Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0020-0045
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2014-01-16T05:00Z

Summary of EPA Region 8 Public Listening Session on 
                           111 (d) for Power Plants
                                       
                        October 30, 2013 -- Denver, CO
                                       
On October 30, 2013, EPA Region 8 held a public listening session to obtain input on controlling carbon pollution from existing power plants. Approximately 239 people attended the session in person, and another 28 attended a two-hour call-in session. In total, 153 people provided comments. A high-level summary of the session is provided below. 

Overview of Speakers

Comments were provided by a variety of stakeholders, including: elected officials, concerned citizens, local/state government officials, students, academics, entrepreneurs, medical professionals, and representatives from industry, electric utilities, trade associations, the business community, the outdoor industry, faith-based organizations, unions, environmental advocacy groups, and community groups.

General Support for Carbon Pollution Standards:

Speakers acknowledged that climate change was happening, that carbon pollution from power plants [coal in particular] was causing it, and that there was an urgent need to address it. Young adults, parents, and other concerned citizens stated concerns about the future for themselves and their children. Many have seen the impacts first hand, but are also concerned about the ability of developing countries, and the poor in general, to face the impacts of climate change. Several stated that the United States (US) has a moral imperative to lead on the issue, and applauded the President's Climate Action Plan for doing so. The US needs to set an example  -  countries around the world are watching to see what we do. Others mentioned that they were motivated by the science and their faith, that we are collectively the stewards of creation, and that we all need to work together to address the issue of climate change.

It was recognized that the standards may affect communities and industries that are reliant on fossil fuels, but that the cost of inaction may be greater in terms of rising temperatures, health effects, extreme weather, and ecosystem transformation [including fisheries]. Additionally, it was pointed out that the economic benefits of actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) have proven to be more than the cost of compliance. Proponents of outdoor recreation [skiing in particular] cited concern for the viability of their sports, and the economic benefits they bring to the State of Colorado. There was also concern about the health effects of air pollution, such as asthma, cancer, other diseases, and mercury levels in fish. The point was made that reducing carbon will also reduce other pollutants from the use of fossil fuels. 

Although there was concern about the spread of misinformation on climate change science, there was also optimism that there is a way to make the transition to a low or zero carbon future, and solve climate change. Several speakers supported the science behind climate change, and the goal to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere to 350ppm or less. Another speaker stated that many residents in her coal-based state support strong standards, even though it will be a hard transition, because they have other large untapped energy sources. Speakers were appreciative of the opportunity to call in and provide comments, without the need to travel to Denver.

A number of speakers noted that they have personally taken actions to reduce carbon pollution [e.g., installing solar on home], and that the fossil fuel industry needs to do its part. In particular, there needs to be a cost implication for polluting the environment. It was pointed out that the industry enjoys tax breaks, and in turn, uses their proceeds to lobby and influence decision-makers against climate action. It was suggested that EPA exemptions for the fossil fuel industry be ended, and that the real cost of carbon be placed on the polluter. Doubt was expressed that markets alone would reduce carbon pollution from the power industry in time to solve the climate crises.

Others stressed the need to repower America, and not invest in costly retrofits to existing power plants. One speaker pointed out that the economics of renewables may be more favorable due to reduced coal supplies, particularly in the Powder River Basin. A utility representative mentioned that the western electrical grid is getting cleaner, and that state leadership has resulted in large reductions in carbon pollution. Several speakers conveyed the point of view of small businesses. They stated that small businesses and entrepreneurs [in the majority] support EPA's efforts to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other pollutants, and believe they will boost the national economy and positively impact their operations.

On a final note, it was stated, "If we can't do it, we can't expect others to do it." 

General Opposition to Carbon Pollution Standards:

A number of speakers spoke against EPA regulations for power plants in general, and for existing plants in particular. EPA was criticized for not holding listening sessions in coal-based rural areas, and for not hearing from the people who will be affected by the standards [and is invited to visit them]. They stressed that the new guidelines will harm the economies of these areas, and raise energy costs for everyone. It would in effect be a tax increase. Additionally, it was stated that the timeline for EPA's standards is too aggressive, and should be delayed to allow for the evolution of carbon reduction or carbon capture technologies that are yet unproven or too expensive. 

Speakers supported the need for an "all-of-the-above" energy policy, including renewable energy and coal. It was pointed out that coal is reliable, and has been and will continue to be the pathway to prosperity in the US and abroad. One speaker noted that we have more coal than any other nation, especially in the west, and that we have made advances in reducing emissions from its use. That is why it is vital that we use the best in class available today, which is coal [in particular, supercritical steam generation]. EPA needs to integrate proven technologies into the standard, which does not include carbon capture and storage (CCS). One energy company stated that they can produce coal efficiently and cheaply, and are doing effective land reclamation. There was concern that the standard will be developed in closed offices without engineers who are familiar with coal plants and the workers who work in them. For example, the recently issued standard for new power plants is technologically infeasible. The new standard for existing plants needs to be different; otherwise it could hamper manufacturing for all things, including renewables. 

