### To whom it may concern,

• My name is Galen Mack. I work in the coal fields and have a job that supports myself and my family and have no need for government assistance from welfare or your regulations that could negatively affect my industry.

• The climate has changed constantly for billions of years. Remember the dinosaurs and the ice age? I don’t think CO2 emissions had anything to do with that.

• Plants use CO2 so how can you treat it as a pollutant?

• You have already assigned costs to CO2 that has already severely impacted our economy in a negative way. I think we as a nation would benefit more if we would improve our clean coal technologies instead of wasting billions on our governments political agenda.

• The working class in this country spends the largest percentage of their income on energy. Anything that increases that cost would greatly impact them and is simply not right.

• If weather forecasters cannot forecast the weather accurately a week from now how can you predict the climate decades from now?

• In my opinion all of the EPA’s workforce should be elected, that way they would be accountable for their
actions.

• Where do you think this countries energy needs will be supplied from? Wind or Solar? Get realistic. We have an abundant supply of coal that has already ran this country for a long time and can do so in the future.

Galen R. Mack228 From: ParkwoodForeman [ParkwoodForeman@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:05 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Listening Session



### I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting

my self and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. The climate has been changing 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. The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes ,gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest.229 From: mdrbaugh@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 6:15 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### Please Stop the WAR on Coal

My husband has 40 yrs in the coal ind. And has a no loss time accident ....Coal is Safe.... His father and grandfather and his father were Coal miners also...

We are making it CLEANER ...But YOU have to give us TIME to do this.....When you go to bed tonight turn out your LIGHTS and THINK for a minute,, how you get your power to turn them back ON......COAL is the answer.........thank you

Sent from Windows Mail230 From: Merrianne Geisdorf [merrianneg@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:56 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: NOx emissions from NGS



## Anita Lee (Air-2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

r9ngsbart@epa.gov

RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear Dr. Lee,

My name is Merrianne Geisdorf, I have lived in Arizona since October 2001, and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rule regarding regional air visibility in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona.

In February 2013, the EPA issued a proposed rule aimed at limiting nitrogen oxide emissions at the plant. At an estimated cost of up to $1.1 billion, EPA's proposal to limit these emissions five years from now, with a possible extension to 2023, would place a tremendous financial burden on me and my family as well as on energy users in Arizona and water users that take Central Arizona Project (CAP) water. The owners of the plant have made clear that the short time frames in the proposed rule could result in plant closure. Regardless of whether the plant closes or remains open, EPA's proposed rule could cause serious economic hardship in northern Arizona and will force unaffordable water and energy costs upon Arizona businesses and ratepayers.

Because the EPA's proposed rule is unworkable on several levels, CAP and other key stakeholders formed a Technical Work Group (TWG) and developed a reasonable alternative that would protect regional air quality and also the future of NGS. The future economic well-being of Arizona, including the Navajo and Hopi people who depend on NGS for jobs and other income, is at stake. We urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS.

Sincerely,

Taxpayer from AZ231 

## Merrianne Geisdorf MAG's Bookkeeping, Etc. Cell: 480-225-0720 Phone & Fax: 480-654-2062

"Firemen inherit messes, too, but they don't throw gasoline on the fire!"

"Some say we shouldn’t have fought because we couldn’t win, but this country wasn’t built by fighting only when victory was absolutely certain." - Sen. Mike Lee232 From: doug1.olson@gmail.com on behalf of Doug Olson [doug@the-olsons.org] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:44 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments at EPA Listening Session in San Francisco on Nov. 5, 2013



### Below are the comments I made in person at the San Francisco session on Nov. 5, 2013.

Fr om: Douglas Olson 57 Thousand Oaks St. Oakland, CA 94605 doug@the-olsons.org (510) 220-3420 retired scientist

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the EPA rule making for power plant CO2 emissions. While I am a retired scientist, this field is not my area of expertise so my comments are general and rather short.

The longer CO2 emissions continue the effects will be worse and the consequences will be more expensive. Therefore the EPA should push strongly to reduce CO2 emissions as soon as possible.

One important question you have to deal with is “what is a reasonable cost of power plant modifications to reduce CO2 emissions?” The scale for “what is reasonable cost” should be determined by the cost of mitigating the climate effects caused by these CO2 emissions.

The transition from fossil fuels to sustainable sources of energy is disruptive and will cause many changes in what types of jobs are available and where they are located, as well as many other changes. However, this can not be accepted as a reason to delay the transition away from fossil fuels since the consequences of climate change will also cause great disruption to lifestyles and the economy. Since disruption is unavoidable, the sooner the transition is complete the shorter will be the period of disruption.

We are all counting on the EPA to do its job effectively and expeditiously.

Thank you.233 From: lina hatch [linahatch@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:55 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: pat.o@azcitrus.com Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Lina Hatch, I have lived in Arizona since 1976 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding

ca rbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in
op eration. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs i n volved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants

on ly work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

re quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Ca rbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Pr oposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Lina Hatch 

### LD 17 PC Gilbert, AZ234 From: Jack Singer [jrs24x@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone235 From: Ryan, Dwayne [DRyan2@peabodyenergy.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:59 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

While I agree that alternative energy needs consideation. The technology is NOT here at this time. Don't make the people pay for your mistakes. There are lives at stake. The poor and elderly will suffer the most.

Thanks, Dwayne Ryan 2525 Fairdale Ave Casper, WY



### E-mail Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail, and in any accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for the delivery of the message to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system.236 From: Carolyn McCorkle [cnbmccorkle@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:28 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009



### Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,

Env ironmental Protection Agency,

Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington D.C. 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Do cket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

We have lived in Ar izona since 2008, and we are concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in
op eration. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for an existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the

co sts involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into, which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants

o n ly work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.237 The State's implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

r equires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a C arbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART P roposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,



### B ruce and Carolyn McCorkle Sun Lakes, AZ, taxpayers238 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mike Butler [mikebutler331@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:58 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 18:58
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Mike Butler Email: mikebutler331@gmail.com
Comments: CEA Statement | EPA Public Listening Session - Philadelphia

My name is Mike Butler, and I serve as the Executive Director for Consumer Energy Alliance’s Mid Atlantic in Philadelphia, PA. CEA is a nationwide trade association made up of both energy consumers and producers working to advance an all-of-the- above energy policy that will lower energy costs for every American.

Access to affordable energy is of utmost importance to our members, because every dollar spent on energy is a dollar not being put towards capital investments, payroll, savings, groceries, or next year's family vacation. As a necessary component to economic growth, it is important that government do everything it can to reduce impacts to energy price.

EPA’s proposed rules raise significant concerns that directly impact those energy prices, new jobs and our overall economic wellbeing. Under the best case scenario, these rules could mean that electricity genera tion facilities will face the difficult choice to either upgrade their equipment or cease production.

Plant upgrades mean new unplanned expenditures on equipment that provides no additional revenue and increased costs to ratepayers. And if regulations are set a level that is unachievable, upgrading will not be an option.

Plant closures have a real and negative impact on state and local economies. When the San Onofre facility in southern California retired prematurely, electricity prices rose 59% and Calif ornia regulators were left scrambling to bring online additional sources of electricity to avert rolling brownouts.

At a time when electricity consumption is projected to grow, it is important that we avoid electricity supply disruptions or unnecessary price increases. Pennsylvania’s economic recovery is due in part to a reduction in utility rates. Over the past several years, electricity rates across the Commonwealth have dropped by an average of 52% New rule limiting generation could threaten those hard fought gains and hamper our ongoing recovery.

As EPA considers how to move forward, we urge the Agency to keep electricity consumers in mind and not promulgate rules that would adversely impact business and family budgets. We also encourage you to maintain regional flexibility based on our state’s unique needs and characteristics. We encourage you to work closely with Commonwealth regulators and officials to integrate their recommendations into any final plans.

This debate should be about affordable, reliable energy versus unreliable and expensive energy. As a nation, we should strive to have more of all forms of energy, and not simply pit one energy resource against another. We hope EPA deeply considers the potential economic impacts on consumers across Pennsylvania and nation.239 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards240 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Richard Rhoades [Richardtrhoades1@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 18:37
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Richard Rhoades Email: Richardtrhoades1@aol.com Comments: I am a coal miner in western Colorado. I am 57 years old. Shutting down coal mines is not the answer to CO2 emissions. Coal today is cleaner than before and technology exist to make it cleaner. The Carbon pollution standards this suggest will break American Coal Companies. The rest of the world will continue to use coal without regards to co2 controls. Ultimately hurting the American people with loss of jobs (estimates are 400,000 plus jobs in coal and coal mining related jobs). It will give fo reign manufacturing control of the market place with goods that cost less to produce due to increase in energy to American companies. This will stop growth of manufacturing in the United States. The cost is higher unemployment, less manufacturing, and a trickle down effect in real estate. Currently, the loss of mining jobs in Delta County has had a loss in property values at over 15%. What this means to me personally is a loss of my job which means I will give my house back to the bank as at 57 yrs old I am not employable. I don't have enough years left in my life to go to school to learn another trade. For the North fork Valley, it will mean the collapse of 3 maybe four Towns, Hotchkiss, Paonia, Crawford and maybe Delta. These municipalities are mostly funded by mineral leasing tax, and severance tax. Hotchkiss has 1500 people, Paonia has 1500 people and Crawford has 400 people. These businesses will collapse, property values will collapse due to the foreclosures on the market. Making regulations that favor one energy provider or another I believe can be challenged. Favoring natural gas over coal stating pollution controls is not fair practice when natural gas has the potential through fracking to contaminate ground water. Several Counties have put into place this past election fracking regulations because the dangers they have seen and experienced have already occurred. Reducing or eliminating coal as a energy source with this carbon pollution standard when fracking controls are being implemented at alarmingly high rates are leaving the American people in danger of not being able to afford electricity. While your administration is being highly influenced by the Obama administration you are still people dependent on energy. You as individuals need to stand against doubled energy costs, loss of jobs, and loss of manufacturing in this country. These regulations harm not protect. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards241 From: Kemna, Vicki [VKemna@booneelectric.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:18 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Keep electric rates affordable and jobs in America

To Whom It May Concern:

Yes, I work for a rural electric cooperative utility, but I am writing to you today as a lay citizen concerned about A m ericans and American jobs. I strongly urge you to not make a regulatory policy that will eliminate the use of affordable and plentiful coal as one of America’s energy sources.

If your goal is to drive industry and jobs out of America, during a time in our history when we need those jobs the most, th en stick with your plan to kill coal! You will ruin our economy.

Coal is the most affordable and reliable source of electricity we have. Kill its use for power generation and your regulatory policy will single-handedly kill jobs and close businesses which America desperately needs. China will welcome these businesses and jobs with open arms and build another coal-fired power plant to serve them.

I am opposed to your proposed regulations, but I’m not opposed to clean air. I believe I can be both pro-clean air and
pr o-coal. They are not mutually exclusive of one another and it bugs me that some groups that support the EPA’s plan can’t see that. Yes I want clean air, but I also want to be able to afford to keep my lights on, and coal-generation provides for that.

