Laura Michelle Kaplan July 29,2014 EPA Hearing 3:50P.M. Good Afternoon. My name is Laura Michelle Kaplan. I would like to start by saying that

I am an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.

I am a resident of Delaware, and,
a member of the Executive Committee
of the Sierra Club-Delaware Chapter and
I am here today in that capacity.

I am speaking
in favor of the proposed rule. I have focused my attention on environmental law and climate change, and was an intern at the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic

.. I had the opportunity

to study the Clean Air Act and Federal Energy laws and cases dealing with air pollution among other issues. Prior to 2007, only emissions which were included
in the list of qualified air pollutants,

as defined in the Clean Air Act, could be regulated by the EPA. The EPA claimed
it lacked authority
to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, because C02 was not

1considered

to be an "air pollutant"
as defined by the Clean Air Act. However,
in the landmark case of Massachusetts

v. EPA In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that C02 did indeed qualify as an "air pollutant". The EPA was then required to show that human health
is endangered by carbon dioxide. In 2009 the EPA issued the required "endangerment finding", showing that C02 emissions pose
a hazard to human health, which opened the way for the EPA to propose emission standards
to regulate power plant emissions
of carbon dioxide. The proposed rule, to promulgated
by the EPA is important because
it targets power plants which create the largest single source of C02 emissions, over 30%, of our nation's carbon emissions. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the responsibility

to set maximum emission standards
or an "emission guideline
of performance"
for categories
of stationary sources that contribute
to dangerous air pollution; today we are discussing existing sources; there are many old and inefficient power plants, 63% of which are 40 years old or older.

?

## The proposal requires state implementation plans to put forth

a best system of emission reduction (BSER) for existing sources.

If the EPA does not approve of the state plan,
a federal plan will be issued. One way of reducing emissions

is by increasing the efficiency of power plants which will not only reduce emissions but will also decrease electricity consumption, and encourage wind farms and solar panels. The economics indicate that the benefits outweigh the costs by far, according
to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In 2013. The model analysis shown by the NRDC study would reduce emissions by 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 34% by 2025. Additionally, health benefits will be achieved
as an extended result of emissions reduction. Not only will carbon dioxide emissions be lowered but also sulfur dioxide will be reduced. Mercury will be reduced by up to 27%,

a 22% reduction
of nitrogen oxides and a reduction
of soot by 25%, by 2020. These pollutants have been found to contribute
to high rates of asthma, other lung disease, and heartattacks. Harvard School of Public Health and Syracuse University Center for Health and the Global Environment In Delaware, Attorney General Beau Biden said, "the health of all Delawareans

is threatened by harmful pollution produced
in other states and carried here by wind currents". News Journal, April29, 2014. Delaware Governor Jack Markell noted that" ... more than 90 % of [Delaware's] dirty pollution comes from out-of-state sources, and the impact often results in air that does not meet healthy standards.

" This would include the formation
of ozone. Not surprisingly, the American Lung Association has given Delaware an F for its levels of Ozone, and aD in Particle Pollution. American Lung Association 2014 report.

I personally know that
a disproportionate percentage
of children and adults in Delaware suffer from Asthma and related health problems.It is incumbent upon the United States,. via the EPA, to lead the way in reducing carbon emissions.
At the present time, many states have individual plans, but some do not. Pollution doesn't stop at the state line, but rather spreads out. Similarly, the effects of global warming affect everyone, not just residents of a certain state or country. These proliferating effects are called "externalities".
For this reason
it is imperative
to have
a nationwide and world wide sustained effort to reduce carbon emissions. Climate change
is real,- It is caused by human beings, and only human beings can reverse it. We can do so by seizing this pivotal moment
in the history of environmental regulations, and by having

a united vision

.. New signs New signs of cooperation among emerging nations and progress

is being made. The United States must move forward quickly on this charge, must be a role model to the world, not a laggard, and must not delay the proposed action any longer.

I urge the EPA to promulgate the emissions standards that President Obama has called for and to follow the guidelines proposed by the NRDChttp:

I /www.nrdc.org/air /pollution-standards /files /pollution-standards-report.pdf written March, 2013 Thank you very much for allowing me to speak at this hearing.

# UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEARING ON PROPOSED RULE

CLEAN POWER PLAN

PUBLIC COMMENTS BY LAURA M. KAPLAN, ESQ.

3:50P.M. JULY 29,2014

1

# I Photo: http://www
. gannett-cdn
.com/

- mm-/d07a793cade3b533f36ae288ba6317fc21225d26/c

- 0

- 312

- 3744-5304&r=53 7&c=0-0-534-712 /local/- /media/Wilmington/2014/04 /29 /homercitygeneratingstation17455 1853.jpg 

# \