Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517-5319
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-12-30T05:00Z

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL   ) PRIVATE  

PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC      )

COMMENT HEARING ON THE		)

PROPOSED PREVENTION OF		)

SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION	)

AND TITLE V GREENHOUSE GAS	)

TAILORING RULE				)

Pages:  1 through 171

Place:  Crystal City, Virginia

Date:   November 18, 2009

IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL   )

PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC      )

COMMENT HEARING ON THE	)

PROPOSED PREVENTION OF	)

SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION	)

AND TITLE V GREENHOUSE GAS	)

TAILORING RULE	)

			Hyatt Regency Crystal City

			S. Jefferson Davis Hwy

			Crystal City, VA

			Wednesday,

			November 18, 2009

		TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held in the above-entitled hearing on the
18th day of November A.D. 2009, at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City,
Crystal City, VA at 10 a.m.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:

MICHAEL LING, Associate Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of
Air Quality, Planning and Standards; JUAN SANTIAGO, Group Leader,
Operating Permits Group, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air
Quality, Planning and Standards;

HOWARD HOFFMAN, Office of General Counsel.

REPORTED BY:  GARY MILLSTEIN, Court Reporter

	P R O C E E D I N G S

	(10:00 a.m.)

		MR. LING:  Good morning.

		ALL:  Good morning.

		MR. LING:  Thank you for attending the first of two public hearings to
comment on EPA's proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.  That's a mouthful.  We will be
holding a second hearing tomorrow in the Chicago area.

		My name is Michael Ling.  I work for EPA's Office of Air Quality,
Planning and Standards.  I'll be chairing today's hearing.  With me on
my left is Juan Santiago, who's the leader of the Operating Permits
Group also at the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards.  And on
my right is Howard Hoffman with our Office of General Counsel.

		We are here today to listen to your comments on EPA's rule proposing
greenhouse gas emissions thresholds that would define when Clean Air Act
permits under the New Source Review and Title V programs would be
required for new or existing industrial facilities.  This is an
opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's proposed rule.  The panel
members may answer questions that seek to clarify what we have proposed,
but the purpose of the hearing is to listen to your comments, not to
discuss or debate the proposal.

		Before we move to the comment period, I would like to just briefly
describe the proposed rule that is the subject of today's hearing and it
was published in the Federal Register on October 27.  The proposed
thresholds would "tailor" the permit programs to limit which facilities
would be required to obtain New Source Review and Title V permits, and
the proposed thresholds would ensure that the permit programs will apply
to sources that emit nearly 70 percent of the national stationary source
greenhouse gas emissions totals, including those from the nation's
largest greenhouse gas emitters, sources like power plants, refineries
and cement production facilities.

		But under the proposal, numerous small farms, restaurants and many
other types of facilities would not be subject to these permitting
programs.  The proposal addresses emissions of greenhouse gases for six
gases that may be covered by an EPA future regulation controlling or
limiting their emissions.  The six gases are carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur
hexafluoride.  We are proposing under this rule that the carbon dioxide
equivalent total be used as the preferred metric for determining the GHG
emissions rate for the gases, but we are requesting comment on that
issue.

		Under the operating permits program, what we're proposing is a major
source applicability threshold of 25,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent
for existing industrial facilities.  Facilities with emissions below
that threshold would not need to obtain an operating permit.

		Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, which is
one component of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review Program, we're
also proposing a major stationary source threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2
equivalent.  This threshold would be used to determine if a new facility
is a major source or if an existing facility is a major source that
would trigger PSD requirements for modifications. We are also proposing
to establish a significance level for the modifications between 10,000
and 25,000 tons of CO2 equivalent.  So existing major sources that make
increases that result in increases above the significance level would be
required to get a PSD permit for their modification.  We are requesting
comment on these values and on a range of values for modifications in
the proposal with the intent of selecting a final value when we issue
the final rule.

		Under these proposed thresholds, we estimate that about 400 new
sources and modifications each year would be subject to PSD permitting. 
We expect that fewer than 100 of those would be newly subject.  In other
words, more than 300 of those have traditionally, per year, had to get
PSD permits anyway.  In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would
need to get operating permits for greenhouse gas emissions.  And again,
since most of these sources already have operating permits, we expect
that fewer than 3,000 of these sources would be newly subject to the
Clean Air Act permit programs for their GHG emissions.

		These proposed thresholds would preserve the ability of the PSD,
that's Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and Title V operating
permit programs to achieve and maintain public health environmental
protection goals while avoiding an administrative burden that would
prevent the State and Local permitting authorities from processing such
large numbers of permits efficiently.  Under the approach laid out in
the proposal, we would reevaluate the final GHG emission thresholds
after an initial phase. And during that first phase, PSD and Title V
permitting authorities will gain experience in issuing PSD and Title V
permits for greenhouse gases to the sources that are covered.  And by
the end of the first phase, which is proposed to last for five years, we
are proposing to complete a study to evaluate whether it's
administratively feasible to lower the thresholds at that time for PSD
and Title V permitting authorities who can adequately administer their
program at lower levels.

		After reviewing the results of that study, we would then do a
follow-on regulatory action within a year from that, which would either
confirm the need to retain the thresholds at the current levels that we
would finalize in this rule or possibly establish different greenhouse
gas thresholds that more accurately reflect the administrative
capabilities of permitting authorities to address the programs five
years from now.

		We also plan to develop supporting information to assist permitting
authorities with greenhouse gas permitting as they begin to address this
for the first time.  The guidance would initially focus on source
categories where permits will be needed soonest, which are the sources
who have greenhouse gases at levels that are above the thresholds that
we're going to establish in this rule. A key topic addressed by this
effort, which is being done separately from the rulemaking being
discussed today, is how to do a Best Available Control Technology
determination for greenhouse gases.  But we do invite specific comment
on any elements of the tailoring rule proposal that I described as well
as any other issues raised by that proposal.

		Finally, let me describe how this hearing will operate and how you can
comment.  Today we will be accepting oral comments on our proposal and
then we will be preparing a written transcript of the hearing. The
transcript will be available as part of the official record for this
rule, and we will consider it as we move forward.  We are also accepting
written comments on the proposed rule until December 28.  We have a
Facts Sheet available in the registration area that contains detailed
information on how to file written comments.

		For those of you who will be providing oral comments today, I will
call the scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs.  When it's your
turn to speak, please state your name and your affiliation, and it will
help our court reporter if you also spell your name.  In order to be
fair to everyone, we are asking that you limit your testimony to five
minutes each, we have a very full docket for today, and that you remain
at the microphone until both speakers in your pair have finished.  After
you finish your testimony, one of us on the panel may ask clarifying
questions.  And if, in addition to the transcript, you would like us to
put the full text of your written comments in the docket, please be sure
to give us a copy of any written comments.  You can give it to us here
before your presentation if you'd like us to be able to read along, or
you can give it to the staff outside at the table.

		We have a timekeeping system consisting of red, yellow and green
lights.  Unfortunately, we discovered this morning that the front side
of the display does not work.  We will be installing a new one as soon
as it arrives.  But in the meantime, we've augmented our electronic
technology with state-of-the-art note card technology.  So when you
begin speaking, we will start the timer, and you will get five minutes
to speak.  When two minutes are up, the yellow light will come on and
Juan will raise a yellow card.  That's your sum up signal, and you'll
have two minutes left.  And then when the time is up, a red light will
come on and Juan will hold up the red card, at which point we'll ask you
to conclude your remarks.  We'll continue with this system until the new
timer arrives.

		We do intend to stay into the evening until everyone has had an
opportunity to comment that would like one.  If you would like to
testify but haven't registered to do so, you can sign up at the
registration table outside.  And for those who have already registered
to speak, we've tried to accommodate your time preferences.  We ask for
your patience as we proceed through the list, and we may need to make
adjustments to the schedule as time progresses throughout the day.

		So that's all I have.  I'd like to thank everyone for participating
today, and why don't we get started with the first two speakers.  I have
Howard Feldman and Carl Pope.  And, Mr. Feldman, you'll be first, so
begin whenever you're ready.

		MR. FELDMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  I'd like to thank EPA for the
opportunity to speak today.  Good morning.  I'm Howard J. Feldman,
Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at the American Petroleum
Institute.  API represents nearly 400 member companies involved in all
aspects of the oil and natural gas industry.  And as you know, we've
been very active in the Clear Air Act issues over the course of the last
couple of decades.

		I want to make three points today, please.  First, API along with many
other groups does not believe that the Clean Air Act was designed to
address the emissions of greenhouse gases, GHGs as we call them. 
Second, we question -- I didn't really do this to music.  Second, we
question whether EPA has the legal authority to modify the statutory
thresholds in the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants or in this case
GHG emissions.  And EPA's only reaching this by relying on its "absurd
results" logic.  Third, contrary to Executive Branch requirements, EPA
has failed to provide any Regulatory Impact Analysis to support the
totality of its claims to regulate the greenhouse gases under the Clean
Air Act.

		Regarding the first point, API believes that climate change is a
serious issue demanding focus and effective action that is best taken
with legislation dedicated to the problem rather than through the
existing structure of the Clean Air Act, which is clearly not designed
to address greenhouse gas emissions.  EPA should not proceed with this
rule or related greenhouse gas rules that EPA has proposed. 
Furthermore, there is no fixed deadline for EPA to regulate greenhouse
gases under the Clean Air Act.  The best way to avoid the circumstances
giving rise to EPA's "absurd results" and alleged "administrative
necessity" outlined in the proposal is to rely instead on the
corresponding National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration
proposal to strengthen the CAFÉ’ standards, which will achieve
virtually all the benefits of the EPA proposed GHG tailpipe rules. 
Meanwhile, Congress has the opportunity to develop a meaningful,
bipartisan energy and climate policy that addresses the challenges at
hand without holding back our nation's economic recovery.  EPA does not
need to proceed with this regulation now.

		Second, the Clean Air Act is quite clear regarding the thresholds that
should be relevant for compounds regulated under the Act.  EPA cannot
justify the proposed "tailoring" rule under the "absurd results" or
"administrative necessity" doctrine.  The narrow and limited doctrine of
"administrative necessity" cannot justify the massive "tailoring"
proposed by EPA.  The broad departure from the plain language of the
statute that is necessary to sustain EPA's proposed threshold increase
is patently inconsistent with the statute and cannot be saved by the
"administrative necessity" doctrine.  EPA cannot resort to judge-made
exceptions to the law such as "absurd results" and "administrative
necessity" when the agency can lawfully avoid creating such
circumstances in the first instance.  Furthermore, even if EPA could
properly assert "absurd results" necessarily exist, EPA is still
obligated under the narrow and limited "administrative necessity"
doctrine to the least intrusive means effective to avoid them. Here, EPA
has alternative approaches to "tailoring" that do not involve a clear
violation of the statute. For example, EPA could use a simple extension
of PSD applicability date for all sources or EPA could interpret the
phrase "pollutants subject to regulation" to exclude GHGs.  Accordingly,
the "administrative necessity" doctrine cannot justify EPA's clearly
unlawful attempt to change the statutorily mandated PSD threshold.