I also want to make sure that “Jane Smith,” who came in to our office today with her 3 young children in order to pay a li ttle bit on her electric bill every week, can also afford to keep her lights on and her house warm, and have some groceries in the cupboard. Jane works at a local manufacturing facility that is a heavy user of electricity. This facility needs electricity around the clock – even when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Electricity generated by coal fills that round-the- clock need at a reasonable price which allows the company to stay in business and allows Jane to bring home a paycheck so that she can stop by our office and pay us a little bit each week and stop by the grocery store to keep her single-parent family fed and healthy.

If the EPA passes a regulatory strategy that kills coal, this manufacturing facility may be forced to shut down because it

ca n no longer afford to do business in Missouri. Jane doesn’t get a paycheck, she can’t pay her utility bill and can’t afford to buy groceries – no one wins in this scenario. Not even the clean air folks, because they too will share in the cost of paying for free healthcare, food stamps, energy assistance, etc. for all those people who will be forced to be on government assistance because they lost their jobs.

If solar power or wind power could generate enough electricity 24/7, 365 days a year to meet our energy needs in this

cou ntry - and do so for the same cost as coal generation – I’m all for it! But right now, that technology doesn’t exist and it will take more than some ill-planned and mismanaged stimulus money to get the country to that point. Until then, let the coal plants do their jobs – they keep electricity rates affordable for everyone.

Folks who are in support of your proposal may talk a good talk, but I don’t think they are willing to pay for it. The utility I

wor k for offers a renewable option which allows our members to pay an additional $2 per 100 kwh block to bring electricity generated by renewable sources (wind primarily) on to our system grid. We have approximately 25,000 members....only 124 members are willing to pay the extra $2 to participate. Only two dollars more and people don’t want to do it.

Please think about all this before you make your decision.

Regards, Vicki Kemna


### B o one Electric Cooperative
PH: 573-449-4181 ext. 17268242 

### FAX: 573-441-7272
CELL: 573-819-0989

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail or via phone at 573-449-4181 and destroy all electronic or paper copies of the original message.243 From: Brent Schlotzhauer [brent@wcecoop.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 5:14 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Fwd: EPA Listening Session Nov 4, 2013



### I just wanted to add a few comments of my own. I am the Branch Office Manager of our Oak Grove Mo Facility. We are situated just east of the KC Metro Area. In this area we provide electric service to many rental properties and mobile home parks. We probably see 3 out of 10 of our walk in paying members on a almost daily basis paying anywhere from three to five dollars on their account to keep their lights on for another day or two. A large number of these folks are already in the system with financial assistance or are unemployed, or just retired on a fixed income. They are already making choices of what they can afford to buy with the money or resources they have available. With the fact of 80% of the electric power for the Rural Electric Cooperative Members coming from coal fired facilities that were recommended by Congress and the US Government in the 1970s, I would ask and trust that you keep our membership in mind when you make your final rule making decision.

Sincerely Yours,

Brent D. Schlotzhauer WCE Branch Office Manager

--- ------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brent Schlotzhauer < brent@wcecoop.com > Date: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM Subject: EPA Listening Session Nov 4, 2013 To: carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Good Afternoon,

I c hoose not to make any comments the other evening, because I felt that my other colleges within the electrical industry and the Cooperative world had did a good job. I do want comment on the professionalism and control that your staff did on expediting and keeping control of the meeting. I have participated in similar meeting where some of the diverse groups got out of hand and the facilitators lost control of the meeting.

-- Brent D. Schlotzhauer Branch Office Manager, Oak Grove Facility 816-625-8212 office 816-716-8893 cell 816-625-8211 fax

--244 

### Brent D. Schlotzhauer Branch Office Manager, Oak Grove Facility 816-625-8212 office 816-716-8893 cell 816-625-8211 fax245 From: Kim Dean [circulation@newslj.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:27 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: carbon emissions limit for coal fired power plants



### From: Everett and Kim Dean
28 Old Hwy. 85 Newcastle, WY 82701
307-746-2444

November 6, 2013

To: Environmental Protection Agency/Proposed EPA Carbon Emission Limit regulations for U.S. coal-fired power plants

Cc: Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi

We are writing to voice our opposition to these newly-proposed EPA carbon emission limits for coal-fired power plants. This proposal strikes a hard hit on an affordable, reliable source of energy, coal, that currently powers nearly half of America. The EPA should not be the umpire making the call on home plate signaling that coal is out for good. Setting excessive limits on carbon emissions and requiring technology that is not yet commercially viable to capture and store carbon is most concerning to us. Americans need affordable, reliable power produced by coal-fired power plants to fuel their homes. Businesses need affordable, reliable energy to remain co mpetitive in today’s global marketplace. It’s a plain and simple fact that affordable energy at home keeps Americans working and producing goods.

If this proposed ruling to limit carbon emissions to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour is approved, it will greatly harm American families and businesses by significantly increasing their power costs, and it will kill jobs. The current uncertainty these proposed limits and regulations are causing is steering utility companies across this nation to make decisions they may not otherwise choose for their future customers. Power companies project and plan power needs 10 years out, and these regulations have driven several of them away from building state-of-the-art coal-fired power plants to meet future projection needs. Which leaves us wondering, will there be enough power 10 years from now, and will it be affordable? Can we afford to take such a risk with our power generation future? And why must we reinvent the energy wheel, when coal is a proven low-cost power source providing millions of jobs and contributing a wealth of tax revenue to state and federal government rolls? What is the price tag for reinventing this energy wheel?

The fact is America’s future demand for power will only increase, not decrease. This proposal leaves virtually no room for the continued use of coal and hinders further development of clean-coal technology in America. It gambles with the very core or strength of our great country and is in direct contrast with using an all-of- the above energy strategy which is vital to ensuring sufficient, affordable power now and in America’s future.

The ramifications of this proposal by striking coal and coal- fired power plants off America’s table concern us. We’ve read articles featuring power companies who say they have been down the natural gas-powered road before. And when the price of natural gas increased back then, they returned to coal to maintain affordable, reliable generation needs for their customers. Utility companies are leery of placing all their eggs in one generation basket, and history has proven they should be.

This proposed EPA carbon emission limit proposal is a direct threat to our livelihood and economic well-being. It threatens our American Dream. Coal has supported our family for the past 30 years. We have always carried our own weight. We pay our taxes and we’d like to continue living our American Dream, just like other hard-working American coal miners, power plant workers, and employees whose jobs are tied to the coal industry. We are proud to work in an industry that provides power reasonably to consumers, allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned dollars.246 

### Man-caused global warming/climate change, by greenhouse gases or anything else, has not been proven. This carbon limit proposal picks one natural resource, coal, and singles its emissions out as the sole reason for negatively affecting our climate. The earth will continue to change and evolve over time not by man’s hand, but naturally. Climate data released last month shows there has been no increase in atmospheric temperatures over the past 15 years, but one had to read carefully to learn this.

The coal industry has made significant strides in curbing emissions and continues to seek, develop, and implement ways to be harmonious with the environment. We feel the EPA, as well as the executive branch of our government, needs to support these efforts, instead of reaching for a pen to sign and pass excessive regulations. Environmental regulations must be just, reasonable, and serve the public interest. This carbon emission proposal fails to consider coal-fueled electricity’s positive externalities including significant benefits for health, jobs, and the economic benefits of low-cost

power.

We oppose the EPA’s proposed carbon emission limit proposal on coal-fired power plants and the damage it will cause to our nation and state, as well as our neighbors, friends, loved ones and our family.

Sincerely, Everett and Kim Dean, 307-746-2444 28 Old Hwy. 85, Newcastle, WY 82701 circulation@newslj.com247 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jackie Savage [hrhufnpuf@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 16:24
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Jackie Savage Email: hrhufnpuf@aol.com Comments: Delta County is a small county in Western Colorado. The effects of the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards is devastating to this entire County. The current lay offs due to the war on coal has plum meted our housing values from numerous home foreclosures. We lose jobs, homes and entire communities. I have yet to see any scientific proof and certainty that CO2 is in fact the global warming. I question the Obama administration push for these regulations when our cars produce more co2 than coal and that administration gave an 8 billion dollar bail out to those co2 producers. I question the timing as well, why do you want to put another 400,000 people out of work in the coal industry when our unemployment rate is over 7%. I question the legitimacy of giving an unfair advantage to competing countries in manufacturing. When their lack of these regulations surely give them an advantage in the market place. Is it even legal to control and manipulate free trade? Is it even legal for a government to support one form of energy over another like the Obama administration is currently doing by promoting natural gas over coal. I also question the government forcing the higher cost of energy on the American pe ople in a shaky economy. I am 53 years old, I am old enough to remember in 1970 when the EPA was predicting an ice age and scientifically sure that earth would be covered in a glacial cap in a mere 20 years. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards248 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Stephen E. Sharp [gsharp7@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:17 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 16:16
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Stephen E. Sharp Email: gsharp7@charter.net Comments: We have many clean coal power plants operating now, the others can follow when technology is developed and can be installed. Coal provides the lowest cost electricity in the United States. Bring new regulations on in phases, not all at once. Give them time. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards249 From: Carl & Mary Gordon [ccmqbymg@bluemarble.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: So called coal pollution

11-6-2013 My name is Carl Gordon, I worked in the coal industry for 39 years and it treated me well. Over the years The EPA has imposed many rules which the coal industry has complied with and would now if given a chance. However Mr. Obama from the beginning of his presidency has planned to shut the coal industry down. All this to help his tree hugger friends at the expense of the working class. With any other forms of energy our electric cost will go up 30,40,or even 80%. Of course this does not matter as long as he can RULE. The world burns 8,000,000,000 tons of coal a year and the U.S. burns 1,000,000,000 tons of this. If we do not burn this we will sell it overseas and they will burn it and a few days latter as the earth revolves we will have t he same pollution only worse because other countrys will not clean the coal as good as we would have. Thanks for allowing my input. CARL250 From: erin wilson [erwilson35@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 3:45 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Peabody Coal Retiree



### To whom it may concern, It is stated that the epa rule will hurt hard working Americans, along with myself and other retired and disabled persons. The working man cannot afford these rules and regulations that President Obama is imposing upon the American people. Coal has been an energy resource for many years and it is a cheaper form of electricity, and I believe that alternative options are very unnecessary and cost worthy. I'm concerned that nationwide shutdown of power plants and coal mines would have a direct affect on my income as a retired coal mine accountant. Coal mining has been a common profession in my family for generations, and I would like to keep this employment option open for the new generation that includes my loved ones.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Naoma J. Cooper, Retired Peabody Accountant251 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Patte Winn [katrinab26@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 13:39
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Patte Winn Email: katrinab26@comcast.net Comments: The air and water is clean enough. The coal fired energy production industry already has invested in scrubbers and other pollution abatement equipment. We need low cost energy to power Caterpillar, Deere, ADM and other employers in Illinois. Leave them alone before we are all shivering in the dark. This is so unnecessary. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards252 From: william emke [wdemke@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:29 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Proposed Carbon Dioxide Regulation



### To EPA

I would like to express my concerns on the upcoming proposed Carbon Dioxide Regulation. I feel these regulations would have a adverse effect on our country and its people for the following reasons

Coal produces approximately 50% of the electricity at about 1/3 the cost of other sources. Under the proposed regulations, electricity cost will rise to the point were low income families will be unable to pay there bill. Money now sent on the higher electricity cost will not be send on buying products and services. Cost of manufacturing will rise, which will make U.S. produces more expensive and increase our trade deficit. In general the economy will suffer more then it already is. The number of jobs lost in the coal and supporting industry could in the 10's of thousands,

On the subject of global warming which I have followed for years, at my age of 68. Has the climate changed, yes and it will always be changing. On a PBS program several years ago on Greenland, it talked about how the Viking found the inland a green and inviting place. Tried to colonize but failed when it turned into the inland of snow and ice we see today. The Ice Man Found in the Alp's several years ago, was several thousand years old. He was found on top of the snow where he died. So it would seem the temperature was warmer then, maybe equal to present day. A resent report released by the U.N. stated that there has not been any significant temperature change in the last 15 years . So the argument to control carbon dioxide to control temperature seem weak and many more scientist are started to agree with my opinion. Seem EPA is only interested in special interest groups and the politics of the president.