A number of people traveled great distances to attend the listening session, primarily from rural, fossil fuel-based communities. They stated that they have benefited from coal, oil, and gas, which have provided an affordable source of energy, and lifted people out of energy poverty. Even the threat of a new standard is causing harm. They pointed out that they have upgraded to meet past EPA standards at a significant cost [e.g., mercury standards], which has resulted in the closure of plants and stranded assets. There was concern that the new standards will raise energy prices, result in a loss of jobs, deeply affect rural economies [some never recovered from the recession], and especially harm low-income people and seniors. Additionally, the reliability of the electrical grid will be affected because we rely on coal for base-load power. 

Others mentioned that rural families are stewards of the land, and that they utilize it thoughtfully. Some live near [coal-fired] power plants, and noted that there isn't an air quality problem there because of the use of new technologies. They question what would be gained by the new standards. There was concern that EPA standards will not be effective in fighting climate change, unless other countries implement similar policies. The European Union has tried to reduce carbon emissions with significant adverse impacts, and is returning to a more balanced approach. Additionally, other countries are not concerned about carbon reductions. We [collectively] need to get the science right, and balance the consideration of carbon with the welfare of our citizens. If EPA pursues this course of action, then coal communities will be forced to export their products. 

On a final note, it was stated, "Coal is the solution, not the problem."

Impacts of Climate Change:

It was stated that climate change is the new normal, and without a path to eliminate GHG emissions, we are deliberately causing harm [to many species and populations]. The impacts are already being felt, from drought, wildfires, hurricanes, and floods, to changes in phenology and the hydrology cycle [which is affecting water resources for things like irrigation]. Setting the standards for power plants is a major step in the right direction. A sense of urgency was expressed, and concern that even Americans may not be ok as climate change progresses. It was pointed out that we are already paying for the costs for extreme weather events to the tune of billions of dollars, and that taxpayers have picked up most of these costs. Additionally, climate change will also impact human health. 

Location of Public Listening Sessions:

A number of speakers were upset that EPA was holding listening sessions in large, urban areas, and not in the rural areas that would be affected by the new standards [i.e., coal country]. Some indicated that it would benefit EPA to see how they are abiding by environmental laws, and thriving with high paying jobs and low energy costs. They requested additional listening sessions in these areas, and reiterated the requests by their leadership.

Climate Change Science:

Several speakers questioned the science of climate change, and noted that CO2 is a necessary part of life, and not a pollutant. Who knows how much is bad? Things always cycle  -  we [policy-makers] are just picking the high points [of temperatures and CO2 to justify our actions]. IPCC reports contain a number of misleading or inaccurate statements. There is no basis to conclude that warming is human-caused.  Temperatures have not risen even though CO2 levels continue to rise. The models are wrong, and policy-makers are ignoring the data.

Comments on Section 111(d):

There was concern about the use of the CAA for controlling carbon from power plants, and in particular, Section 111(d). It was noted that the CAA is an imperfect vehicle through which to regulate GHGs, and the best carbon policy would be legislated by Congress. Several speakers noted that Section 111(d) gives states broad authority [including flexible compliance timelines], and that EPA's authority is limited to setting guidelines. Additionally, these guidelines are limited to the best system of emissions reduction (BSER), which has been adequately demonstrated, not a broader systems approach. Another speaker suggested that we abandon the use of the CAA, and move forward [with other GHG reduction strategies] in the interest of time. 

Energy Efficiency (EE) and Renewable Energy (RE):

Speakers suggested that we need to get on with the transition to clean energy, and noted that the economics of wind and solar have improved, making them competitive with natural gas [and they may be lowering costs for consumers]. Several success stories were offered, including Boulder City, NV [which is entirely powered by solar], and Fort Zed in Fort Collins [which is a local energy system]. The region's vast renewable resources were also noted [Colorado in particular]. There was concern about the timely transition to wind and solar because their percentage of the energy mix is still so low, and that more renewables will harm the reliability of the electrical grid and result in rolling brownouts.

It was stated that energy efficiency is key to reducing carbon, and the quickest way to achieve GHG reductions. This can be achieved through building environmental performance [more than half of the US building stock is inefficient], and can be done on a large scale. EPA should afford the states the flexibility to use energy efficiency as a compliance mechanism.

It was pointed out that more people are employed in green industries than in the oil industry. These jobs are strengthening the economy. The new standards will give some regulatory certainty to renewable energy and energy efficiency markets. 