		Third, EPA has avoided providing information on the costs and impacts
on the economy of its regulatory scheme.  EPA should be providing a
Regulatory Impact Analysis that describes the cost of its planned
regulatory scheme, which includes not just this proposed rule but also
the proposed car rule and the proposed endangerment finding.  It is not
acceptable for EPA to simply point out the incremental costs and
benefits of this absurd "tailoring" rule.

		Furthermore, this costly ill-suited regulatory approach stands to be
preempted by legislation in Congress.  Clearly, EPA must provide a full
analysis before moving forward with the unnecessary regulatory scheme.

		In closing, we are asking here, and we will in our subsequent written
comments, we're asking that EPA withdraw this flawed unsupported rule. 
We encourage EPA to exercise its substantial discretion to allow the
legislative process to consider the best approach for controlling
greenhouse gases.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  I'll ask the panel, do we want to ask
questions of each witness in turn or do we want to go wait for both?

		MR. HOFFMAN:  Probably wait.

		MR. LING:  Okay.  I think we'll go ahead and do Mr. Pope, and then
we'll ask questions of both.  So Mr. Pope?

		MR. POPE:  Thank you very much.  It's a pleasure to be here.  My first
encounter with these issues was my first professional environmental
activity was lobbying on the Clean Air Act of 1970, and my first formal
job for the Sierra Club was dealing with EPA's first Prevention of
Significant Deterioration rule which the agency only promulgated after
the Sierra Club had sued it and taken --

		MR. LING:  Hold on one second, please.  The timer needs to restart. 
Thank you.  Sorry.

		MR. POPE:  So I have a long experience with these issues.  I want to
thank the agency for proposing these rules.  I want to cheat slightly
and say that I would like to have my testimony extended by taking each
and every sentence Mr. Feldman said and saying I demur.  I think every
sentence he said I explicitly disagree with.

		It's wonderful to see the agency carrying out one of the President's
major campaign promises by promulgating this rule.  It is unfortunate
that the President, whose campaign promise you're carrying out, is no
longer in office.  Using the well-established authority of the Clean Air
Act to deal with greenhouse gases was George Bush's major environmental
pledge when he ran for public office as President in 2000.  Once he was
elected, the President unfortunately changed his mind.  The United
States and the world lost a critical eight years in dealing with the
climate crisis.  The Sierra Club and various States and environmental
organizations were forced to take the Bush Administration all the way to
the United States Supreme Court to resolve exactly the issue Mr. Feldman
just raised, which is whether or not, in fact, the plain and simple
language of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate greenhouse
pollutants as pollutants, and the Supreme Court ruled that it does. And
it is a very good thing that the Agency is now moving forward to follow
the mandate which the Supreme Court has given you.

		It is also surprising to me to listen to Mr. Feldman discuss the
desirability of letting Congress act because I think it is a reasonably
safe bet that when the United States Senate attempts to take up
comprehensive climate legislation, the American Petroleum Institute will
ask members not to allow it to proceed.  I will be very surprised if
when the moment comes to vote on cloture, API is in favor of actually
invoking cloture and proceeding.  But I will be delighted to be wrong.

		But while the Congress is proceeding -- and Congress should proceed
and I agree with Mr. Feldman we do need legislation, comprehensive
legislation on greenhouse pollution -- the fact is that taking the
stationary sources which are the source of a very, very large fraction,
more than half I believe, America's total greenhouse pollution and
regulating them using the tools which the Clean Air Act provides the
agency is a prudent, simple, straightforward, low cost approach.  It has
a number of very simple advantages which people in the business
community have been asking for.  It gives the emitters certainty.  The
emitter knows what the emission standard is.  The emitter knows by what
date the emission standard must be met.  The agency will subsequently
proceed to determine what is the best available technology for each
category of sources, and it gives the public certainty.  It tells us we
are going to move forward. It's easily calculable, and it gives those
who are making investment decisions adequate time to make the choice of
what pathway they wish to use for any given facility which is going to
be subject to these rules, what technology they use to clean it up,
whether or not they want to use a different facility.  So I think that
the use of Clean Air Act authority is probably the most predictable and
the simplest tool we have available to us to deal with stationary source
emissions of greenhouse gases.

		Now, it is not a very good tool, as the agency has recognized in its
"tailoring rule", for small sources.  So I want to commend the agency
for offering the "tailoring rule" for public comment.  It may be that
after public comment you will want to make some changes in it.  But the
fact that the Clean Air Act permitting authority is not a particularly
good way for dealing with my backyard barbecue, and it is not -- I do
not have a permit on my backyard barbecue -- does not mean that we
should not have a Clean Air Act permit on PG&E's major fossil fuel power
stations, and we do.  And in proposing the "tailoring rule" for
greenhouse pollution, EPA has simply applied the 35 years of experience
we have with Clean Air Act authority and applied it, I think, sensibly,
appropriately, and in a straightforward fashion.

		The American people want to clean up greenhouse pollution.  The Clean
Air Act specifies that pollutants which damage the climate must be
regulated under the Clean Air Act.  The Supreme Court has ruled that EPA
has a binding obligation as an agency to exercise that authority, and we
commend the agency for doing so.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Any questions?  No questions here,
very clear.  Thank you both.

		MR. POPE:  Thanks.

		MR. LING:  Okay, the next two speakers, David Friedman and Mary Anne
Hitt.

		MR. FRIEDMAN:  I left my comments up front.

		MR. LING:  Okay.  Thank you.  Looking for Mary Anne Hitt.  Hey, Jan,
when she comes in, will you just send her to the table?  Thank you. 
Okay.  Oh, here we go.  All right, timer ready?  All right, Mr.
Friedman, you can begin.  Thank you.

		MR. FRIEDMAN:  Good morning.  I'm David Friedman, Director of
Environmental Affairs for National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association.  We are a national trade association comprised of more than
450 companies, including virtually all the U.S. refiners and
petrochemical manufacturers, and we supply consumers with a wide variety
of products and services.

		The proposed greenhouse gas "tailoring rule" will have a significant
impact on our members, and we appreciate the opportunity to express our
views today. While NPRA always values the agency's efforts to streamline
regulations and reduce permitting burdens, we have major concerns with
this rulemaking.  We'd like to address the following key concerns
regarding the rule, namely that it is unnecessary and violates the
statutory authority of the Clean Air Act.  It is not a relief rule and
does not account for all sources of greenhouse gases.  It does not
adequately assess the cost and benefits, and it will not preclude States
from permitting smaller sources, and creates regulatory uncertainty. 
The "tailoring rule," which does not have a statutory basis in the Clean
Air Act and which rests entirely on uncodified administrative law
doctrines, is being proposed since EPA has decided to promulgate final
greenhouse gas regulations for light duty vehicles under Section 202. 
NPRA believes that there is a straightforward way to avoid the
fundamentally flawed legal position that EPA has put forward in the
"tailoring rule" still while obtaining 95 percent of the greenhouse gas
reduction benefits projected for the 202 rule.

		EPA should delay promulgation of the light duty rule while the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalizes its portion of
the rule early next year.  This result would avoid reliance on EPA's
erroneous conclusion that PSD is automatically triggered for all sources
upon the effective date of the Section 202 light duty vehicle rule.  The
Clean Air Act stipulates unequivocally that the threshold to permit
major stationary sources is 250 tons.  EPA lacks the legal authority to
categorically exempt sources that exceed the Clean Air Act's major
source threshold from permitting requirements, and taking such action
would create a troubling precedent for other agency actions in the
future.  The agency's streamlining techniques outlined in the "tailoring
rule" are also inconsistent with longstanding federal policies on
implementing the requirements of the PSD and Title V programs.  This
would result in continuing regulatory uncertainty.  Therefore,
altogether the proposal highlights the perils of forcing greenhouse gas
regulations into the Clean Air Act.  You shouldn't try to put a square
peg into a round hole.

		The "tailoring rule" is also not a relief rule.  Currently, there are
approximately 300 to 400 PSD applications annually under the Clean Air
Act.  So the overall effect of the "tailoring rule" would increase PSD
nearly 40 fold to more than 13,000 -- I guess it was mentioned, 14,000
facilities.  EPA's broad interpretation of pollutants subject to
regulation greatly expands the PSD program and is done without a proper
assessment of the cost and benefits of such a regulatory expansion. 
According to the EPA, a PSD permit costs $125,000 and 866 hours to
complete. This means the cost to the industry for the more than 14,000
facilities to file PSD permits will be more than $1.6 billion.  These
costs were not considered as costs but rather as cost savings in the
rule's cost/benefit analysis.  In addition, it's not as if smaller GHG
sources will be exempted from these significant filing cost impacts. 
EPA makes clear in the proposed rulemaking that it intends to eventually
phase smaller sources into the permitting process.  Huge costs will
reach smaller facilities just a few years after our facilities pay these
costs.  We're simply kicking the can down the road and paying later.
This program does not save the $54 billion as calculated in the
cost/benefit analysis.  At most, it simply delays the $54 billion that
the U.S. economy will have to pay to comply with the PSD program.

		The proposal also would generate a great deal of uncertainty as state
GHG permitting thresholds in some cases are below the 25,000 ton limit. 
Additionally, the preamble discussion leaves many unanswered questions
as to how EPA can achieve a transition for those States with fully
approved PSD and Title V permit programs.  The adjustments for the new
applicability thresholds under the "tailoring rule" could be delayed as
the States have to go through notice and comment rulemaking in order to
incorporate new Federal requirements and policies in the State programs
and raise their permitting thresholds to match the Federal programs. 
Instead of streamlining the permitting program, these factors will mean
that the "tailoring rule" only provide an additional level of
uncertainty for facilities operating throughout the nation.

		Also, we'd like to add a point about timing. This rulemaking along
with the tailpipe rule, the endangerment rule, and the "GHG Reporting
Rule" are among some of the most important and far reaching rules that
EPA addressed in the past few years.  These rules are complex, often
interrelated and we believe that the comment periods have been far too
brief for affected parties to fully ascertain their impacts and to
provide complete and meaningful comments, including suggestions for
improvement.  Industry's efforts to extend comment periods in these
rules have been uniformly rejected.  We strongly believe that it's more
important that these rules be done right and not that they fit into an
artificial deadline.  These rules are too important to be rushed only to
find flaws and unintended consequences.  We're only seeking these short
comment extensions in order to produce a useful and meaningful end
product that benefits both industry and society as a whole.  And thank
you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Ms. Hitt?