My EPA's own estimates, the air is 90% cleaner the then it was in 1970. For that you get a big thank you. Unfortunately, I think you now are trying to self-perpetuate your existents. This new regulation will only harm people economically and do nothing to improve the lives.

Concern citizens William Emke253 From: Robinson, Allan [arobinson@wpplp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### November 6, 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

I am concerned about EPA’s carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordable and reliable electricity. Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the nation. Coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states. And recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of- art coal plants.

I disagree with EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulations are ineffective, uneconomic and a devastatingly harmful way to address climate change. But, since EPA is developing these regulations anyway, I want to offer my perspective.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal- fired power plants as a way to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fle et will greatly increase energy prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have red uced carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants have declined by almost 24 percent.

With that in mind, I believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations must not cause the retirement of any coal plants, under any circumstances, in favor of natural gas or renewable electricity generation. Anyone knows putting all our reliance upon wind, solar, nuclear and natural gas will at some point fail. At some point, the wind doesn’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, nobody will approve additional nuclear capacity after the Fukushima disaster. Natural gas will soon develop additional markets (as it should) and the price necessarily skyrocket. This will leave us with substantial increases for electricity and disadvantaged versus the rest of the world, which, by the way, is embracing cheap electric power from coal as a means for their population to better their standard of living.

Second, electricity improves quality of life. Requiring less electricity use is a form of energy rationing that will hurt people, reduce life expectancy, and reduce overall standards of living. We have serious numbers of people that can’t pay their electric bil l now, and this254 

### will soon be much worse. It appears the goal of this administration is to bring the US down to the level of the rest of the world instead of working to make things better for US citizens.

Third, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Fourth, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to d evelop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Fifth, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near- term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore, stranded investments in emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost- effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to post my comments and concerns.

Allan E. Robinson255 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mike and Teresa Tario [gemuno2@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 13:22
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Mike and Teresa Tario Email: gemuno2@aol.com
Comments: This move is widely viewed as a way to essentially shutter coal-fired plants and coal production - driving up prices for consumers and small businesses, hurting local economies and eliminating jobs in Illinois.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards256 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Randall Cruse [randycruse@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:17 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 13:16
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Randall Cruse Email: randycruse@earthlink.net Comments: The fossil fuel electric generation i ndustry is a part of technological advancement that has improved the quality of life in America. The Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants should not be an impediment to the improvement and advancement of this important industries ability to solve issues presented by the Environmental Protection Agency but rather the Standard should be a guideline for the fossil fuel industry, universities, and engineering firms to approach as a problem with reachable and achievable solutions. In my sixty year lifetime I have seen measurable improvement to our environment. I have not noticed changes to our environment other than cyclical and natural changes in our climate. Fifty years ago, the challenge of having electricity in every community in America was take n on and solved. I believe that the issues of perceived pollution to our environment will be solved by this same energy. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards257 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Randall Cruse [randycruse@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:17 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 13:16
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Randall Cruse Email: randycruse@earthlink.net Comments: The fossil fuel electric generation industry is a part of technological advancement that has improved the quality of life in America. The Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants should not be an impediment to the improvement and advancement of this important industries ability to solve issues presented by the Environmental Protection Agency but rather the Standard should be a guideline for the fossil fuel industry, universities, and engineering firms to approach as a problem with reachable and achievable solutions. In my sixty year lifetime I have seen measurable improvement to our environment. I have not noticed changes to our environment other than cyclical and natural changes in our climate. Fifty years ago, the challenge of having electricity in every community in America was taken on and solved. I believe that the issues of perceived pollution to our environment will be solved by this same energy. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards258 From: Ballard, Deborah [dballard@wpplp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### To Whom It May Concern:

I am concerned about EPA’s carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordable and reliable electricity. Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the nation. Coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have already cont ributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states. And recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of- art coal plants.

I disagree with EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulati ons are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change. But, since EPA is developing these regulations anyway, I want to offer my perspective.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants as a wa y to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase energy prices without ha ving any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants have declined by almost 24 percent.

With that in mind, I believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations must not cause the retirement of any coal plants, under any circumstances, in favor of natural gas or renewable electricity generation. Anyone knows putting all our reliance upon wind, solar, nuclear and natural gas will at some point fail. At some point, the wind does n’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, nobody will approve additional nuclear capacity after the Fukushima disaster and natural gas will soon develop additional markets and necessarily skyrocket in price, leaving us with substantial increases for electricity and disadvantaged versus the rest of the world, which, by the way, is embracing cheap electric power from coal as a means for their population to better their standard of living.

Second, electricity improves quality of life. Requiring less electricity use i s a form of energy rationing that will hurt people, reduce life expectancy, and reduce overall standards of living. We have serious numbers of people that can’t pay their electric bill now, and this will soon be much worse. It appears the goal of this ad ministration is to bring the US down to the level of the rest of the world instead of working to make things better for US citizens.259 

### Third, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity pr ices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Fourth, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Fifth, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near- term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore, stranded investments in emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost- effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to post my comments and concerns.

Deborah Ballard260 From: Hensley, David [dhensley@wpplp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### To Whom It May Concern:

I am concerned about EPA’s carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordable and reliable electricity. Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the nation. Coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have already cont ributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states. And recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of- art coal plants.

I disagree with EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulati ons are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change. But, since EPA is developing these regulations anyway, I want to offer my perspective.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants as a wa y to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase energy prices without ha ving any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants have declined by almost 24 percent.

With that in mind, I believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations must not cause the retirement of any coal plants, under any circumstances, in favor of natural gas or renewable electricity generation. Anyone knows putting all our reliance upon wind, solar, nuclear and natural gas will at some point fail. At some point, the wind does n’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, nobody will approve additional nuclear capacity after the Fukushima disaster and natural gas will soon develop additional markets and necessarily skyrocket in price, leaving us with substantial increases for electricity and disadvantaged versus the rest of the world, which, by the way, is embracing cheap electric power from coal as a means for their population to better their standard of living.

Second, electricity improves quality of life. Requiring less electricity use i s a form of energy rationing that will hurt people, reduce life expectancy, and reduce overall standards of living. We have serious numbers of people that can’t pay their electric bill now, and this will soon be much worse. It appears the goal of this ad ministration is to bring the US down to the level of the rest of the world instead of working to make things better for US citizens.261 

### Third, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity pr ices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Fourth, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Fifth, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near- term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore, stranded investments in emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost- effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to post my comments and concerns.

David Hensley262 From: Knob Creek Clerk [KnobCreekClerk@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:02 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### The EPA’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants is going to be detrimental to th e hard working Americans in the coal industry.

Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China.

Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that mayor may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns.

Sincerely, Nick Caruso 261 Nunamaker Hill Road Ford City, PA 16226263 From: dks7@cox.net Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:21 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: pat.o@azcitrus.com Subject: Carbon Capture - Unproven Technology

Ai r and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Doris Siefker, I have lived in Arizona since 1985 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to t he Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or
REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Just recently Wei Gan, senior research scientists for the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics (UTIG) found that the injection of carbon dioxide into the ground to extract petrol and natural gas is a contributing factor to a series of recent earthquakes near Snyder, Texas.

Sincerely, Doris Siefker Glendale, AZ264 Taxpayer from AZ

-- Doris265 From: Klingl, Joe [JKlingl@PeabodyEnergy.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:05 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### These so-called alternative fuels will not be able to replace coal for decades and decades, if ever....please consider the

ec onomic downward spiral this will have on our economy...coal is the only solution...and clean coal technology is the way to move forward....thank you.



### E-mail Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail, and in any accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for the delivery of the message to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system.266 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jim Kacmar [jkacmar@jennmar.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 11:20
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Jim Kacmar Email: jkacmar@jennmar.com
Comments: We believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Second, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Third, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near-term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore, stranded inv estments in emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost-effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for your attention.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards267 From: John Breski [John.Breski@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:04 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will impact negatively. I am gainfully employed supporting

my self and my family and have no need for government overregulation.

John Breski Rosebud Mining Co.268 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jerry Riebold [jriebold@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:55 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 10:55
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Jerry Riebold Email: jriebold@hotmail.com Comments: I favor clean co al technology to provide: Good USA jobs, low cost electrical energy for USA and developing countries, lower dependance on foreign oil, suspicious and unreliable data on global warming. What happened to the last five ice ages? Two thirds of the US was covered with ice long before fossil fuel usage. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards269 From: glightkeeper@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:54 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon CAP and TAX regulations Docket I: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

Dear EPA, My name is Virginia Keating. I have lived in Arizona since 1973 and I am concerned about the EPA's proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generation Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power supplies in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that do not take into consideration the costs involved in different geographies, nor the effects on the Largest Native American Tribe in the US.

AZ has no oil wells to pump carbon into underground reservoirs which makes it unfeasible in AZ. Carbonination of our underground water supplies is not good water management practice.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States Implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to a less carbon, and the 10th Amendment requires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules is unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas, no Oil, no choice in Az.

Sincerely,

Virginia Keating270 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of justin [johnson2383@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:36 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 09:36
Su bmitted values are:

Name: justin Email: johnson2383@yahoo.com Comments: As a coal miner I am very concerned that the co2 regulations, the EPA is trying to pass, are going to affect my ability to provide for my family. Also the cost of energy to heat homes, provide electricity and lights, will be increased and put added stress on a already struggling economy. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards271 From: Tanner, Matt [Matt.Tanner@hdrinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments on EPA's Clean Air Act Approach to Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants



### Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

My name is Matt Tanner, and I have worked for 33 years in the Texas electric generation and lignite mining industries. I am also proud to be part of a family with over 100 years of combined service to these industries.