How to Set the Standard:

Speakers spoke in favor of various approaches for the setting the standards, including a utility or system wide approach using renewable energy and energy efficiency, as well as restricting the standard to plant improvements that are legally defensible and within the legal boundaries of a generating source [recognizing that there are constraints from power industry market practices, and the exchange of power across state borders]. Regardless, definition needs to be given as to who the regulated entity will be [a single power plant, a group of power plants, the entire electric utility sector, or some mix thereof].

Others requested that EPA acknowledge and give credit to states that have taken early action [as early back as ten years or more]. It was noted that some have already implemented GHG reduction strategies such as demand-side management, and shifts to natural gas and renewable energy through programs such as renewable portfolio standards (RPSs). They have also developed more innovative programs, such as the Clean Air Clean Jobs Act in Colorado, which can be replicated in other states. Counter to this, the point was made that reductions need to be unique and additional, and above and beyond what states have already done.

Speakers encouraged EPA to give states the flexibility they need to implement effective programs. States should be free to explore options given their circumstances and mix of energy resources, and grow their economies. A free market approach is needed rather than a heavy-handed approach. States should be allowed the time to develop and implement state plans that are flexible. A standard that reduces coal use and prematurely closes power plants was not seen as a favorable option. 

A number of speakers suggested that the timeframe for developing the standards is too short, and that EPA should postpone the reductions until there are proven GHG reduction technologies. They were confident that the US would move in the right direction over time by implementing best practices, and by keeping the goal of energy independence in mind. A timeframe of 10 to 20 years was suggested. 

Other suggestions included: setting a statewide standard for CO2/unit of energy produced [to promote efficiency where it makes the most sense]; setting a BSER that can be achieved at each unit considering the unit's design, maintenance, and operational performance; setting a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO2; including provisions for offsets and trading [which are a viable option today and can be effective immediately]; not using a heat rate standard (BTU/MW), which could create market instability; establishing economic policies to create a market for carbon; requiring fossil fuel plants to prove a zero net impact; allowing for tools like enforceable demand-side management; requiring measurable and enforceable reduction strategies; setting a national renewable energy standard [of 30% renewables]; taking a holistic approach that embraces a diversity of fuels and methodologies and does not support over-reliance on a single source of fuel [like natural gas]; being specific about compliance options; requiring increased power plant energy efficiency; not allowing for cap and trade or carbon taxes, which may be untenable due to a lack of time; only applying standards when plant modifications are made; considering environmental justice; establishing a credit-based accounting system to make sure emissions are genuine; performing true cost accounting and a cost-benefit analysis for all options, including the health, extreme weather, and economic costs associated with climate change; adopting the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) plan to reduce carbon from existing power plants; being cautious about relying on environmental dispatch for emissions reductions; allowing for reductions in other GHGs [such as sulfur hexafluoride] to meet the standard; building in a cost containment mechanism; setting the baseline period for emissions from 2003 to 2006; and requiring that the private sector be responsible for achieving the GHGs reductions [not the states].

Finally, speakers encouraged cooperative action on the standards between federal and state government, and affected industries. EPA is particularly encouraged to engage in discussions with electric utilities to design a program that can be implemented effectively and efficiently. 

Carbon Capture and Storage:

It was noted that carbon capture technologies are being developed and tested in the region at various locations. Economics of scale will be needed to bring down the costs, which are still high. EPA is encouraged to consider partial carbon capture to allow for technology development, and become familiar with the success stories in the region [in particular the Drake Power Plant in Colorado Springs, CO, and Basin Electric's Dakota Gasification Plant in ND]. EPA policies need to allow companies to make money off of carbon capture through enhanced oil recovery, or provide tax incentives for development of CO2 control technology. Sequestration of carbon is saving a valuable resource. There was concern that carbon capture is not the best solution since it has not been demonstrated on a full scale, and that it will increase costs across the board. Also, there are legal and feasibility issues with the underground storage of CO2.

Economic Impacts:

There was considerable concern that the guidelines will cause coal-fired power plants to shut down, or require them to put on additional, costly, control technologies. This could severely affect the economies of rural communities [including tribes], and the subcontractors [e.g., boilermakers] and parts dealers that depend on them [resulting in a loss of jobs, schools, etc., and especially affect the poor]. It was pointed out that their economies have already been hurt by the recession and other EPA regulations. Others were concerned that the standards would raise the cost of electricity, won't achieve their objectives, and could cause jobs to migrate to other countries.

Noting that coal-fired power plants have installed control technologies in the past to meet EPA regulations at considerable cost, a number of speakers expressed concern that the standards would result in shut downs and stranded assets. Coal-based communities have proven that they can meet environmental standards, have clean air, and preserve the land. They believe that the new standards are an uneconomical way to address climate change. 

Others pointed out that the costs of climate change are already being borne by the public in terms of extreme weather events, and that the industry should be asked to share in the costs. The tourist economy in Colorado is being affected. Additionally, analysis shows that switching from coal-based energy to other sources does not have an economic penalty.