		MS. HITT:  My name is Mary Anne Hitt.  I am with the Sierra Club as
Deputy Director of our Beyond Coal Campaign, and that's M-A-R-Y,
A-N-N-E, H-I-T-T.  On behalf of the Sierra Club, I am pleased to offer
our official support at this public hearing for the EPA's proposal to
require the nation's biggest sources of greenhouse gas pollution to
address their emissions when they build or modify a facility.  The
Sierra Club is the nation's largest grass roots environmental
organization with over one million supporters nationwide.  Our members
are deeply committed to stopping global warming, moving beyond coal and
putting this nation on a path to a clean energy future.  We believe the
EPA's proposal to target the largest sources first is an important
common sense step that is essential to move this nation in the right
direction and to ensure the safety and prosperity of future generations
of Americans.

		In their 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court
ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate global warming
pollution under the Clean Air Act.  The Bush Administration did
everything it could to ignore that finding.  The Obama Administration
has thankfully changed course and has finally begun moving forward to
act on the findings of the Supreme Court and the consensus of the
scientific community both here in the U.S. and around the world. Having
issued a draft finding earlier this year that global warming does indeed
endanger public health and welfare, the EPA has taken the essential and
logical next step -- preventing increased emissions from our largest
sources of global warming pollution.

		The Sierra Club supports requiring large new sources of global warming
pollution to install the best available pollution controls and to
require large existing sources to update their pollution controls when
they increase their emissions.  The New Source Review provisions of the
Clean Air Act have proven successful in reducing other forms of
pollution by requiring that new sources install the Best Available
Control Technology for specific pollutants.  Given the severe and
imminent danger that global warming pollution poses to current and
future generations of Americans, it is only reasonable that EPA would
seek to address this new pollution threat using such time tested
methods.

		It is also eminently reasonable that the EPA is starting with the
largest sources which emit 25,000 tons or more of global warming
pollution annually. These large sources account for over half of global
warming pollution, and they should be the first to clean up.  It is
important to recognize that the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
or PSD program targets increases in pollution from today's levels.  It
applies only to new sources of pollution or existing facilities that
increase their emissions.  The level of greenhouse gases in our
atmosphere is already too high, and we need to do everything we can to
reduce those levels.  This first step that EPA is taking is modest in
that it simply is designed to limit increases in greenhouse gas
pollution, not to reduce existing levels.

		Moreover, the PSD program is not unduly burdensome to businesses.  It
requires improved controls that are economically feasible only when new
facilities are built or existing facilities are modified, allowing
businesses to plan for appropriate pollution controls as part of their
larger planning processes when they build or modify their facilities.

		In conclusion, on behalf of the Sierra Club, it is my pleasure to
offer our support for the EPA's proposed "tailoring rule".  Every day
the steady drumbeat of increasingly alarming information about global
warming grows louder.  Every day our window of opportunity to avert a
climate crisis closes a little bit more.  The time for leadership and
action is long overdue.  This proposed rule marks a welcome return to
science and the rule of law, and it is an important step towards
creating a clean energy future for this country.  So thank you for the
opportunity to speak.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Any questions?  No questions?  I have
one question for Mr. Feldman.  I think you described the "tailoring

rule" -- I'm sorry, Mr. Feldman - Mr. Friedman, you described the
"tailoring rule" as unnecessary, and I think I interpreted your comment
as unnecessary because if we didn't do the light duty vehicle rule, it
would not be necessary.

		MR. FRIEDMAN:  That's correct.

		MR. LING:  But I'm wondering if you've considered whether it would be
necessary in the context of down the road future regulation, not just
the light duty vehicle rule, but if some other regulation were to occur
under the Clean Air Act, wouldn't the "tailoring rule" be necessary
then?

		MR. FRIEDMAN:  Well, but again we have to go back to the 250 number
and how important that number is.  So I guess there's some concerns that
again we have to be within the statutory confines, and I think that is
as important to this as anything is that 250 still means 250.

		MR. LING:  Okay.  Thank you.  No further questions.  Thank you all
very much.  Let me just check with our court reporter.  Let us know when
you need a break.  You're good?  All right, and you guys, too.  The next
two witnesses, Emily Figdor and Bob Pearson.  Ms. Figdor, you can start
whenever you're ready.

		MS. FIGDOR:  Great.  Thank you very much.  My name is Emily Figdor,
and I am here today on behalf of Environment Virginia and Environment
America.  I am the Federal Global Warming Program Director for these
organizations.  Environment Virginia is a citizen based nonprofit
environmental advocacy organization.  It's part of Environment America
which is a federation of State-based environmental advocacy
organizations with more than 750,000 members across the country.

		We worked for many years to cut pollution from dirty coal plants and
other big smoke stack industries and to move America to clean energy.  I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today.  We support the proposed
rule and really applaud EPA for focusing first and foremost on the
nation's big polluters.  To successfully fight global warming and move
America to clean energy, we must finally require America's big polluters
to meet modern standards for global warming pollution and this proposal
is an important first step.

		My testimony today will focus on the threat of global warming, the
promise of a clean energy future and the common sense nature of this
proposal.  The impacts of global warming on human and natural systems
are now being observed nearly everywhere.  In 2007, the Nobel prize
winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC,
predicted serious risks and damages to livelihoods, human
infrastructure, societies, species, ecosystems unless future warming is
substantially reduced.  However, emissions, warming and impacts such as
ice melt and sea level rise are all currently at the upper end of the
IPCC's projections.

		To meet the challenge of global warming, we must transform the way
that America and the rest of the world produce and use energy achieving
dramatic improvements in the efficiency with which we use energy in our
vehicles, homes and businesses and moving to clean renewable energy such
as wind and solar power.

		The challenge also brings great opportunity. Vastly improving the
efficiency of our economy and moving to renewable energy will make
America more energy independent, help rebuild our economy on a sound
foundation and create millions of clean energy jobs.  A relatively small
number of high polluting smoke stacks are responsible for vast amounts
of America's global warming pollution.  In particular, big power plants
and especially coal plants are the worse offenders.  They're the single
largest source of global warming pollution in the nation responsible for
40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption in
2007.

		Many of the nation's coal plants are old, inefficient, and rely on
outdated technology.  In addition to the global warming emissions, coal
plants are responsible for disproportionate amounts of smog, soot and
mercury pollution which further threaten our health and the environment.
 The National Academy of Sciences recently found that coal plants cost
the U.S. economy tens of billions of dollars each year in public health
damages.

		America should be doing everything we can to clean up or retire these
old polluting coal plants and replace them with clean technologies like
wind and solar power.  At the very least, coal plants, both young and
old, must meet modern standards for global warming pollution.  Just as
emissions standards for automobiles help ensure that the dirtiest
clunkers on the highway are replaced with newer models, standards for
coal plants will prevent clunker plants, many of them 40 to 50 years
old, from running on efficient decades old technology.  This is a common
sense proposal since it targets big polluters and requires these
polluters to meet modern pollution standards.  It's long past time for
coal plants and other big smoke stacks to meet global warming pollution
standards.

		The proposed thresholds would cover the nation's largest polluters
such as coal plants, oil refineries and iron and steel mills.  Most of
the sources that will be affected already comply with similar
requirements for other pollutants.  The 25,000 tons per year threshold
is equivalent to the emissions from the annual and energy use of about
23,000 homes or 4,600 passenger vehicles.  According to the Nicholas
Institute, only 1.3 percent of facilities across the manufacturing
sector fall above the threshold.  Yet the 25,000 tons per year threshold
will capture approximately 68 percent of global warming emissions from
stationary sources and 87 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from
stationary sources.

		Big polluters can take simple proven methods to reduce their global
warming pollution including using energy more efficiently, replacing old
equipment or burning cleaner fuels.  In fact, according to a report that
Environment America released last week, global warming pollution
declined in one-third of the States since 2004, long before the onset of
the economic downturn.

		States are reducing pollution in part by using cleaner energy that
keeps money and jobs in local economies.  For example, four States,
Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York, emitted less carbon
dioxide from fossil fuel consumption in 2007 than they did in 1990.  The
biggest factor in all four states was a shift to cleaner forms of
electricity.  Notably, these States cut their pollution levels by five
percent since 1997 while increasing their gross State product by 65
percent.

		In closing, to successfully fight global warming and build a clean
energy future, America's big polluters must meet modern pollution
standards.  We commend you for this proposal and urge you to finalize a
strong rule.  We'll provide more-detailed recommendations in our written
comments.  Thank you for the opportunity to participate today.

		MR. LING:  And thank you.  Mr. Pearson?

		MR. PEARSON:  Thank you very much.  I am Bob Pearson, a private
citizen, and I'm here to thank the EPA for taking the lead on
promulgating this new rule, and I think it makes a lot of sense just as
a layman. I'm not a scientist.  I'm not a lawyer.  Nobody has paid me to
be here.  But I, like many other Americans, think the time has long
passed to take action to limit our greenhouse gases and to do something
about climate change.

		I mean, we owe this to our kids and to our grandkids.  And I urge the
EPA and the Administration not to listen to the lawyers and the
lobbyists that are there to protect the big polluters.  We should not be
polluting the air.  We decided that, with the Clean Air Act that was
signed by President Richard Nixon, and the EPA has been progressing ever
since to try to clean up our air.  We still have a lot of problems with
mercury and sulfur.  But we now know that carbon dioxide and the
quantities that we are now emitting is a direct threat to our health. 
Vector borne diseases are spreading throughout the world because of the
entire change of the ecosystem.  And if we continue down this road,
we're facing one calamity after another.

		So I'll be very brief.  You know, we are not the nation that should be
protecting old technology and dirty practices.  We should be cleaning up
our act and showing the world as a true leader that we can innovate,
that we can do best practices to become more energy efficient and to
start with green jobs, good jobs that can lead us to the future.  Our
future is with this rule and with the new technology and the new best
practices that we can limit carbon dioxide emissions.

		So, again I applaud your efforts.  As EPA staff, I hope the
Administration proceeds as aggressively as possible to clean up this
pollution.  I'll just close with a quote.  "The significant problems we
have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we
created them."  That was said many years ago by Albert Einstein, and I
think we should listen to him.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Any questions?  All right, thank you
both.  Okay, I have Mike Fusco and Joelle Novey.

		MR. HOFFMAN:  Just as a reminder, if folks did bring extra copies of
your written testimony, we wouldn't mind seeing those before you speak. 
But if you didn't bring them, that's okay.  Let's start with Mr. Fusco.

		MR. FUSCO:  Yes, hi.  I did drop a copy of my comments off in the box
outside there, and it's Mike Fusco, M-I-K-E, F-U-S-C-O.