The EPA needs to think long and hard about any rule making that will impact existing power plants and especially coal-fueled generation plants. Further, EPA must work with all stakeholders so that a fair and balanced solution is obtainable. With no statutorily imposed timeline; the EPA needs to act cautiously so that electricity supply and reliability are not in jeopardy.

Speaking of a balanced approach, Texas has a great history of using a balanced approach to electricity generation. Currently, Texas has a good balance of coal, natural gas, nuclear, and wind generation. And this balanced approach has saved Texas energy consumers money and has kept prices competitive and reliable.

If EPA chooses to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the existing power generation fleet within Texas or at a national scale, the consequences will be significant. In Texas, shutting down electric generation units would have a negative impact to the Texas coal and lignite mining and generation industries and overall will be a bad scenario for the state of Texas and its citizens. Billions in economic activity would be lost and a significant hit to employment would be the result.

Since there is no real answer to replacing the coal-fueled base load generation, the resulting failure to meet electrical demand could and would be economically disastrous. All we can expect are rolling blackouts, higher electricity prices, and lost economic investment in Texas.

In summary, the EPA must fully engage stakeholders and analyze any proposed regulations to ensure that they do not unnecessarily increase power costs, decrease reliability, cause job losses, or negatively impact the Texas and national economy.

Thank you.

MATT TANNER

VICE PRESIDENT
C W B, ENV SP HDR Engineering, Inc.

Co al Market Practice Leader South Central Mining Client Dev. Leader

17111 Preston Rd. | Dallas, TX 75248 972.960.4427 | c: 972.658.5155 Matt.Tanner@hdrinc.com | hdrinc.com

LinkedIn: Co nnect with Matt272 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Xiaoting Li [xli@jennmar.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:13 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 09:12
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Xiaoting Li Email: xli@jennmar.com
Comments: Technologies, such as a scrubber or carbon capture and storage should be used to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. Governments need to provide policy incentives to encourage the use of these technologies, not just set up higher standards to force closing down existing power plants and forbidding to build new power plants.

Coal resource in the USA is probably the most abundant in the world, and people should protect USA coal industry from a strategic perspective. Another fact is that USA has more coal resource than natural gas. People need the abundant and affordable coal to live by and promote our national economy development. As our economy develops and expands, more and more energies will be needed, and coal is the must choice. The energy dependence on coal in newly-developed countries, such as China and India have proved this point.

Therefore, people should protect the development of coal industry in the USA, increase the utilization of coal as a sustainable and affordable energy source. In this case, USA coal industry will continue to take a leadership in the world, and benefit our people and economy. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards273 From: Pat O'Malley [pat.o@azcitrus.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:58 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Cc: 'Pat O'Malley' Subject: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Patrick O’Malley, I have lived in Arizona since1977 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

r e quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

/s/ Patrick O’Malley Taxpayer from AZ



### Pat rick O'Malley
Precinct Committeeman274 From: Kim Fuehrer [kimfuehrer@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:21 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: STOP THE WAR ON COAL



### To Whom It May Concern: My husband works in the coal mines and CO2 regulations will impact his job and our community. He is gainfully employed supporting our family and we have no need for government assistance through welfare. If the regulations are passed, this will negatively affect the coal industry. If the coal mines are shut down, he will loose his job, thus our income. We will then be forced to go on the welfare system as there is no other industry in our county. This will also negatively affec t the current taxes we pay into the system. No longer will we have to pay the large amounts of taxes to our school district or the wage taxes since it's based on a percentage of our income and with no large income that will mean no large tax bill for us ei ther. When you consider the taxes that we currently pay times hundreds of coal miners in our community that will also loose their jobs, that will amount to a lot of lost money to our communities. Also, we will no longer be able to afford to contribute to our community by supporting local stores, eating out, etc. We won't even have to buy gas since we will not be going anywhere on a daily basis. I am urging you to consider all of the negative impact your decisions will have on coal related communities and all the additional families that will have to resort to the welfare system if coal related jobs are lost. Sincerely, Kimberly Fuehrer275 From: Dave Doney [Dave.Doney@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:24 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically di sadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China

Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outsidethe prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may not be needed – dogooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns.

Dave Doney Sent from my iPad276 From: Henriksen, Robert [RHenriksen@peabodyenergy.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 2:43 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### EPA Representatives: In these days of heavy handed government regulation and control, I can only see one possible

ou tcome: Financial hardship for the middle class American. We desperately need to become energy independent in the United States, in an effort to create jobs and lessen dependence on foreign countries that are hostile to Americans and our way of life. Our forefathers created the greatest nation the world has ever known through the freedoms we have all fought hard to preserve. American ingenuity and entrepreneurial prowess have created some of mankinds greatest accomplishments. I am a total believer in good stewardship of our environment and managing our resource base in a responsible manner. Climate change has been addressed on many levels and more forums than we can count. I think renewable energy is definitely going to be a part of the energy future of the world. I also think that fossil fuel will be the bridge that brings us to the time when technology can provide us with ways to power our wor ld with zero emissions. We must employ a common sense approach that allows us to reach that point in time, while still fueling our economy with the low cost electricity we need. Coal must be a part of this equation. It is abundant, low cost, and efficient. Clean coal technology has made great strides in the past decade, and with the proper backing will only become more advanced. Please consider this as you create new standards for carbon emissions. The middle class American is depending on you.

Thank you for listening: Robert Henriksen Peabody Energy Employee



### E-mail Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail, and in any accompanying documents, may constitute confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for the delivery of the message to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system.277 From: Ann Craig [annmarie1167@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:24 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Make Your Voice Heard

I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry.278 From: Matt Rekieta [mrekieta@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:49 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulations on coal-fired power plants



### Hello, I'm writing in regards to the proposed restrictions and regulations of CO2 on existing coal-fired power pl ants.

I have worked for a coal mine for the last 11 years. I have two children and a wife who depend on my paycheck to provide for our family. If more regulations are put on these existing power plants it will cause many coal-fired power plants including the plant that we sell coal to, to shut down. This coal mine and the power plant provide more than 500 jobs for the surrounding area. It sponsors our children's sports teams and school activities. It has helped build our communities to what they are today. Without these industries there would be no source of revenue in the area. So not only will you shut down the power plant and coal mines you will also destroy our communities and what we have worked so hard to build up.

Please consider not adding more regulations to coal-powered plants. Our power plant is one of cleanest burning power plants in the United States. There's not much more room for improvement. More regulations would cause higher energy costs in an already weak economy, loss of thousands of jobs, the crumble of hundreds of small towns and the loss of faith in our government to do what's best for the people. Thanks for your time.

Matthew Rekieta Electrician Walnut Creek Mining Company Bremond, Texas279 From: pamshab [pamshab@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:59 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### GOD put coal here for us to use wisely. This guy pretending to be our president had no right to do what he did. We are not ready technology wise for all that GREEN crap. When we are ready, we will know it. For now coal and shale will provide us with all we need. Tom Shabatura280 From: Emilena [emilenapturley@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:40 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 & RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009

Dear EPA,

My name is Emilena Turley I have lived in Arizona since 1987 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power plants in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that does not take into account the costs involved in different geographies.

AZ has no oil wells to pump CO2 into which makes it unfeasible in the state.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to less carbon, and the 10 th Amendment

r e quires the EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules are unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,



### Emilena P. Turley281 From: justin - [jlh121977@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: justin - [jlh121977@yahoo.com] comment



### Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be
sp ent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controlsthat may or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than dogooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns.282 From: Scott Troutman [Scott.Troutman@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

I am Scott Troutman and I work in the coal field. This industry has given me and my family a good quality of life. Energy generated by coal is the most economical as well as the most logical solution. The cost of energy has a great affect on lower class Americans and, with any other energy source, could become a great burden on the economy. Carbon Dioxide, omitted from burning coal, has been proven to support trees which provide the planet with Oxygen. The EPA is wasting resources combatting the perceived threat of climate change instead of solutions for world hunger and the elimination of widespread disease and suffering, which is a much more noble cause. Your efforts for creating a cleaner more predictable climate is being overtaken by other countries lack of respect toward your regulations, as well as the countries creating thousands of job opportunities for their growing economy while our economy is suffering. I suggest that this country continues to find ways to burn our resources and continue to develop ways to scrub out the harmful pollutants.283 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Rodger [rodgrepro@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:51 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 19:51
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Rodger Email: rodgrepro@aol.com
Comments: The first thing the EPA needs to do is Shut Down and get out of the way of the STATES RIGHTS WE DON'T NEED YOU STOP YOUR NONSENSE CO2 is not a pollutant it is plant food

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards284 From: Burdick, Amrita J. [BurdickA@umkc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon pollution and existing plants

It only makes sense to make existing coal-fired electrical plants follow the same standards

as new plants, with allowance for a two to three year transition period. Asthma is a very serious hea lth problem for our young people and giving existing plants a "get home free card"will only injure more kids. Please work for strong carbon pollution standards for all coalfired plants.

With global warming an even more imperative challenge to future generations than the health implications of asthma, it is time to focus on sustainable resources to generate electrical power. Germany, for instance has taken advantage of green resources to greatly reduce its need of fossil fuels. To help US electrical cooperatives and companies, particularly those that serve rural communities during the transition period, the government needs to provide financial incentives to electrical distribution companies that move to non-fossil fuel based sources. There also shoul d be financial incentives for customers who reduce their electrical usage, included in this support for electrical companies. (We probably could find adequate funding for this by eliminating the tax breaks we currently give for carbon fuels exploration.)

This is a planetary challenge, not just a US challenge and it deserves the highest level of government support. Reducing CO2 is essential to keeping the planet functioning for future generations. Please act to protect our kids and grandkids by by creating strict regulations and working to clean up existing plants -- as well as by working to provide financial incentives for moving to electrical resources that won't end when we have exhausted fossil fuels-- probably in the time of our grandkids' grandkids, if we continue at the current rate! We need to begin that switch to renewable resources *now* when we still have some clean air and clean water left.

Sincerely,

Amrita Burdick285 From: Justin Barrett [justintbarrett@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 6:16 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Justin Barrett [justintbarrett@yahoo.com] comment



### Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. Whi le this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controlsthat may or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than dogooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns.286 From: Gale Espinosa [galeny13@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:51 PM 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 it to transition to a renewable future.287 From: Ken Grant [kgrant109@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:41 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### Dear EPA Agency,

I h ave been recently informed about you holding public listening sessions in order to solicit input about the EPA's plan to regulate carbon dioxide emmissions from coal fired power plants.

I would appreciate your time of considering some these facts and statements on this urgent about the irrational stand that the EPA has take n on this matter.



### C o ngress refused to enact Cap & Trade legislation that would target CO2 emissions and cut them 80% by 2050. This was after the “people” made it clear that the legislation was not wanted. The act drafted by Representatives Markey (D-MA) and Waxman (D-CA) was over 1,400 pages long (The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009).

When Congress rejected the Waxman-Markey legislation the president warned that CO2 emissions could be reduced through other means. (The Bill passed in the House, but the Senate didn’t act, so the Bill died.)

Then, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act unless Congress legislated otherwise.