		Good morning.  My name is Mike Fusco, and I represent Safety Clean
Systems, Inc.  I'm here to provide comments on the EPA's proposed rule
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule.  I'd like to thank EPA for holding this public meeting
and providing the opportunity for stakeholders like Safety Clean to give
comments on this proposed rule.  My company believes that regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions is a major issue that will dominate the
environmental regulatory and legislative strategy for years to come and
will have a significant impact on industry, our economy and society in
general.

		We're here to highlight the importance of life cycle analysis in
achieving national GHG management objectives.  In many cases, a focus on
facility level emissions may serve to inhibit much larger scale emission
reduction achievements.  Our industry, the recycling business, serves as
a model case in point where an increase in facility level emissions may
realistically represent a net decrease in national level emissions. 
Safety Clean is principally involved in the recycling of used oil and
various petroleum based chemicals generally used as cleaning solvents. 
We are the largest used oil re-refiner and one of the largest solvent
recyclers in North America.  During 2008, our East Chicago, Indiana
facility re-refined or produced approximately 109 million gallons of
used oil into base oil.  This base oil is then enhanced to make lube
crank case oils, hydraulic oils and oils for other industrial
applications.  The products of this re-refining meet the very same
standards as the identical products derived from virgin crude oil.  In
addition, the company has five recycle centers, recycled approximately
13 million gallons of used mineral spirit solvent into a recycled
solvent product in 2008.

		It's likely that our East Chicago re-refinery may be regulated under a
final "tailoring rule" as a stationary source since its GHG emissions
from stationary sources will likely exceed 25,000 tons of CO2 equivalent
annually.  Safety Clean understands the rationale for regulating this
site for its GHG emissions.  However, we want to make sure that as the
EPA reviews and considers comments on this proposal, the total GHG
mitigation benefits of re-refining and recycling businesses be
considered.  Let me explain this further.

		Earlier this year, Safety Clean hired ENVIRON Corporation, a
consulting firm with extensive experience in conducting GHG studies to
complete a full life cycle analysis of our re-refining and solvent
recycled product operations.  This LCA was conducted in peer review in
conformance with ISO standards, the first LCA on re-refining in the
United States to meet these standards, to the best of my knowledge.

		They concluded that re-refining resulted in 81 percent fewer GHG
emissions than refining lube oil from crude and combusting resulting
used oil.  The total GHG emission savings from Safety Clean's
re-refinery operations was calculated to be over a million metric tons
of CO2 equivalent per year, the equivalent of the annual emissions of
190,000 vehicles or the consumption of more than 100 million gallons of
diesel.

		Our concern is the companies that burn significant volumes of used oil
as a fuel source may not burn enough at any one location to trigger the
reporting and New Source Review or PSD requirements in the proposed
tailoring rule.  Also since burning is a secondary end use of lube oil,
it will not be included in emissions charged to the refiners that
produce the oil in the first place.  If so, the burning of used oil
which accounts for over 57 percent of all end uses of recovered used oil
in the form of recycled fuel oil, will not be subject to the tailoring
rule.  If only those companies that re-refine used oil are subject to
the tailoring rule, there's a potential to create a significant
disincentive for what numerous governmental studies have shown to be the
environmentally preferable choice.

		The agency is on record many times supporting recycling.  We are
concerned for our industry that this proposal will have the opposite
effect.  Regulating GHG emissions at our facilities, without giving
those facilities credit for other GHG emission reductions, and taking
into consideration other environmental benefits, may actually discourage
re-refining and recycling and result in higher GHG emissions nationwide.
 It will certainly present barriers for Safety Clean when considering
expansion of our facilities to increase re-refining used oil capacity.

		In order to incent increased used oil re-refining and spent solvent
recycling along with our GHG emission reduction effect, we advocate that
(a) combustion of used oil be subject to the "tailoring rule" by
allocating the emissions from used oil burning to the refiner of the oil
from virgin crude and (b) requiring that emissions from the recycling
process sector consider the net environmental benefit in the agency's
regulatory structure.  There are a number of methods of doing this, one
of which is to exempt recycling facilities which reduce GHG emissions on
a life cycle basis from the rule, and another is to allow the recycler
to capture its life cycle carbon credits when calculating emissions at
the site.

		Finally, there's one other issue I'd like to address very briefly. 
The proposed "tailoring rule" accounts for GHG emissions differently
than the GHG Reporting Rule.  Safety Clean believes this will confuse
the field and add unnecessary complexity to an already complicated
regulatory regime.  We recommend that the agency reconcile these
differences and finalize a uniform accounting standard for GHG
emissions.  Thank you very much.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Ms. Novey?

		MS. NOVEY:  I'm Joelle Novey, J-O-E-L-L-E, N-O-V-E-Y.  I'm here today
on behalf of over 350 congregations of all faiths across the D.C. area
who are finding their own religious response to climate change.  There
are interfaith power and light programs working in 29 States with over
10,000 congregations.  And I'm here today to speak in support of the
EPA's big polluters rule which will regulate emissions from the huge
factories and power plants that emit over half of all U.S. global
warming pollution.  The EPA can get to work on reducing emissions
without waiting for the political legislative climate action process.

		For us, reducing our country's GHG emissions is a matter of moral
urgency.  I'm not here to comment on the specifics of the regulation or
the rule.  I'm here to just underscore that for many, many Americans,
regulating GHG emissions is a matter of moral urgency.  Public health
experts estimate that human deaths around the world directly
attributable to climate change caused by our emissions this year is
already 300,000 deaths a year today.  Our traditions teach us to love
our neighbors.  So we feel compelled to ask the EPA to act now to reduce
emissions.

		Unprecedented food insecurity and the human suffering that goes along
with hunger would be caused by unchecked climate change.  Our traditions
call on us to feed the hungry.  So we feel compelled to ask the EPA to
act now to regulate emissions.  Many caring people are praying today
that the EPA will do the right thing.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Questions?

		MR. SANTIAGO:  Yes, I do have a question for Mr. Fusco.  You mentioned
in your comments the difference in emissions, in the greenhouse gas
emissions of re-refined fuel oil as opposed to refined for the first
time oil.  Are you planning to provide some information on that for the
written comment part of the rule?

		MR. FUSCO:  We can.  We are going to expand on the verbal comments
here in our written comments, and we do have the life cycle analysis
which we would be happy to share with the EPA.  There are certain items
in there which we consider to be CBI, and we would ask for that type of
protection.  But we'd be more than happy to share that information with
you directly.

		MR. SANTIAGO:  Okay, thanks.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  For those of you, were you guys in
the front row able to see

the -- no?

		MR. SANTIAGO:  I'll continue to use the cards.

		MR. LING:  It's just hard to see.  Okay.  All right.  I have Linda
Burchfield and Julian Levy.  We do have our new timer installed.  I'm
not sure how visible the light is going to be, but you will see a yellow
light come on when it's time to sum up with two minutes left and the red
light when it's time to stop. Juan is going to continue holding up the
cards just in case.  Right, a little easier to see.  Thank you.  Let's
begin with Ms. Burchfield.  Start whenever you're ready.

		MS. BURCHFIELD:  My name is Linda Burchfield.  I also am a private
citizen not paid to be here, but I love my country and want what's best.
 I congratulate the EPA for developing this rule and holding this
hearing.  It's a common sense approach to limit the increase of
greenhouse gases in the United States.  This rule would give the EPA a
very effective and reliable tool to limit greenhouse emissions from all
new major emitting sources and also any existing sources that make big
physical changes to their plants.  Within the decade, most major sources
could be subject to the big polluter rule.  It's a time tested rule that
requires the EPA to consider the energy, environmental, and economic
impacts before deciding on the right control for a plant.  It has been
used in the past by these same industries to reduce other forms of
pollution.  So the principles are familiar.  Their engineers know the
drill.

		The control technologies are also familiar to these industries.  These
are technologies and applications that have already worked in the field.
 They're not theoretical designs.  In fact, in many cases, the Best
Available Control Technology to reduce greenhouse gases simply requires
retiring old equipment, burning cleaner fuels or installing more
efficient designs.  And the very modification or technology that reduces
greenhouse gases, in many cases, also reduces other pollutants such as
those that cause smog and lung disease.

		Big polluters, especially many power plants, refineries and cement
plants, are very concerned about additional cost.  They will, however,
be protected by investment tax credits.  We really need to think about
the costs of inaction.  Here in this conference room, it's hard to
imagine the costs of global warming.  But in Norfolk last Wednesday, the
harsh impact of global warming was suddenly easier to imagine.  We all
know the glaciers are melting and sea levels will rise, and we know the
Hampton Roads area is especially vulnerable.

		Last week in Norfolk, many roads were closed, schools were closed,
power was out.  My sister's a dental hygienist, couldn't get to work. 
My mother lives in a senior center and much of the staff couldn't get to
work.  Many small businesses and industries with no tax protection
suffered huge losses, and two people died.  Last week's flooding were
caused by heavy rains.  But as sea levels rise within our lifetimes,
flooding will be caused by high seas from a storm.  This was just one
day in one town. But it did begin to make the price of global warming
more real and the cost to the big polluter rule not so drastic.

		I urge you to pass the big polluter rule for the good of America. 
Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.

		MR. LEVY:  Your lights work.

		MR. LING:  You can see them?  Okay, great.

		MR. LEVY:  Although I'm not sure why you have two of them up there.

		MR. LING:  Right.  Well, this is the old broken one.

		MR. LEVY:  Ah, good.  I won't press that one.

		MR. LING:  And it's no longer even being used to keep time.  So okay,
good.  You can begin whenever you're ready.

		MR. LEVY:  Okay.  My name is Julian Levy, and that's J-U-L-I-A-N, last
name is L-E-V as in Victor, Y, and I thank you for this opportunity to
speak.  I've got one specific issue to talk about.

		I started my career with EPA.  I've been in the air pollution business
for about 35 years now, and I worked --

		MR. LING:  I'm sorry.  I need to ask you to stop for just one second. 
It looks like the new timer is not moving.  Ah, there we go.  Sorry.

		MR. LEVY:  That's all right.  All right.  Anyway, I've been in the air
pollution business for 35 years, and I started my career with EPA.  I
wrote the first PSD rule in the State of Florida, and I've been working
with or around PSD and Title V ever since then.  And my comment
addresses process in this case.

		This is a major rule with major environmental and economic impacts. 
It will change in many ways, the way not just the industrial folks live,
but the way we all live, and it deserves major public participation
opportunities.  Instead, in the proposal there was no hearing proposed. 
It was only if somebody requests a hearing, and you all knew that a
hearing would be requested.  So it would have been easy to schedule one.

		The notice was provided, to my knowledge, for the first time, that a
public hearing would be held was provided on the EPA website buried down
in the website, and the only outreach notice that I received was less
than 48 hours before the hearing began.  It was issued by EPA to one of
its LISTSERVs at about 2:30 the day before yesterday on Monday.