This gave Congress an opportunity to prevent the EPA from regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act, but Congress didn’t act because many Senators and House Members wanted CO2 to be regulated by the EPA.

To put such a program in place, however, the EPA first had to issue an Endangerment Finding to the effect that CO2 was harmful to health and the environment, which it did in December 2009.

In doing so, the EPA claimed that the UN’s IPCC documents provided a scientific basis for the Endangerment Finding.

Over the past year, the EPA issued regulations on mercury emissions and cross-state pollution that had the effect of curtailing CO2 emissions.

Many claimed that the real intent of these regulations was to cut CO2 emissions.

The EPA is now issuing the New Source Performance Standard that essentially bans construction of new coalfired power plants so as to cut CO2 emissions

.
The new rule specifically says that no new power plant can be built unless the power plant emits no more than 1 pound of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (lb CO2/kWh). The typical coal-fired power plant emits about 40% more than that, while natural gas plants emit slightly less.

Existing coal-fired power plants are exempt from the rule, at least until the plant has work done on it.288 

### In essence, new coal-fired power plants would have to capture and then sequester the CO2 underground for thousands of years. These plants, such as the Integrated Gasification Combined Cy cle (IGCC) plant, cost almost as much as a nuclear power plant – over $5,000 per KW versus $1,100 per KW for a natural gas-fired power plant and $2,800 per KW for a modern ultra-supercritical coal-fired plant.

Electricity produced by competing natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) and coal plants cost about the same until fracking created a glut of natural gas. Right now, with natural gas costing about $2.4 per million BTU, NGCC plants are the least expensive to operate.

It’s fortunate that fracking has permitted the development of huge amounts of natural gas so that natural gas power plants can be built now that new coal-fired power plants have been outlawed.

The EPA is, however, doing what it can to prevent the use of fracking.

At some point in the future, we will need to build coal-fired power plants – either because natural gas plants become too expensive as gas prices rise or because coal-fired power plants are better suited for base load operation.

In reality, the EPA is now subjecting Americans to the requirements of the United Nations. The EPA used the UN’s IPCC as the scientific basis for its Endangerment Finding – and the UN has said the United States must cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.

CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant.

The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply false, wrong, and improper.

The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest.

The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disrup tive and economically horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns.

If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence it?

A key litigation target in 2013 is EPA’s proposal to establish greenhouse gas “new source performance standards” (NSPS) for power plants. This so-called carbon pollution standard is not based on policy-neutral health or scientific criteria. Rather, the EPA contrived the standard so that commercially-viable coal plants cannot meet it. The rule effectively bans investment in new coal generation.289 

### The EPAis attempting to accomplish through the regulatory backdoor what it could not achieve through the legislative front door. The carbon pollution rule is an affront to the separation of powers.

I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance by means of either welfare or government regulations.

These new EPA regulations will someday negatively affect my industry and the cost efficiency of all electrical energy used by every home and industry in our country, which will also affect the stagnate economy of any growth nationally and world wide.

Sincerely,

Ken Grant290 From: John Popa [jjpopa@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:14 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

EPA

The new carbon polution standards are: -unreasonable -expensive -non scientific -politically driven -will hurt the economy -affect the next generations to come -make us a third world country (most of them have no energy) -will not reduce carbon (other countrys will fill the void)

Drop the idea!!!!! John Popa PE291 From: Jada Johnston [johnston10530@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

My husband is gainfully employed as a coal miner. We live a comfortable life raising 3 ch ildren ages 14, 11, and 4. We do not require or rely on any type of government help, my husband is a hard worker and takes pride in being able to financially care for his family. This has been his life for 27 years and all of these new regulations could destroy his means for financially supporting his family, and for hundreds of families in our area. He has no college education and losing his job would mean replacing it with a minimum wage job and probably forcing us to get government assistance so everyone could take care of us. I strongly urge for you to pray about these decisions and take into account the countless families you would hurt! We need to PRAY for our country and bring GOD back into these decisions. Thank you, for your consideration on this matter. Jada Johnston

Sent from my iPad292 From: Mike Kollar [kooopsd@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• 

### I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully

em ployed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry.

Sent from my iPhone that the government didn't pay for!293 From: chrissyk@pennswoods.net Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. he at for their homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest Chrissy294 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Douglas Shuster [dougchristy62@windstream.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:04 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 16:04
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Douglas Shuster Email: dougchristy62@windstream.net Comments: I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assit. via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards295 From: Clint Schuey [Clint.Schuey@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### EPA,

I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry.

Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that mayor may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns.

Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China.

Clint Schuey Rosebud Mining Company296 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Daniel Burkeen [daniel.burkeen@co.limestone.tx.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 14:22
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Daniel Burkeen Email: daniel.burkeen@co.limestone.tx.us Comments: First, the term "carbon pollution" is ridiculous. It implies that carbon emissions came about when power plants consolidated power production, and ignores the hundreds of years that fossil fuels and other fuels were burned without scrubbers, without monitoring, all carbon emissions going naturally in the environment. It also shows your allegiance to the questionable science promoted by those who profit from the questionable science. Second, this is not a time that we can afford to cripple the energy industry. The consequences to the poor who can barely pay their electric bill now would be devastating. We need the electricity. We need to continue making improvements in clean production. We don't need to destroy the industry based on voodoo science. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards297 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Marion Goldyn [mgoldyn@jennmar.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:11 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 14:10
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Marion Goldyn Email: mgoldyn@jennmar.com
Comments: Good Morning/afternoon, My name is Marion Goldyn, I am an employee at Jennmar Corp. I have worked for this company for 35 years making roof support products for the coal mines. I have lived in the great commonwealth of Pa. since 1975 and watch train load after train load of coal going to the power plants. I would like to co mment on the EPA carbon regulations. First, EPA's carbon regulations must not cause the retirement of any coal plants, under any circumstances, in favor of natural gas or renewable electricity generation. Second, electricity improves quality of life. Requiring less electricity use is a form of energy rationing that will hurt people, reduce life expectancy, and reduce overall standards of living. Third, EPA's carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable supplies, especially in states that rely on coal. Fourth, EPA's carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Fifth, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and , therefore, stranded investments in emission controls. Please consider some of these comments, to ensure that we have a good quality of life here in the hills of Pa. surrounded by coal mines and power plants. I Thank you for your attention. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards298 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Lorraine Radion [brurad@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:07 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 14:06
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Lorraine Radion Email: brurad@yahoo.com
Comments: I think you should leave well enough alone. Forest fires give off more pollution than Energy plants. I don't want to pay more to heat my home. Stop the war on coal. It made you warm and able to see in the dark while you where growing up so why change something that is not broken. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards299 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Debbie [Debbi_064@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:50 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 13:50
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Debbie Email: Debbi_064@msn.com Comments: The Power plants are already the cleanest burning that they can be living up to all regulations. Coal Power plants provide the cheapest resource for electricity and provide a lot A LOT of people with employment across this Country. You are just regulating the DEATH of Coal power plants and to be fair 100's of thousands of hard WORKING people in this country! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards300 From: Doug Stewart [Doug.Stewart@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:48 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they weigh the benefits of regulation against the costs to the

ec onomy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply false, wrong, and improper. There is no reason U.S. taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. Our global competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy,produce, andand provide services for.To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China. We should not regulate out the use of coal fired power plants and ignore the low cost and abundant energy resource that coal is. EPA’s CO2 plan is dead wrong for America!!!!!

Doug Stewart301 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Rick [rwirfel@jennmar.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:34 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 13:33
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Rick Email: rwirfel@jennmar.com Comments: Instead of trying to raise electrical rates on US citizens, why don't you spend some money that you're wasting trying to control "environmental pollution" in the US on educating the Chinese on impacts of their pollution to th e rest of the world. Your miniscule impact on the world's problem is nill. EPA money is just keeping people employed by the EPA. It doesn't impact the environment. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards302 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mike London Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:32 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 13:32
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Mike London Email: Comments: • I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards303 From: Walther, Bryan [Bryan.Walther@nacoal.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: War on Coal



### It is very disheartening to see this effort by the EPA and this administration to destroy the coal industry when it plays

su ch a vital role in our overall energy needs in this country. Hard working Americans working in the coal mining industry to provide for their families will be adversely affected when the real truth about their industry isn’t being considered. What is the real truth?? I like to only list a few.



## • A merica’s most abundant fuel source, coal, provides de pendable and affordable power

• New federal regulations should not be used to shut dow n or restrict low-cost and dependable coal-fired power generation

• The EPA should not impose rules that raise the cost of electricity

• Any regulations that raise the price of electricity wi ll impact America’s poor the hardest

• Regulations restricting coal use or forcing power plants to switch fuels will raise demand for other fuels, thus raising their costs unnecessarily

• Restricting or eliminating America’s use of coal will cost jobs and hurt our economy, just as it’s struggling to get back on its feet

• Coal mining and coal-fired power provides thousands of secondary jobs as well, and billions of dollars of taxes nationwide to support our schools, highways, police and other essential services

• It’s unfair if Americans bear the brunt of unnecessary greenhouse gas restrictions without similar requirements for countries such as China, which today is the number one emitter of CO 2



## • Wi thout similar restrictions on all countries, including China, CO 2 

## reductions from t he US will be insignificant and not result in an overall worldwide decrease in CO 2



## • Th e EPA should conduct more listening sessions where p eople impacted by the proposed rule actually live – there are no coal miners in Seattle, San Francisco, Boston or New York City.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bryan Walther bryan.walther@nacoal.com304 

### NOTICE: This message may contain privileged and confidential information which is protected from disclosure. If you are not the addressee indicated in this communication (or an agent or employee responsible for delivering this communication to such person), you may not read, copy, use or disseminate this message to any other person. In such case, you should destroy this communication and kindly notify the sender immediately by reply email or telephone. Please advise the sender immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. This communication is restricted to the intended recipient and is not to be provided to a third party without the prior consent of The North American Coal Corporation or its representatives.305 From: R WILLIAMS [RECENA62@MSN.COM] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:24 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: burn coal



### I travel through Oklahoma and Kansas and some places all you see are the wind generators. To me they are

an d eye sore and I am sure they mess up migration of birds. I think it is sad that we have such beauty and all you can see are them things. Why don’t you put them all over Washington. I think there should be a couple in the front of the white house, one out every window of it, and don’t forget to put one in Mrs Obama’s garden. Coal has been around a long time and it can burn clean. You and all the government need to leave our coal mines and Power Plant alone. Ok they are trying to go by all your rules but it is easy to push a pencil when you don’t know about it and have never worked it. In Oklahoma they already tried the gas power plant thing and all their utilities went up to where people couldn’t afford it. The world wants all its luxuries including you. I understand we have other sources of energy and we are using them, Our government has already taken and ruined so many jobs. There needs to be an end to it at least for several years so people can start surviving again. The government can not afford to support all of us and some of us have to work to support the millions out there that we are supporting. The millions that eat better than we do.