		And I want to contrast that with other EPA rules.  Let me read from a
Federal Register the EPA published, and it says and I quote, "The
administrator solicits widespread public involvement in all aspects of
the significant deterioration issue, and interested individuals and
groups are encouraged to actively participate in this rulemaking," and
then it goes on to say all the different ways that EPA is doing that.

		Also in this proposed PSD rule, EPA listed two days of public hearings
in Washington that would begin six weeks out from the proposal, and then
there were four additional hearings held around the country, each two
days in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver and San Francisco.  And my concern is
that, in addition to that, there were also 90 days for written comments.
 For this rule, there are only 60 days and it ends, the comment period
ends, on the 28th of December, which we know is always an exciting time
to finish up your comments.

		And my concern is this, that I read from is from the original PSD rule
and it was proposed

July 16, 1973.  That was in the Nixon Administration, one of the most
secretive, and to many, repressive administrations that we've ever had. 
The current administration came to power with the promise of an open and
transparent government.  And frankly, I'm offended by the way this has
been a very closed and opaque process.  I find, in a way, that the lack
of outreach and the lack of stakeholder involvement and the lack of
reaching around the country to be the administrative equivalent of a
kangaroo court.  Instead of really trying to get it right, it seems as
though you're just trying to get it politically correct and those are
two different things.

		And I encourage you all on this critical rule that does affect the
environment, will affect the economy, will affect every citizen in the
United States, will result in a loss of jobs for some people, that you
all give the people a chance to speak more frequently and to reach out
to them more.  And with that, I appreciate this opportunity for me to
speak out.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Questions from the panel?  Thank you both very
much.  Okay, we have Virginia Vennett and Glen Besa.  All right, we'll
begin with Ms. Vennett.  Please, whenever you're ready.

		MS. VENNETT:  Could you clarify what this is doing, this?

		MR. LING:  Yes.  Can we stop the timer?  Sorry.  So what this is
saying, whenever you begin talking, the green light will come on and
that means that your five minutes has started.  And then when there are
two minutes remaining, a yellow light will come on, which is the signal
to begin concluding, summing up.  And then when the red light comes on,
it's time to stop, although I've been letting people go at least another
30 seconds or so.  All right, thank you very much.

		MS. VENNETT:  Good morning.  I'm Virginia Vennett, and I'm currently a
resident of Reston, Virginia.  Today I'm here as a concerned human being
almost as everyone in this room is.  As a former science teacher, a
mother and a grandmother, I urge you to go ahead with the proposal.  I'm
here today for all of the reasons I've stated, but most importantly,
today as a native of Southwest Virginia.  I'm not going to give you any
numbers or scientific studies or results.  You've already had enough of
those or a lot of those today.  Just this morning as we meet here, a
very important new assessment is being presented to Congress.  The
Physicians for Social Responsibility are releasing the human health
effects of coal burning power plants.

		When I think of Southwest Virginia, I have very fond memories.  I was
born there and grew up until I was four.  And when we moved north to my
yankee father's home in Upstate New York, I still felt like a
southerner.  We often traveled back, and I spent many, many happy times
in Southwest Virginia.  And I recalled as I started thinking about what
I wanted to say today a very vivid memory.  Back in those days, there
weren't very many interstates.  There weren't any.  And as we would come
to the top of the very last mountain and we would start down those scary
switchbacks, I would notice this odor that to me meant home.  It was
that sicky, sweet odor.  If you've ever been any place that burns soft
coal, you know what I'm talking about.  It's indescribable, and it's
unforgettable.  But to me, it meant home.

		So as we started down and I would smell that, I'd think, oh, I'm
almost home.  It hung constantly over the valley.  It was a natural part
of life to anyone living there, as normal as blue sky and sunshine. 
Thinking about this memory as I began to put together facts and memories
I wanted to share with you today, something happened and I suddenly
realized, and this is the first time in my life I put this together,
that there are for me more concrete reminders.  Incredibly, I had never
ever connected them until now.

		Starting at age ten, I had ongoing lung problems, asthma, bronchitis
too numerous to count, and to date I've had pneumonia seven times.  No
sane person would knowingly inhale sulfuric acid, but in fact that's
what I was doing in Pennington Gap in Lee County from birth to age four.
 Sulfur, which is a pollutant when soft coal is burned, combined with
oxygen and hydrogen creates sulfuric acid.  So I was having sulfuric
acid in my lungs.

		As you have heard and will continue to hear, only a small handful of
sources, including coal power plants, are known to be responsible for
more than half of all the global warming in the U.S.  It's unthinkable
that we could knowingly allow dangerous pollutants to be spewed into the
air for children to breathe.

		I, as I said, I'm just blown away by the fact that I had never put the
fact of what I was breathing as a child and my lung problems together. 
But I'm hoping that today you will certainly go ahead with your proposal
so that in the future other children and other adults aren't going to
have similar health problems.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Besa.

		MR. BESA:  Thank you.  My name is Glen Besa.  I'm the Virginia
Director for the Sierra Club, and we're very pleased that the EPA is
here in Virginia with this hearing and I know our representatives will
be in Chicago tomorrow as well.  Again, thank you for this opportunity. 
I just want to relate to you that I appreciate the fact that the EPA
proceeded with the endangerment proceeding and the findings that climate
change is a threat to human health.  I was just down in Hampton this
Saturday actually and Sunday cleaning out my mother-in-law's home, which
had been flooded for the second time in six years.  Global warming is
real, and it's having an effect on our climate.  While we can't point to
any particular incidence and say that global warming caused it,
certainly the increased frequency of these storm events and a variety of
other impacts are very real and very apparent.  And so for that reason,
it's very appropriate that the EPA is proceeding with these regulations
that would control emissions from large emitters of CO2.  In Virginia,
I'm engaged in regulatory proceedings related to two new coal plants
that are proposed.  At a time when the climate scientists from across
this country and this world, in fact, are saying that we need to begin
to reduce emissions, it's disconcerting that we would have emissions
expanding and in the case of Virginia two new coal plants.  So it's
incredibly important that the EPA proceed with regulating new sources of
pollution and begin to reduce those emissions if we're going to address
the issues of climate change and address the issues with respect to
human health and our well being that the EPA is attempting to do with
these regulations.  Thank you so much.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Any questions?  Thank you both.  We have
Lindsay Arends and Katherine Bowes. If you've got enough for all of us,
that would be great.  All right, welcome.  We'll begin with Ms. Arends.

		MS. ARENDS:  Great.  Thank you.  Good morning.  My name is Lindsay
Arends, and I work for the Alliance for Climate Protections to Repower
America Campaign here in Virginia.  I would like to speak in support of
the Environmental Protection Agency's new proposed permitting
requirements for large sources of greenhouse gas emissions or the
"tailoring rule".  The greenhouse gas "tailoring rule" is yet another
important step in Federal efforts to enact smart, sound policy to limit
the harmful greenhouse gas emissions from the largest sources causing
this climate crisis.  And by taking the steps to shield small sources of
emissions through this rule, the EPA is wisely utilizing a
cost-effective approach focusing on the largest polluters who account
for the most emissions.

		Alongside enacting comprehensive clean energy and climate policies,
enacting this rule and putting the Clean Air Act to work to cut
pollution is a powerful tool for transitioning to a clean energy
economy.  Transitioning from dirty fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas
to renewable energy sources like wind and solar reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, the number one cause of climate crisis.  Despite efforts by
fossil fuel interests and their front groups to weaken and undermine the
Clean Air Act and block progress towards America's transition to clean
energy, we know that the Act has protected the health and welfare of
Americans, especially our most vulnerable from harmful pollutants for
nearly four decades.  We need to strengthen this commitment to enforce
the Clean Air Act and supporting the "tailoring rule" is a critical
component to these efforts.

		Everything we love about America is affected by the climate crisis. 
And what we do in the next few years will determine everything about our
country's future and the world our future generations will inherit. 
Coupled with the recent EPA decision to develop a first of its kind
reporting system for greenhouse gas emissions and recent efforts to
increase fuel efficiency standards and set pollution limits for cars,
the EPA has stepped up to do what is necessary to protect the health of
both the American people and the planet.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.

		MS. BOWES:  Thank you.  My name is Katherine Bowes, and I'm with the
National Wildlife Federation.  Thank you for holding this hearing and
for the opportunity to testify on this issue of critical importance to
the National Wildlife Federation and our 4 million members and
supporters across the country.

		I'd like to start by applauding Administrator Jackson for directing
the Environmental Protection Agency to fulfill its statutory obligations
under the Clean Air Act to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.  It is
clear that the EPA has a renewed sense of duty to develop and implement
regulations necessary to protect public health and the environment from
the dangers of climate change, and it couldn't come at a more critical
time.  This new leadership from the Obama Administration to confront
global warming is long overdue and very much welcomed.

		The National Wildlife Federation strongly supports the proposed
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule at issue today.  We believe that EPA has developed a
common sense regulatory approach here for tackling the country's largest
sources of greenhouse gas emissions.  Clarifying the scope of coverage
and regulating these sources provides both large and small businesses
with much needed certainty in this challenging economy while ensuring
that nearly 70 percent of U.S. global warming pollution from stationary
sources is addressed.

		NWF believes that focusing regulation at this time on the sources most
responsible for our global warming pollution makes both economic and
environmental sense.  The vast majority of sources that would fall under
this threshold are longstanding members of the regulated community.  The
owners and operators of these plants are very familiar with emission
regulations and in seeking cost-effective reductions to comply with
their permits.  As history has shown us time and again, American
ingenuity and innovation will lead to dramatic pollution reductions and
much lower costs than are initially projected.  Placing a firm limit on
greenhouse gas emissions from these large sources is essential for
ushering in a clean energy future for America.  Companies across the
country will respond with substantial investments in new energy and
efficiency technologies that will create jobs and drive our economic
recovery.  Quite simply, Americans need a better way to power our future
and protect the planet.  We must move swiftly and effectively.  It is
not an exaggeration to call what we are facing a climate crisis.  This
is the defining challenge of the 21st century.  For years, commentators
have framed climate changes such as the melting of the Arctic ice and
rising of the seas as possible outcomes in the distant future.  In fact,
these and other profound ecosystem changes and climate feedbacks are
well under way and are occurring far more rapidly than scientists
recently projected.

		Of particular interest to the National Wildlife Federation, the fourth
report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that in
the lifetime of a child born today, 20 to 30 percent of the world's
plant and animal species will be on the brink of extinction if we don't
take bold action now.

		National regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is long
overdue.  For decades, scientists have been warning of significant
catastrophic threats to human health and welfare from unchecked global
warming.  As clarified by the Supreme Court in 2007, EPA has the
authority and the obligation to respond to this threat with appropriate
regulatory action.

		It is refreshing to see EPA finally step up and pursue sensible
policies to make up for lost time. In particular, the National Wildlife
Federation looks forward to the final issuance of a positive
endangerment finding in order to truly kickstart a new era of national
policy action to address global warming.

		Conclusion:  On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and our 4
million members and supporters, I would again like to thank the Obama
Administration for proposing this regulation and taking an essential
step forward in crafting effective common sense policies to cut
greenhouse gas emissions. It is clear that Administrator Jackson has
brought a fundamentally different approach to the agency in responding
to this urgent issue.  The National Wildlife Federation looks forward to
the opportunity to work together to advance our shared goal of solving
the climate crisis.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Questions from the panel?  Thank you both. 
Okay, I'll call the next two speakers.  I have Brian Morrissey and
Melinda Pierce. Also, just as a reminder to folks who missed the opening
remarks, if you are here and would like to speak but have not yet signed
up to do so, you do that outside at the registration table.  Thanks.  Do
we have Melinda Pierce?  It looks like you're by yourself.

		MR. MORRISSEY:  Okay.

		MR. LING:  But go ahead and start whenever you're ready, and then
we'll have Melinda join you when she comes in.  Thanks.

		MR. MORRISSEY:  Okay.  My name is Brian Morrissey.  I'm speaking
essentially for myself, although I am a member of the Sierra Club and I
am very interested in environmental education as part of my business. 
So if you take all of the fossil fuel deposits that are in the ground,
extract them and convert them into energy, then the consequent
accumulation as we all know of CO2 in the upper atmosphere will raise
the earth's temperature by a sufficient amount to exterminate ourselves
and all life on the planet.

		Until this is more widely understood and until Congress passes
adequate caps on carbon emissions, EPA's job, your job, is to control
and limit carbon emissions through your authority under the Clean Air
Act to prevent the 400 parts per million level of carbon dioxide from
being reached in conjunction with, of course, the international
community.  As human beings, we have evolved an economic system,
capitalism, capable of motivating individuals sufficiently to pursue
self interest to the point of accomplishing just that result.  Because
of the time involved between burning of fossil fuel and accumulation of
CO2 in the atmosphere and then the effect that this has in trapping like
greenhouse the infrared or heat portion of the sun's rays, the final
effect in earth temperature rise resulting from greenhouse gas emission
lags behind its cause.

		Everybody in this room knows that the rate at which carbon emissions
are entering the atmosphere is not slowing significantly even with the
economic downturn, and of course, our efforts at conservation. What
slowing that has occurred from the U.S. economic downturn is more than
offset by the tremendous acceleration in carbon emissions taking place
in China and India.

		The awareness of parts per million levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is
new.  It is a new parameter for the human psyche and human existence. 
It's new in our awareness.  In the past, particularly in America,
whatever anyone finds in the ground and exploits for human progress is
theirs to keep.  The use and processing of what the American
entrepreneur finds in the ground has never been limited or constrained
in the past.  There's never been a need, scientific or otherwise.

		So now the EPA, a U.S. government agency, must impose a limit on how a
resource dug out of the ground is utilized for the reward and profit of
those who found and extracted it.  Now this way of doing business has
served this country very well in the past and moving from the original
13 colonies to the West. But right at this moment, we have a fundamental
choice.  We can either continue with the past and our beliefs about the
past regarding our economic activity, or we can allow the awareness of
the accumulating CO2 in the atmosphere to be our motivating factor.  And
basically it is EPA's responsibility until Congress does pass and is
persuaded to pass effective greenhouse control legislation, it is EPA's
job to do everything they can to cut, stop and reverse the greenhouse
gas emissions. Let's call them unnecessary so we keep efficiency as a
prime criteria here, energy efficiency.  But that's your job is to be
strong because of people's vested self interest in our economic
capitalistic system, there's going to be all this flack in the air to
overcome.  And consequently, we need a very strong EPA right now going
forward, of course, with the Obama Administration, in this rule that
you're proposing.  So I support you in that.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Questions?  Thank you.  Do we have
Melinda Pierce?  Okay.  All right, let's call up Alice Altusauer and
Norman Hall.

		MS. ALTUSAUER:  My name is Alice Altusauer. I run the Well Mind
Association of Greater Washington, which is a holistic medicine
information clearinghouse focusing on environmental and nutritional
influences on mental and physical well-being.  I'm also a member of the
Sierra Club, and I also would like to applaud the EPA for this
encouraging reversal in fulfilling its mandate to protect the public
health and welfare from various types of pollutions.  My concern is that
the minimum 25,000 tons should be viewed as a beginning when something
is known to be harmful.  Ultimately, there really is no safe level of
exposure.

		I also want to talk about landfills.  We have some wonderful up and
coming planners, architects, engineers who are devising truly clean,
renewable, innovative systems to manage all aspects of our solid waste,
waste water.  And UCLA and the National Building Museum had a forum just
two days ago highlighting the top 20 submissions from around the world
in one of their competitions, and the designs are wonderful.  So I would
encourage EPA to start looking at these innovations and begin to give
them some publicity so we can become educated around the country as to
how we can do better with what we have.

		I also would encourage the EPA to look at chemical plants to see what
is spewing out of those plants in the context of the list of greenhouse
gases that they've narrowed their focus to and consider not necessarily
stationary, but at some point, looking at land use practices such as
lawn mowers.  In my area alone, six huge lawn mowers will go nonstop
from seven in the morning until six in the evening in just one
development spewing out truly enormous amounts of CO2. So I would
encourage the EPA to start thinking about promoting watershed friendly
yards and backyards, and Northern Virginia has some wonderful watershed
friendly campaigns that the EPA should consider integrating at some
point.

		And also looking at implementing a national precautionary principle so
that we don't have to wait until there's evidence of harm, and people
have been harmed and communities have been harmed, if not destroyed. 
That we, in fact, avert these kinds of sad situations and that certainly
should be consistent with how the EPA will be protecting our public
health and welfare.  And stopping the mountain cap mining is also of
enormous concern, 2,000 miles of streams destroyed, to say nothing of
the ecosystems.

		And then, one last area of encouragement for EPA to really focus on is
Congress's resistance to reverse its 80/20 formula.  They're still
putting 80 percent of their funds into roads, 20 percent into clean
transit systems.  So in Maryland alone, we're destroying pristine
resources that sequester the carbon.  We're destroying hundreds of acres
of trees, hundreds of acres of topsoil, building humongous roads, one
highway intercounty connector between Baltimore County and Harford
County has 16 on and off ramps, and we have just completed most of that
construction, and it just seems, not just insane, but so irresponsible. 
And EPA is supposed to be issuing or refusing to issue permits for those
kinds of projects, and I would encourage the EPA to be more rigorous in
stopping that pattern.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Mr. Hall.

		MR. HALL:  Good morning.  My name is Norman Hall, and I'm a parent, an
educator and an avid follower of public policy issues thanks to the way
I was raised by my parents.  I'm here today because I've been taught and
I try to teach to my students the importance of speaking your mind about
what your values tell you matter.  Today this means that I feel
committed to connect lessons about science and public policy considering
the effects of global warming.

		Before making a final decision about coming here today, I sent my son
Zac an email asking him whether I should do this.  Zac is a freshman at
McAllister College and is, for now anyway, majoring in biology.  Zac
replied within minutes saying yes, you should testify.  Now, if you've
worked with young people the way I have, you're prepared for that kind
of a short answer.  But he elaborated on what I might say, adding that
while he didn't have specific technical points I should stress, all his
thinking about the environment recently has been about how poor air
quality relates to health, contributing to an enormous number of chronic
illnesses.

		Let me mention that he, my daughter and my wife, Susan, they all have
asthma.  I have learned to be aware of asthma triggers and how outdoor
trips can change quickly from moments of spontaneous wonder to, well,
concern about whether and where we packed the inhaler just in case it's
needed.  I grew up with a strong interest and belief in the fields of
science.  Following a graduate degree and a career in public
transportation, I've turned to a second career in education.  I've
maintained an interest in making sure that people of all ages have
choices to live their lives in a way that is true to their personal
nature and protects the earth for future generations.

		And in my mind, the path to a bright global future requires that
everybody with the capacity to follow the issues related to global
warming has the obligation to do so.  I teach the importance of critical
thinking.  Today, it's time for me to practice what I teach.

		When I started my transit career, a major issue I worked on before the
Americans with Disabilities Act concerned the decision to buy wheelchair
accessible buses or hold off for other choices.  Today, nobody seriously
considers this to be a legitimate choice.  Around the same time that the
Americans with Disabilities Act became law, there were Clean Air Act
amendments, which were another means by which our nation made laws to
protect the public.  Unfortunately, this legislation has not been as
complete in meeting its goal over objections of those who would say it
would cost too much.  Others say we should wait for a better time to
impose reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

		I say a reasonable scientific approach should trump concerns over
cost.  It's not about who owns the industrial facilities that are the
subject of today's rule.  It's about who owns the air, the layers of the
atmosphere whose chemistry is affected.  That is to say, it's
everybody's, everybody who breathes, and that includes those with
respiratory diseases and asthma.  With that in mind, let's consider
right now only a handful of sources, including coal power plants, are
responsible for more than half of all global warming pollution in the
United States.  Older energy facilities like the older buses that
related to my work 20 years ago need to be set up with current and
future needs in mind.  We cannot wait.  We cannot justify inaction by
these operators while smaller emission sources are held to higher
standards.  Under the proposed rule, 25,000 ton per year carbon dioxide
equivalents is what would be known as the major statutory source
threshold facing newer modified existing facilities.  Facilities with a
lower significance level somewhere between 10,000 and 25,000 tons per
year carbon dioxide equivalent would also need a PSD permit should plant
modifications be made. I'm no expert on what this value should be, but
I'm sure that the testimony EPA seeks will include compelling arguments
based on science for setting this number.

		It's good to have the opportunity to discuss this issue today because
science matters and numbers matter too for while we should consider
every source of greenhouse gas emissions in the plans we make, it's
clear that the biggest impact we can have on cutting back emissions
starts with those who make the most.  Let's say I'm the manager
responsible for running a large bus garage and I want to show my riders
that I care about their service through a meet-and-greet campaign.  I
wouldn't go about doing this through small ridership bus runs.  I would
go where ridership statistics show most of my riders will be.  As a
teacher, I don't work with the students who are the easiest to find to
give them extra homework help.  I track down those who need the help
most based on their underperformance.

		I suggest that it's time that we encourage the EPA to do likewise when
it comes to these proposed rules.  It looks like they're off to a great
start.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Any questions from folks?  Thank you.
 All right.  The next speaker is Marlow Lewis, and according to my
information, that's the only person remaining who has signed up to speak
who is here.  We have a few people signed up to speak who are not here
and then several people who are not here who are not signed up to speak.
 So, if you do want to speak, you have the opportunity to sign up
outside, and we will hear Mr. Lewis' talk.  You may begin whenever
you're ready.