Thank you I am sure that Mr president won’t even take the time to listen to the people. He has not listened so far.....306 From: Rebecca Beck [Rebecca.Beck@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### I am proud to say I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am
ga infully employed supporting myself and my family and I am also proud to say I have no need for government assistance via either welfare but these regulations could someday make it so many more will need government assistance because of loss of jobs.

Think about it 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.

Let’s keep AMERICA STRONG AND WORKING.



# Thank you



# exuxvvt Uxv~ e x uxvvt Uxv~exuxvvt Uxv~ xuxvvt Uxv~

Rosebud Mining Company 3 0 1 Market Street Kittanning PA 16201 Phone 724-545-6222 ext 363 Fax 724-548-7839 rebecca.beck@rosebudmining.com307 From: Josey Milbradt [josey.milbradt@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:03 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Proposed Carbon Emission Limits on Existing Generating Stations



### I am writing in comment on the proposal by EPA to place carbon emission limits on existing fossil fueled electric

ge nerating stations. I believe this is a grossly misguided regulatory initiative at this time. Unlike virtually all previous emissions limits established through rulemaking, there is no commercially and technically proven technology to accomplish any significant reduction in CO2 emissions from power plants that already are in service, short of completely rebuilding them as if they were new projects. Such a proposal will, despite whatever limit is applied, have the effect of eliminating coal fired generation, no matter how clean they are with regard to the other regulated emissions, from service in providing the baseload of electricity so critical to our everyday lives, well being and employment of so many people. Even if achieved, such limits will have a negligible effect upon the presumed connection with global climate change, which would require a global reduction by nations such as China and the rest of Asia and Europe. There is no available replacement for coal fired baseload other than natural gas, and reducing the diversity of our fuel sources to a single source will undoubtedly have significant cost inflationary effects and require enormous additional infrastructure for pipelines and other means of moving the supply. Economically punishing our own populace and especially those most vulnerable to energy costs, meanwhile achieving no significant environmental benefits, with the rest of the world enjoying the benefits of increasing coal based energy makes no sense for our government or our society. Our nation is totally dependent on affordable and dependable electricity supplies. One has only to look to Europe and especially the UK to see that th eir efforts to maximize the use of, and move to “renewable” energy has resulted in electricity becoming so expensive and unreliable that many of their people are going into another winter without electricity. I urge the EPA to back away from any further consideration of carbon limiting regulations on existing generation stations and instead focus on using existing and proven technologies to affordably and predictably improve emissions where achievable across the country. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important and potentially dangerous regulatory
initiative.

Josey Milbradt, P.E. Bismarck, ND308 From: Larry Tscherne [larry@ibew245.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:20 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources



### To whom it may concern, My name is Larry Tscherne and I am the Business Manager of Local 245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW Local 245) in Rossford Ohio. We represent approximately 800 jobs in Northwest Ohio. The future of our union’s jobs and the welfare of our families and communities will be and have been impacted by the EPA’s decisions on the guidelines for existing source greenhouse gas controls for power plants scheduled to be propose in June of 2014.

o Many unions are experiencing unprecedented job losses due to the shutdowns of coal plants and units that are

o c curring in response to EPA’s mercury rule and lower gas prices. The U.S. Department of Energy projects that more than 50,000 megawatts of coal capacity will be shut down over the next few years. Most of these closures will occur at older and smaller coal plants that are not economically feasible to be retrofitted with scrubbers and other controls needed to meet the new mercury standard.

o These job losses will accelerate in 2015 and 2016 when the mercury rule takes effect. These plants have already

sp ent millions of dollars to comply with MATS and are the same plants that are being targeted by the proposed rule. The additional expenditures required will force these plants to close.

o In addition to the loss of high paying jobs, we are concerned about the loss of generation which will effect

st ability and reliability of the electric grid along with the potential for higher electric rates.

o WE believe that the Clean Air Act calls for plant by plant assessments, by the states, of what amounts of CO2 can

reas onably be reduced at existing plants, such as by efficiency improvements.

o We will support reasonable measures to increase energy efficiency at coal generation plants, reducing their CO2

em issions. However, we cannot support arbitrary targets that would force additional plant closures and job losses.

Please note we IBEW Local 245 have already lost 60 high paying jobs by the closure of three (3) units at FirstEnergy’s Bay Shore power plant in Oregon Ohio in addition to all of the construction and support employees . Thank you for your consideration. Larry Tscherne IBEW Local 245 Rossford, Ohio309 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jerry Boatner [jerryboatner@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:40 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 10:39
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Jerry Boatner Email: jerryboatner@gmail.com
Comments:

Good day.

I am writing as a former mayor of the City of Mount Pleasant, Texas for 22 years. Having watched the productivity of Luminant's 3 units here in Titus County, I have several points to share with you:

JOBS. This nation must preserve jobs and not export them to countries like China and other third world nations who have less stringent environmental and worker safety laws. The danger and concern is that new rules can jeopardize electricity supply and reliability while having little or no impact on global carbon emissions.

GROWTH. Ours is a growing state. Our economy is strong, and a reliable electrical system is vital. Luminant plants have operated safely and in an environmentally responsible way.

POWER NEEDED. In Texas ours is a free-standing electrical grid, and we are a state that is growing rapidly. To curtail or impede our electrical generating capacity will have a direct negative impact on jobs and growth here in Texas. Damage to Texas' electrical power generation poses a real risk that by 2015 we will experience a shortfall in power generation.

ALL FUELS IMPORTANT. Our current and future growth requires that our current energy supply from natural gas, coal, wind and nuclear be sustained in an environmentally responsible wa y. Texas can and will meet the environmental challenge while delivering affordable energy to Texas homes and businesses.

Thank you for your consideration of these points.

Sincerely,

Jerry Boatner Former mayor of Mount Pleasant 1983-1991 and 1997-2011

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards310 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ann Beth Crawford [a-crawfo@jtboyd.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:24 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 10:23
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Ann Beth Crawford Email: a-crawfo@jtboyd.com
Comments: Good morning, my name is Ann Beth Crawford. I am an executive assistant with John T. Boyd Company.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about EPA’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Pennsylvania Coal Alliance is concerned about EPA’s carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordable and reliable electricity. Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the nation. For example, coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states. And recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of-art coal plants. To begin with, we disagree with EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulations are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change. But, since EPA is developing these regulations anyway, I want to offer Pennsylvania Coal Alliance’s perspective.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants as a way to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represent only 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase energy prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coal- fired power plants have declined by almost 24 percent.

With that in mind, we believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Second, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Third, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near-term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants.EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do311 not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore, stranded investments in emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost-effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for your attention.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards312 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jessica Savage [jsavage@westriverconveyors.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:50 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 09:50
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Jessica Savage Email: jsavage@westriverconveyors.com Comments: I was born and raised in the coalfields of Southwest Virginia. I decided to move back to my hometown after graduating from Virginia Tech. I live in a county of 25,000 people. This county thrives on coal. Every resident of this county is affected some way by the EPA regulations. From job losses directly tied to the coal mines to those miners not having any money to take their families out to eat at our restaurants. It is a trickle-down effect and everyone is suffering. Because of the severance tax from coal that this county receives each year, we are able to put that money into our school system and subsidize property taxes and garbage bills. When people's property taxes go up significantly and they don't have a job, how are they going to pay their bills and taxes? It is devastating to see what these regulations are doing to our communities here in Southwest Virginia. Why are you pumping continued money into failed Solar companies who continue to go bankrupt on billions of dollars of taxpayer money vs. taking something that we already have established and working to continue to make it cleaner? It doesn't make sense to me. Being in Washington makes you completely removed from the devastation we are feeling here in Southwest Virginia and in coal communities across our nation. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards313 From: Judy & Vaughn Mavers [mavers@htc.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:48 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal Usage in the USA

Dear EPA:

My wife and I are strongly in favor of the continued use of coal in the USA for the production of electricity. It is our most abundant fuel and provides economical electricity to all of our citizen's, especially the poor. Since other governments are increasing their usage of coal, our reduction in coal usage will not really impact global warming, if this indeed does exist, but only decrease any industrial competitiveness we may have due to our low electrical generation costs from coal.

The EPA should be adding significant research funding to improve the pollution controls on coal usage. Once these are developed, as we in the USA have always accomplished given time and funding, we can add these new technologies to our existing coal fleet, and provide the new technology to the governments of China's, India's etc. to add to their coal burning fleet. This would actually reduce any overall world impact that coal use may have on our environment, and still keep electrical costs low and competitive in the USA.

Solar and wind are good political points for politicians,votes, etc. but we are NOT DUMB here in the Midwest. We KNOW that there has to be a coal, gas or nuclear plant operating as a continual power source when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing, We also know that the wind and solar systems are not competitively viable without government subsidies and/or mandates that utilities must supply a certain amount of their power from these sources. Isn't it also true that while you make publicity via the so called jobs these new industries add, you neglect to subtract all the jobs that are being lost in the mining and transportation industries from the loss of coal usage?

Let's get off the political agenda for a while and do what is best for the long term viability of the United States and its future generations. Coal is abundant and can be currently burned extremely clean using the Prairie State Energy Center in Southern Illinois for example. Why is the EPA and the Federal government, not providing funding to our domestic utilities to upgrade existing coal plants with the same type of technology as that in operation at the Prairie State complex? Wouldn't this type of venture also add JOBS in this country and reduce any pollutants?

Does it not make sense to use our most abundant fuel (coal) for electrical generation; and use our newly found natural gas to fuel our automotive fleet which is by far, the major source of the pollutants that you stress are causing "Global Warning" in this country. Please think OUT OF THE BOX and OUT OF THE BELTWAY for a change, and do what is RIGHT for the CITIZENS in the long run.

Vaughn & Judy Mavers314 From: Tim Ball [tball1951@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:43 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### I am against your proposed regulations concerning carbon dioxide. It is time this country has a defined energy policy rather than one manipulated by the EPA. Put our money in clean coal technology. Plant more trees and stop other world countries from burning coal without any pollution devices We did not sign the Kyoto Treaty so I assume this is your way of getting it done anyhow.315 From: Judy & Vaughn Mavers [mavers@htc.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:29 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Use of Coal

Dear EPA:

My wife and I am strongly in favor on continued use of coal in the USA for the production of electricity. It is our most

a b undant fuel, and provides economical electricity for all our citizen's, especially the poor. Since other governments are increasing their usage of coal, our reduction in coal usage will not really impact global warming if this indeed does exist, but only decrease any industrial competitiveness we may have due to our low electrical generation costs from coal.

The EPA should be adding significant research funding to improve the pollution controls on coal usage. Once these are de veloped, as we in the USA have always accomplished given time and funding, we can add this new technology to our existing coal fleets, and the new technology to the governments of China's, India's etc. to add to their coal burning fleet. This would actually reduce any overall world impact that coal use may have on our environment, and still keep electrical costs low and competitive in the USA.

Solar and wind are good political points for politicians,votes, etc. but we are NOT DUMB here in the Midwest. We KNOW tha t there has to be a coal, gas or nuclear plant operating as a continual power source when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing, We also know that the wind and solar systems are not competitively viable without government subsidies,etc., and/or mandates that utilities must supply a certain amount of their power from these sources. Isn't it also true that while you make publicity via the so called jobs these new industries add, you neglect to subtract all the jobs that are being lost in the mining and transportation industries from the loss of coal usage?

Let's get off the political agenda for a while and do what is best for the long term viability of the United States and its future ge nerations. Coal is abundant and can be currently burned extremely clean using the Prairie State Energy Center in Southern Illinois, for example. Why is the EPA and the Federal government, not providing funds to our utilities to upgrade their existing coal plants with the same type of technology as that in operation at the Prairie State complex? Wouldn't this type of venture also add JOBS in this country:?

Does it not make sense to use our most abundant fuel (coal) for electrical generation and use our newly found natural g a s to fuel our automotive fleet, which is, by far, the major source of the pollutants that you say are causing "Global Warning" in this country. Please think OUT OF THE BOX and OUT OF THE BELTWAY for a change, and do what is RIGHT for the CITIZENS in the long run. Vaughn & Judy Mavers316 From: Douglas B. Farnham [dfarnham@farnham-pfile.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 9:00 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA Listening Sessions



### Good morning, my name is Doug Farnham and I am the President of Farnham & Pfile Construction, Inc.

Farnham & Pfile is concerned about EPA’s carbon regulations because of their impact on the use of coal to produce affordable and reliable electricity. Coal plays a crucial role in providing electricity to consumers in virtually every state in the nation. For example, coal provides more than one quarter of the electricity in 29 states with a collective population of more than 175 million people. Unfort unately, EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of 300 existing coal units in 33 states. And recently proposed regulations would ban new, efficient state-of-art coal plants.

EPA regulations are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change. But, since EPA is developing these regulations anyway, I want to offer Farnham & Pfile’s perspective.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal- fired power plants as a way to address global climate change. However, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet represents less than 1% of global CO 2


### . Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase energy prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has already reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy. U.S. power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent below 2005 levels, and carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants have declined by almost 24 percent.

With that in mind, we believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

First, EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere

with aff ordable electricity prices and reliable electricity supplies, especially in states that rely on coal.

Second, EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their317 

### reliance on coal if they choose that approach. Also, EPA must give states ample time to develop and implement their plans.

Third, coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near- term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore, stranded investments in

emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost- effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely, Douglas B. Farnham

President

Farnham & Pfile Construction, Inc.

1 200 M aronda Way

Suite 301 M onessen, PA 15062

PH: 724-653-1010

FX: 724-653-1015

dfarnha m@farnha m-pfile.com318 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of dennis foster [dennis.foster@rosebudmining.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:52 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 08:51
Su bmitted values are:

Name: dennis foster Email: dennis.foster@rosebudmining.com
Comments: We disagree with EPA’s decision to regu late greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. EPA regulations are an ineffective and economically harmful way to address climate change.

EPA is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants as a way to address global climate change. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. coal fleet will increase energy prices without having any meaningful effect on global climate change. Further, the U.S. electric sector has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other sector of the economy.

With that in mind, we believe EPA should follow these principles in developing carbon regulations:

1. EPA’s carbon regulations must not cause further retirement of coal plants.

2. Electricity improves quality of life. R equiring less electricity use is a form of energy rationing that will hurt the Country as a whole.

3. EPA’s carbon regulations should do no harm. Carbon regulations should not interfere with affordable electricity prices and reliable electricity.

4. EPA’s carbon regulations should provide states with all the flexibility they need in order to develop plans that suit their unique circumstances, including continuing their reliance on coal if that works best for that state.

5. Coal plant owners are expected to invest over $30 billion in the near-term to further reduce emissions of conventional air pollutants. EPA must ensure that carbon regulations do not cause additional premature closures of coal units and, therefore, stranded investments in emission controls.

Finally, EPA should remove regulatory barriers to efficiency improvements at existing coalfueled power plants. Efficiency improvements are a cost-effective way to reduce emissions, while maintaining affordable and reliable operations. EPA should remove barriers to these projects.

Thank you for your attention.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards319 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jonathan Clark [jonclark@kajonmaterials.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:25 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 08:25
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Jonathan Clark Email: jonclark@kajonmaterials.com Comments: The proposed standard needs to be postponed until the technology exists to comply with the standard Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards320 From: Steve Eckert [ninjaneer51@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:14 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Fwd: Greenhouse Gas Regulations



### To w hom it may concern:

I am writing this e-mail to express my concern of any future regulations that the EPA is considering to control greenhouse gases from coal fired power plants. While everyone agrees that clean air is important, the ways to go about it vary greatly. Coal mining in Texas is an important part of the economy of our state, with over 23,000 direct jobs, and $6.2 billion dollars of economic activity a year. Texas has the youngest fleet of coal fired power plants of any state and also the cleanest. Electrical generation is continuing to grow in Texas as the population and industrial activity grows, and in order for ERCOT to keep up with this growth and demand, we need more plants, and a balanced approach is best, and coal fired plants is a big part of that balance.

As I stated in the beginning, clean air is important, but not at the loss of jobs and revenue. Electric generation from coal is very affordable, and in these tough economic times and in the future, it is and will be very affordable. I oppose any regulations proposed by the EPA that will shut down coal fired electrical generation plants and hinder the future building of new ones.

Sincerely,

Steve Eckert, P.E.

106 Caddo Lake Trail

Georgetown, TX. 78633321 From: Nelson, Jarald C [jarald.nelson@nacoal.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:47 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: co2 regulation



### Regulation are driving up the cost of everything. There needs to be time for technology to catch up to regulations.
Mo st people have concerns about the environment including me. Thing that are going to help in the future are electrical efficiencies in products. For example LED lighting would save large amounts of electricity only if the lights would cost less money more people would use them. There are too many examples like this to mention but regulations on cheap electricity will only drive up the cost of new efficient products. Let the industry work without handicapping them and when the technology is available it will happen on its own. The system we have works and the business that are in it for the duration will advance, survive and take care of the environment on their own without regulations. An example is the coal industry the companies that are not looking to the future will not survive and they have not. The ones that are taking care of business, are operating well and are very efficient. In this process the emissions have been greatly reduced and the output per BTU has been efficiently increased. Jarald Nelson



### NO TICE: This message may contain privileged and confidential information which is protected from disclosure. If you are not the addressee indicated in this communication (or an agent or employee responsible for delivering this communication to such person), you may not read, copy, use or disseminate this message to any other person. In such case, you should destroy this communication and kindly notify the sender immediately by reply email or telephone. Please advise the sender immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. This communication is restricted to the intended recipient and is not to be provided to a third party without the prior consent of The North American Coal Corporation or its representatives.322 From: JBARCLAY63@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:38 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: EPA

We do not need any more regulations on COAL FIRED power plants. The government has put health care in a real bad way. Coal is the cheapest way to go at our power plants Obama wants his hands in every thing. He has ruined our health system.

I ask you to vote the right way and leave the carbon emissions as they are.

Jon Barclay 312 S.R. 68 West Apt. A Lynnville, IN 47619

812-922-5040l323 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of icman1208@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:03 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 07:03
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Email: icman1208@msn.com Comments: Save jobs & economy. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards324 From: chris fross [fross.chris@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 6:48 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Regulations on coal fire plants



### I'm just wanting to let the epa and all others that coal and coal fire power plants are a major part of rural

am erica. I understand that their needs to be some regulations on emissions from power plants. But regulating power plants and the coal mines that feed them to the point they have to close down is wrong. Coal fired power plants and coal mines are how my family lives. My dad was a boiler maker and most of his family are to. They are the ones that built mousy of the power plants that we have today, and they are the ones that still get called when power plants need work done on them. I am a coal miner and with out this job I would have a hard time providing for my family. My wife works for a small company that does maintenance on the power plant here in our town. My brother works at a coal fired power plant in the next town. The last of people that I know could go on and on of people that I know who's lives are connected to coal fired power plants or coal mines. Towns such as my home town of Craig, Co depend on coal mines and coal fired power plants. It's not just the people that work directly for the power plants or coal mines that depend on the revenue from these companies it the whole economy in the towns. If the mine I work at shuts down there would be over 150 employees that loose their source of income. But on top of that there would be hundreds more affected by the lose of revenue. From the parts store that the mine buys parts from to the grocery store where all the employees bought there groceries from. Please take into consideration the lives that would be drastically changed if over regulation is put into place on coal mines and coal fired power plants.325 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Kit Pokorny [kit.pokorny@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 6:28 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 06:28
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Kit Pokorny Email: kit.pokorny@gmail.com Comments: Stop taking jobs away from the American people. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards326 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ludmila Dabrowski [Ludmila.dabrowski@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:26 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 23:26
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Ludmila Dabrowski Email: Ludmila.dabrowski@gmail.com Comments: The Obama Administration MUST NOT use environmental regulations to put the coal industry out of business and that is exactly what they are trying to do. Our country does more to protect the environment than any country in the world. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards327 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Dean Spooner [pastor@lutheranchurchcarmi.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 10:46 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 22:45
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Dean Spooner Email: pastor@lutheranchurchcarmi.com Comments: The Obama Administration should not use environmental regulations to put the coal industry out of business. The Federal Government does not have Constitutional authority to do so. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards328 From: Tom Scott [tbscott@q.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:09 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495



### EPA: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code: 2822T Washington, DC, 20460 email carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495

Dear EPA,

My name is Thomas Scott, I have lived in Arizona since 1952 and I am concerned about the EPA’s proposed rules regarding carbon regulations in areas surrounding the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona, and other coal fired power supplies in Arizona.

The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions.

We object to the Carbon regulation proposed for existing coal fired power plant that do not take into account the costs involved in different geographies, nor the effects on the Largest Native American Tribe in the US.

AZ has no oil wells to pump carbon into underground reservoirs which makes it un feasible in AZ. Carbonization our underground water supplies is not good water management practice.

AZ has no natural gas supplies and new carbon regulations that force the replacement of coal with Natural Gas plants only work in states that have Natural Gas. AZ has no such option.

The States implementation plan is the best solution for long term transition to a less carbon, and the 10 th



### Ame ndment requires The EPA to use the State Plan in these regulations.

We are opposed to the stacking of regulations on power plants that force them to close, switch to Natural Gas or join a Carbon CAP and TAX marketplace like the one in California or REGI.

Because the EPA's proposed rules is unworkable on several levels at NGS, we urge the EPA to adopt the TWG BART Proposal as the final rule for NGS. We also urge the EPA to give exclusions to the rules that damage tribal and state economies. We have no Gas no Oil no choice in AZ.

Sincerely,

Thomas Scott

tbscott@q.com329 From: caymystic [caymystic@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:08 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### I live in craig colorado I can see the tristate powerplant from my deck I never see yellow in the skys or smell

an ything off. My wife helps support our family by working at 20 mile coal company (peabody) she is proud of where she worksand we are proud of. Yes she is an underground miner. And works her behind off. Messing with this power plant will destroy our small town. And the surrounding areas. Solar is not as sustainable as you would like it to be. Wind is not as efficient as you would like it to be. And both are extremely expensive endeavors to be even thinking about in todays economic situation. Shame on you for desiring destruction.