		MR. LEWIS:  Okay, thank you.  I'm Marlow Lewis.  I'm with the
Competitive Enterprise Institute here in Washington, D.C., and I want to
thank you for the opportunity to speak, especially on immediate notice,
if you will.  I just went outside and asked to be put on because I only
found out about this meeting just a few days ago.

		But one of the things I wanted to say about the "tailoring rule" is
that I think that it confirms in spades what a lot of us who are unhappy
with Massachusetts v. EPA have been saying for some time, which is that
the Supreme Court set the stage for an economic disaster and a
constitutional crisis, and that's why you needed a "tailoring rule".  I
think the "tailoring rule" brought out better than the ANPR, than any of
the comments that were submitted on the ANPR, the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the debacle that would be created if we literally
apply the Clean Air Act to carbon dioxide under Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, Title V, other EPA programs.  A lot of people
would say yes, if we literally apply the Clean Air Act, so let's not
literally apply it, which is what the "tailoring act" is proposing.

		But literal is just another way of saying legal or lawful.  If we
lawfully apply the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases, we get a disaster
on many fronts.  One of the things that will happen that the "tailoring
rule" brought out which is nowhere in any of the comments that I'm aware
of on the ANPR is that 6.1 million small entities would have to go
through the Title V permitting process.  This would be absurd because
most of those 6.1 million sources would not have any other Clean Air Act
requirements to report upon.  Forty-one thousand small entities would
have to go through the PSD process, and that's just mind-bogglingly
large.  I mean, your current load or the load that EPA shares with about
43 states, if I understand correctly, is about 300 permits a year.  So,
if we lawfully apply PSD to carbon dioxide, we get a workload of 41,000
permits.  And as the "tailoring rule" points out, what this essentially
does is cause the PSD and Title V programs to shut down.  This cannot
possibly be what Congress had intended when they created those programs.

		So, as you point out in the rule, the literal, lawful application of
the Clean Air Act to carbon dioxide produces "absurd results", results
contrary to those Congress intended.  And you have to ask yourself, is
this because the Clean Air Act was poorly written?  I mean, back in 1970
and 1977 when Section 202 of the Clean Air Act was enacted and amended,
did Congress insert the statutory equivalent of malicious code into the
Clean Air Act or some kind of computer virus that suddenly went haywire?
 No.  What happened was that the Supreme Court made a decision based on
the premise that anything emitted into the air is an air pollutant. 
That was the lynchpin of the whole decision.  But if anything emitted
into the air is an air pollutant, then even totally pollution-free,
absolutely clean air, if emitted into the air, is an air pollutant. 
From absurd premises comes absurd results.  And now you have to rescue
the country and the economy from what the Supreme Court did.  But the
way you're doing it is to basically act as the legislator.  People are
praising you for your common sense.  Yes, it would be common sensical to
do it this way.  But that's not the way the law is written.  It says 250
tons.  No matter how you squint at the page, you can't see 25,000 tons
there.  In order to prevent an economic disaster, EPA is put in the
position of violating the separation of powers.  That's part of what I
mean by a constitutional crisis.  The bigger point, though, is that the
"endangerment finding" will set the precedent for another finding that
triggers a NAAQS rulemaking under Section 108, and half the people in
this room believe that 350 should be the new 450 that we have to set a
max below current atmospheric concentrations.  And believe me, there is
no way we get there with known technologies except global economic
collapse.  So, you'd have to basically convince China and India and the
rest of the developing world to stop developing.  People talk about a
moral high ground issue here.  The only way you feed the hungry is if
you let capitalism make the rest of the world as wealthy as we are. 
Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Questions? Thank you.

		MR. LEWIS:  Okay.  I appreciate it very much.

		MR. LING:  All right.  We will go with Pamela Liebowitz and Julian
Carmona.  So, Julian, we have you for the two o'clock slot, so you're
going to just go early.

		MR. CARMONA:  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Okay, terrific.  But we'll start with Ms. Liebowitz.

		MS. LIEBOWITZ:  Thank you.  My name's Pamela Liebowitz, and I'm from
Baltimore, Maryland.  Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak
today.  I'm speaking basically as a public citizen on behalf of myself,
and I'm here because I'm very concerned about global warming,
specifically because I have done work before dealing with poverty and
food insecurity on a worldwide scale.

		And what really concerns me about global warming is that by making our
climate conditions and weather conditions more extreme and more
unpredictable, we're jeopardizing lots and lots of people's ability,
people who are farmers and live off the land to be able to feed
themselves and their families by being able to have the security of
knowing that their crops are going to grow and be able to feed everyone.
 And so, as global warming becomes more and more of a problem, and these
weather conditions do become more extreme, it really threatens basically
the people who are the most vulnerable, already are going to be the ones
most affected by further extreme climate conditions.

		And that's why I very much support EPA's proposed rule and why I
wanted to come speak today.  Big coal-fired power plants are the single
largest source of global warming pollution in the nation.  Many coal
plants are old, inefficient and rely on outdated technology.  I support
EPA's proposed rule, which puts the Clean Air Act to work to cut global
warming pollution from coal plants and other big smoke stack industries.

		To successfully stop global warming and transition to clean energy
like wind and solar power, EPA must hold coal plants and other big smoke
stack industries to modern pollution standards.  EPA's proposal is
common sense since it targets only the biggest polluters and requires
these polluters to meet modern pollution standards.  It's long past time
for coal plants and other big polluters to cut their global warming
pollution.  It's time for big polluters to clean up so that America can
fight global warming and move to clean energy.

		Thank you for this opportunity.  I urge EPA to finalize this important
rule to fight global warming and move America to clean energy.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Carmona.

		MR. CARMONA:  Thank you.  Thank you for allowing me to testify.  My
name is Julian Carmona.  I am here as a concerned citizen and an
employee of the Sierra Club.  My position is unpaid, so technically, I
am not paid to be here.  I'm a recent graduate of UCLA and a 22-year
resident of Los Angeles, California.  I am here because I want to see
the biggest polluters held accountable for their emissions, but I am
also here as a resident of California and a messenger from those
communities that are disproportionately affected by the actions of big
polluters.

		A lot of people see Los Angeles, California and California in general
as a leader in cutting its greenhouse gas emissions and on the forefront
of the clean energy economy.  To a certain extent, that's true.  But
from Los Angeles, the biggest city in California and one of the biggest
cities in the United States, it is a big contributor to greenhouse gases
from both mobile and non-mobile sources.

		While we hear a lot of news about Los Angeles leaders and California
leaders cutting their greenhouse gas emissions with successful policies,
we don't hear the stories from those who are affected by the actions of
local industry.  In other words, we don't see the ever present human
effect of the big polluters.

		Just take the toxic tour of LA, and you'll see communities like
Southgate, Wilmington and other areas of Southeast Los Angeles that
have, just like Middle America, huge smokestacks, oil refineries and gas
fires.  But unlike the rest of Middle America, these industries are much
closer to homes, playgrounds and schools.  And the rate of asthma and
other respiratory illnesses is much higher in these areas than it is in
the rest of California and I would say in the rest of the United States.

		What is more unsettling is that in these populations there is a high
incidence of ethnic and racial minorities.  This kind of environmental
injustice must not be tolerated at any level.  I am here to make sure
that these big industries do not inundate these communities with these
harmful greenhouse gases.

		It is on that note that I support the EPA's "tailoring rule".  These
large polluters, like coal power plants, represent a small portion of
sources but contribute to over half of the United States' greenhouse gas
emissions.  I've heard industries here give the same erroneous excuses
about costs.  These supposed costs they talk about are costs to regulate
all forms of emissions and they apply this to this specific rule.  These
costs are both hyperbolized and overestimated.  I hear a lot of talk
about absurd rules and absurd numbers.  I think their excuses are
absurd.  They should be held responsible for their share, and this will
only affect two percent of American businesses or those that emit over
25,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.  Excuse me.

		This will allow the U.S. to grow its economy, put funding into
research and development for clean energy and cut its greenhouse gas
emissions.  I commend the EPA and the Administration for taking the
necessary steps towards cutting our greenhouse gas emissions and taking
us into a future with clean energy.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Questions for either?  Thank you
both.

		MR. CARMONA:  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  All right.  We'll call up Tyson Slocum.

		MR. SLOCUM:  I just sit here?

		MR. LING:  Yes.

		MR. SLOCUM:  Great.

		MR. LING:  And were you here when I explained the lighting system?

		MR. SLOCUM:  I was not, unfortunately.

		MR. LING:  Okay.  The yellow light comes on when you have two minutes
left, and then the red light comes on when your five minutes is up.  So
you may begin whenever you're ready.

		MR. SLOCUM:  Great.  Thank you.  My name is Tyson Slocum.  I direct
the energy program for Public Citizen.  Public Citizen is a national
nonprofit nonpartisan organization.  We are one of America's largest
consumer advocacy groups, and we have a nearly 40-year track record of
supporting strong, progressive, sustainable energy policies that protect
the environment while also protecting household consumers.

		And Public Citizen is thrilled that the EPA is beginning this process.
 It has already begun this process of getting the "tailoring rule" to
consider regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. 
It's fitting that these hearings are occurring today.  We're almost
approaching the 40-year anniversary of the Clean Air Act, which is
really one of the most important critical laws that the United States
and our citizens have to protect our communities.  And we strongly
support the EPA using its authority under the Clean Air Act to tackle
one of its biggest challenges yet, and that is global climate change.

		Public Citizen strongly supports the development of science-based
regulations to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power
plants, oil refineries and other smokestack emitters that are
responsible for nearly 70 percent of our nation's emissions of
pollutants that cause climate change.  The EPA has really emerged as the
only arm of the federal government with the credibility to solve climate
change as Congress, thus far, has produced what we feel at Public
Citizen, to be deeply flawed legislation that provides billions of
dollars in financial giveaways to polluters while failing to change our
corporate controlled energy system that has contributed to the
unsustainable energy path that America finds itself on.

		Using the Clean Air Act as the EPA has done over 40 years has shown
that it can work with industry to make it more efficient, that there are
glaring inefficiencies in the way that we produce energy, that we
produce goods in this country, and that industry needs the guidance of
science-based thoughtful regulations that the EPA can produce that will
hold polluters accountable, while still implementing the strong
aggressive targets and greenhouse gas emissions reductions that the U.S.
and the world desperately needs to head off what many scientists believe
to be catastrophic climate change catastrophies.

		You know, we understand that there is a very big push by a lot of
folks in industry to avoid having to comply with EPA regulations.  We
see in the legislation passed by the House of Representatives that it
would eviscerate the ability of the EPA to conduct rulemakings to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.  Public
Citizen will oppose any legislation that takes away the ability of the
EPA to do its job to protect citizens and the world from the effects of
climate change.