Sent from Samsung Mobile330 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mr. Jeremiah J Tucker [gr8t_daddy06@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 19:24
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Mr. Jeremiah J Tucker Email: gr8t_daddy06@yahoo.com Comments: I am a 2 generation Boilermaker the works in coal fired power plants for a least 3/4 of my yearly income. In the last few years, we have added many things to these plants to clean up the emissions, and I hope that will continue and the grants the little power plants need to upgrade will be easier to get. This bill will hurt so many, I hope you take a second look at the lives you are effecting! Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards331 From: Eddie Bearden [eddiedbearden@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:14 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### Why does the EPA want & plan to stifle growth in our nation now that a recovery is (slowly) getting off the ground with
it s plan to restrict emissions from existing coal-fired power plants? I am not in favor of totally removing all restrictions, but NOX emissions in Texas have already improved by nearly 12% since 2003, according to EPA’s own web site, while
SO 2 

### emissions have fallen by approximately 28% in the same time period. This would likely shut down many of the coalfi re d power plants and the mines the supply them. The result of this would be the loss of millions of high-paying jobs and the constant source of electrical energy that homes & factories need to survive and be competitive in our global economy. States with the highest percentage of coal-fired electricity have a high percentage of manufacturers who support hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs. I strongly urge the EPA to reconsider this ill-advised move. Thank you, Eddie Bearden332 From: Derek [dirtbiker250@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:10 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal plants.

I work at the coal plant in Craig Colorado. In fact, I work in the scrubber area !!!!!

we do a very very good job at keeping our flue gas clean!!! We scrub 90 percent so2 on all three units consistently! Anything and everything that comes out the stacks is water vapor! It is not pollution ! and BY THE WAY!!! don't plants breath carbon dioxide? Hmm. I think so ! I learned that when I was 3 years old. I think it still holds true! Yes burning coal produces co2 but that's what plants and vegetation breath so isn't that helping out environment? And guess what, Our plant provides our valley with over 300 JOBS!!! and so do other coal plants. Plus coal is cheap!!!!! gas plants run with very few people so that's VERY FEW JOBS! !!! How is that helping the unemployment rate????? All you will accomplish is the opposite of creating jobs!!! All the while making billions of dollars for yourselves. Greedy people is all you are. Selfish greedy lowlife a who have nothing better to do than to try and take away our nations best supply of power !!! And our JOBS!! Thanks for nothing!!! COAL KEEPS THE LIGHTS ON!! and PROVIDES GOOD JOBS FOR HONEST PEOPLE WHO "WORK" for a living. Not to mention the coal miners who break their backs providing the coal ! WE work for a living while YOU try to take away our JOBS and careers just to make a buck. Thanks!!!!!!333 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ginny Marriott [ginnymarriott@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:00 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 18:59
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Ginny Marriott Email: ginnymarriott@comcast.net Comments: The Obama Administration should not use environmental regulations to put the coal industry out of business. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards334 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Bruce VanCompernolle [brucevancompernolle53 @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 18:21
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Bruce VanCompernolle Email: brucevancompernolle53@hotmail.com
Comments: I am a Business Representative for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local #53. Our Local represents over 2,500 members, many of which would be negatively effected by the proposed standards that are being discussed at this meeting tonight. If these standards are put into effect the electric rates in the Midwest will triple or quadruple in the future years. Not only that, but it will have no impact on the "global" carbon footprint as both China and India are both building new plants every day with no regulations at all and burning our coal every day. Without any changes on a global level all we would be doing is drastically increasing our rates and eliminating many jobs while not having any impact globally. Converting to natural gas is not the answer as there are already many environmental concerns and issues with the impact of fracking on water tables and even worse, earthquakes. Not to mention that once all the plants are converted to natural gas we will see price increases like never before and rates will skyrocket. CO2 levels in the US have been reduced by 24% over the last 10 years and new technology is being created and implemented everyday in the coal industry. Please allow for reasonable time frames and levels in order to allow for the implementation of these technologies. Have the Government actually address the issues globally ie China and India or nothing we do here will have any impact globally.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my and my members concerns.

Bruce VanCompernolle Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards335 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Leonard D Curtis [l1911a145@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:22 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 18:21
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Leonard D Curtis Email: l1911a145@comcast.net Comments: Right now we need jobs more then we need the politics of the Global Warming myth. Please reconsider that your war on coal will cost jobs and will cause electricity to go up. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards336 From: Thomas, Kim [KThomas@callawayelectric.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 5:36 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: We need an all of the above energy strategy



### My name is Kim Thomas and I am an employee and member-owner of Callaway Electric Cooperative – a not-for-profit rural electric utility that serves Missouri’s rural Callaway and southern Montgomery Counties. I am writing today because I’m deeply concerned about the impact these regulations will have on my electricity bill and those of my friends, family, neighbors, and members of my electric cooperative.

It’ s been a difficult few years for those of us in my community. The job market is tight, we see very little growth and new construction, and it has been tough for many to make ends meet. For many, every extra dollar spent on our electricity bill means less money for food on the table, gas in the vehicle, even purchasing needed medicines and paying the rent.

By scheduling all of your meetings big cities it is difficult for folks in rural America to have an opportunity to attend. However, your proposed regulations will have a great impact and we would like our voice to be heard. That’s why I respectfully ask the EPA not to take actions that will increase the cost of energy for hardworking families like mine.

Kim Thomas Executive Secretary Ca llaway Electric Cooperative Fulton, Missouri337 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Ricky Wilson [rgwilson_ag04@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 5:15 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 17:15
Su bmitted values are:

Name: Ricky Wilson Email: rgwilson_ag04@sbcglobal.net
Comments: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding EPA's proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. New federal rules could raise electricity prices, reduce power reliability, eliminate jobs, and have negative economic impacts far beyond the power plants being regulated.

Thousands of megawatts of low-cost coal-fired power have been removed from the nation's electrical grid over the past few years, partly because of new EPA regulations. Remaining coal-fired plants have had billions of dollars of investment in new pollution controls as a result of prior strict EPA regulations, and are meeting or are proposed to meet those regulations. Now requiring additional new controls, for which the technology is so expensive that it's not economical to install, threatens these very investments. EPA may force utilities to close existing low-cost dependable coal-fired power plants, resulting in stranded assets that electricity consumers will ultimately have to pay for through higher power rates.

Second, EPA must consider what restricting coal use will do to the dependability of America’s electricity supply. The agency estimated that their recent air rules would result in eliminating 20,000-30,000 megawatts of coal-fired power. To date over twice that amount has been shut down or announced for closure. EPA must make a full and much more accurate accounting of projected power plant closures as a result of any new regulations, especially in light of its gross underestimations to date and in the past.

One need look no further than spiking natural gas prices and threatened power shortages in New England last winter, or reduced electricity power reserves in Texas, to see that parts of the country do not have a megawatt to spare. This analysis of reliability impacts is especially important in light of the large amount of coal-fired power already forced to retire.

Third, EPA must conduct an accurate analysis of job losses resulting from proposed greenhouse gas regulations. As you know, the President's promise of millions of "green energy" jobs has come nowhere near to fruition, while thousands of jobs have been lost in America's coal fields and power plants, partly because of recent new EPA rules. EPA must consider the regional impact of these job losses, because some parts of the country depend much more on low-cost coal than others. Considering only "nationwide average" job impacts is not meaningful to communities where job losses have been devastating.

Finally, economic impacts from new regulations must be fully calculated, including both direct (increased power costs) and indirect costs. Indirect costs include impacts to coal mine and power plant service and supply providers, increased consumer prices caused by higher electricity costs, increased costs to business due to brownouts that impair productivity, and adverse health impacts caused by higher power costs, especially to low-income and economically disadvantaged populations that must pay a larger percent of their income for their energy needs. Indirect costs also include reduced economic opportunities caused by338 decisions to avoid business development in regions with expensive and undependable power, and tax losses to governments at all levels. In the spirit of agency transparency ord ered by the President, EPA must account for ALL regulatory impacts, both direct and indirect.

In summary, the EPA must fully analyze proposed regulations and assure that they do not unnecessarily increase power costs, decrease reliability, cause job losses or negatively impact our economy far beyond the power plants being targeted.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards339 From: sgil@renewmfg.org on behalf of Sean Gil [sgil@iepwr.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 4:25 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Comments for CO2 Regulation Public Listening Sessions

My name is Sean Gil. I am a proud American and a resident of Pittsburgh, PA. I studied environmental science at Harvard and currently work at International Electric Power in power plant development and operations. I hope my comments regarding regulation of carbon dioxide emissions of existing coal-fired power plants will be considered during the EPA's eleven public listening sessions on "the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants."

Through the course of my business in Pakistan, I've become very familiar with the power sector in that country. Pakistan faces chronic power shortages, with blackouts often affecting major cities for hours at a time. The effect is devastating to Pakistan's once-robust textile industry, and many businesses have been forced to close. When power is available, it is 3-4 times as expensive as power in the U.S. The Pakistani government subsidizes power, which contributes to a nasty circular debt issue. These problems render both the government and the private sector in Pakistan less capable of investing in power infrastructure of any type. They are desperate for reliable and affordable electricity.

Low-cost and plentiful energy is a cornerstone of the American economy. The unfortunate image of Pakistan is an indication of how the United States may suffer if its long tradition of leveraging its considerable natural resources is upset.

Make no mistake; restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal plants WILL effectively kill the American coal power industry. Each coal plant would face expenses approaching $1 billion to comply, and virtually every one will elect to cease operations. In 2012, America derived 37% of its electricity from coal -- more than any other source. Losing this component of our electricity generation mix would affect every corner of the economy. The availability of power in America will dramatically decrease, while the cost of power will dramatically increase. The results of these changes would include:

1. The price of coal sold domestically would plummet, increasing exports of coal to countries that will burn it to generate affordable electricity. 2. In addition to the direct effect of losing 37% of our power generation, increased demand for (and price of) natural gas would contribute to yet higher power prices domestically. 3. American businesses, now facing similar conditions to Pakistani businesses, will choose to move their operations to countries providing the available and affordable power they require.

If CO2 restrictions on existing coal-fired power plants are implemented carefully, the result will be a slow and steady economic drain on the country; a positive feedback loop of vanishing business, increasing commodity prices, and expatriation of capital. If the restrictions are implemented recklessly, the effect would be nearly apocalyptic, with millions of people instantly becoming unemployed, prices of everything from food to gasoline shooting through the roof, and once-prosperous businesses closing forever. Most alarmingly, the net reduction in global CO2 emissions in either of these scenarios is zero as long as coal is allowed to be exported.

I quite understand global warming and I recognize that it is a serious concern. However, destroying the coal industry will lead this country to ruin much more quickly than global warming will. I urge the regulatory bodies to consider other means of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, with the goal of creating incentives for new businesses without destroying existing ones.

Thank you, Sean Gil



### -- Sean K. Gil Manager, Energy Analytics International Electric Power Office: 412-567-1496 Mobile: 412-354-0861340