		We feel that under the leadership of the EPA, that your agency is far
more shielded from the effects of lobbyists and special interests that
have proven to be so effective at getting what they want out of
legislation and we think out of regulation where science rather than
lobbyists will prevail.

		It's also appropriate that you are holding these hearings on the eve
of the global climate change talks in Copenhagen next month.  There, the
United States along with most of the nations of the world are going to
be working together on how to solve climate change, and I think that the
eyes of the world will not be on Congressional leaders but on the
Environmental Protection Agency and the pronouncements that the Obama
Administration makes and EPA officials make on the progress that the EPA
is planning on regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air
Act.

		So thank you very much for the opportunity to make my remarks today,
and Public Citizen looks forward to supporting the EPA authority under
the Clean Air Act with all of our resources that we have available. 
Thank you so much for your time.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Questions?  All right, thanks.  Okay.  We are
scheduled to break at 12:30.  However, in the absence of any speakers
scheduled to speak between now and then, I'm going to suspend the
hearing for now and I'm going to take a break and give the court
reporter a break.  And then we'll return and see if there's anyone else
who wants to speak before we officially adjourn for lunch.

		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

		MR. LING:  All right.  Good morning, folks. We're going to reconvene
briefly here.  We have three speakers who would like to go before lunch,
and so I will call them up two at a time.  The first two are Lauren
Glickman and Richard Krause.  You guys can sit at the table together. 
If you weren't here when I explained the lighting system, basically you
start speaking whenever you're ready.  The timer will give you five
minutes, and then the green light will come on.  When the yellow light
comes on, you will have two minutes to begin summing up, and then when
the red light comes on, the time is up.  And I guess that's pretty much
it.  So, Ms. Glickman, whenever you're ready to begin, go ahead.

		MS. GLICKMAN:  All right, thank you.  Again, my name is Lauren
Glickman.  I am the Virginia Campaign Coordinator with Chesapeake
Climate Action Network, and I'm here today as an ordinary citizen just
because this is really a huge opportunity we have in front of us to
really have a huge impact and take on the largest offenders regarding
climate change pollution and hold them accountable.  It is becoming
increasingly clear to me that the question is no longer if we should
address climate change but when and how.  And this rule that is under
review today provides a huge opportunity to answer the latter part of
that question by offering a solution that would make the largest impact
on the shortest timeframe.  And so, really briefly, I have chosen my
current profession, and to dedicate myself to what I do because I do not
believe that clean air and clean water are to be seen as privileges
entitled to people based on where they live or how much money they make.
And it's clear that the pollution from the coal industry is in fact
suffocating parts of this country.

		We cannot designate areas safe for breathing and not safe for
breathing.  And it appears that those are the two roads that we have in
front of us.  Just this September, I was fortunate to be able to travel
to Southwest Virginia to see firsthand the costs of this so-called cheap
energy, and what I saw were leveled mountains.  I saw streams that were
running orange with heavy metals and even more so, I was able to step
outside and the air was so thick it was hard to breathe.  The worst
part, though, the thing that struck me the most was, that as I was
driving through Wise County to my friend's house, I drove past the
construction site of Dominion's proposed -- it's actually not proposed
now -- their current constructed coal-fired power plant in Wise County,
and I had to stop and take stock that this, what was standing right in
front of me, is the path that we're headed on.  This new huge facility
took up most of the landscape. And then, even more so, the part of it
that's complete is that smokestack, so that part that is going to be
dumping carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants without
prejudice and suffocating that local community and then being dispersed
throughout the rest of the commonwealth and our country with wind, was
already finished.

		And I had to take stock and think for a minute.  And when I come back,
it's again that it's not the question of if we should do something about
that.  It's when and how.  And as all of these coal plants are, you
know, in the race to be permitted right now and get themselves in as
Congress is thinking about legislation, now is the time to take this on
and make sure that all of these plants that are in the process of being
permitted and constructed have the best technologies in place because
they are the biggest polluters.

		And so, I commend the agency for looking at this rule.  I think it is
hands down the most bang we can get for our buck regulating, you know,
those that are emitting I believe it's over 25,000 tons of greenhouse
gases each year.  Those are the big guys.  If we can start there, we can
put ourselves on this path, this path to a just transition, to a
sustainable future and really take it on.   So, I support the rule and I
commend the agency and really encourage its implementation.  And thank
you so much for having me here today, and I'll finish a little early.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Krause.

		MR. KRAUSE:  Thank you very much.  My name is Richard Krause.  I'm
Senior Director of Congressional Relations for the American Farm Bureau
Federation.  I appreciate your holding this hearing today and providing
us the opportunity to comment on the proposed "tailoring rule".

		The "tailoring rule" is an attempt to mitigate the indisputable
economic and regulatory burdens of applying the New Source Review and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V programs to the
regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.  This mitigation
would presumably result by administratively raising statutorily mandated
thresholds of 100 or 250 tons of emissions per year to 25,000 tons per
year for a period of at least five years.  The rule does not replace the
statutory thresholds but seeks to delay implementation of those
thresholds until the highest level emitters have been permitted.

		Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, under the full
weight of the Clean Air Act, will have significant adverse consequences
for agriculture.  Our analysis indicates that application of Title V
alone will significantly burden over 90 percent of the livestock
production in the United States.  Application of NSR PSD will regulate
many dairy barns, greenhouses and other agricultural structures for the
first time.

		It's difficult to determine the precise impacts, because the
Environmental Protection Agency had failed to conduct a proper
regulatory analysis like the statute requires it to do.  We agree with
President Obama and Administrator Jackson that regulation of greenhouse
gases by EPA is not the appropriate way to proceed.  We oppose such
regulation.  Moreover, we have some significant concerns with how this
"tailoring rule" could be implemented.

		First, we have some fundamental doubts about the legality of an agency
seeking to administratively raise statutorily mandated thresholds.  The
threshold levels of 100 and 250 tons are clearly set forth in the Clean
Air Act.  The agency's reliance on two very narrow and limited judicial
exceptions such as the "absurd results" and "administrative necessity"
that are not generally favored by the courts is further cause for
concern.

		Our doubts are further strengthened by the fact that while the rule
cites some cases to define what is meant by "administrative necessity,"
none of these arguments or none of these cases found in favor of those
proponents of the "administrative necessity" doctrine.

		This is not a case in which Congressional action caused the agency to
invoke the doctrines in question.  In this case, EPA freely chooses to
regulate, a posture not adopted by the previous administration, and it
did so knowing full well the statutory requirements.  If regulation
would produce "absurd results" or create an administrative nightmare as
the agency seems to indicate, the answer is clear. Defer the
endangerment finding and don't regulate until the agency receives policy
guidance from Congress.  EPA clearly has that option but has declined to
pursue it.

		But, even if this rule were to pass legal muster, there are some other
concerns that we have.  It would seem to have very limited effect on
small entities.  While EPA approves State Implementation Plans and Title
V programs, they're largely administered by State law.  And the agency
freely acknowledges in the proposed rule that these entities would still
be subject to State law even if the Federal requirements were raised. 
That leads to the issue that they encourage States to raise their limits
to 25,000 tons in accordance with the "tailoring rule".  But in the
event that they don't, these small entities that supposedly the
"tailoring rule" is to address would not be impacted.  The economic
impacts would still be the same, and it would be of limited utility.

		So, as now appears likely, the very catastrophic economic effects to
small entities and the extreme administrative burdens faced by States in
administering these programs would remain and wouldn't be fixed by the
"tailoring rule" unless the State law question is satisfactorily
addressed.  It could result in millions of entities being subject to PSD
and Title V.  At best, it will only delay the inevitable regulatory
nightmare that will come as a result of implementation.  At the worst,
it could be found illegal and still have these entities subject to state
law.

		Thank you very much, and we will submit more detailed comments.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Questions for either of the speakers?  I have
one question for Mr. Krause. You gave a figure of about 90 percent of
livestock production being covered by Title V.

		MR. KRAUSE:  Yes.

		MR. LING:  It wasn't clear.  Was that under the 250 threshold or
25,000?

		MR. KRAUSE:  That's under the 100 ton threshold for Title V.

		MR. LING:  Okay, thank you.

		MR. KRAUSE:  Yes.  So yes.

		MR. LING:  There's no other questions?  Thank you both very much.  And
the last speaker before lunch is Ernest Lehman.

		MR. LEHMAN:  Which is the better microphone?

		MR. LING:  Sit closer to us.

		MR. LEHMAN:  I can sit next to you.  Hi.  I'm Ernest Lehman.  I'm a
citizen of Alexandria, and I appreciate the opportunity to say a few
words to you. It won't be very technical.  I believe we should be
looking at the focus and the balance.

		My background is, seven years ago I moved to Alexandria just down the
road from here, and it was my misfortune that my home is located less
than half a mile from one of the oldest and certainly now active,
continues to be active, coal-fired power plants in this area.  It's
called Potomac River Generating Station, otherwise known as the Mirant
Plant, single source, highest source of pollution in this metropolitan
area.

		Well, you know what that means.  There's plenty of expert testimonies
describing the pollutants emitted by this plant.  In a few words, 2.6
million tons of carbon dioxide annually, and certainly how that affects
the climate, and we endorse what you're doing to try to cut that down.

		Now the focus is quite simple.  It's clean up or close down.  Either
you clean up your act or we don't want you around anymore.  And we've
been working and succeeding to a fair amount with the Mirant Plant. But
we think that's necessary throughout the United States, and we
appreciate what you're doing to help that out.

		And we don't want any more excuses or dodges or weasling.  We don't
want to hear that electricity will cost more and there are enough
studies saying we'll pay more money for cleaner electricity or that
grandfathering.  The plant down there certainly is a grandfather.  It's
time to retire it.  It's been around long enough.  As a grandfather, I
can speak from personal knowledge.  As a matter of fact, I have a
granddaughter a few days old, and I worry about her lungs because of the
junk that comes out of those towers.

		Also, it will reduce employment.  It will damage the economy.  And
then pollution controls are too expensive.  All of these are just
obfuscations. They're really not serious.  The power and the energy
companies are making plenty of money, plenty of money.

		So again, I say clean up or close down, okay?  That's the focus.  Now
the balance.  How do we balance corporate greed with public health? 
That's basically what the issue is here.  It's been reported that there
are about eight energy company lobbyists for each citizen who speaks
here.  Speaking as a social activist, I am comfortable saying that each
citizen that I know, and I'm very active in the Alexandria community,
represents about 10 other citizens when it comes to who it is that is
for this particular action.  There are about 140,000 citizens in
Alexandria.  I would say, from all my social action, thank you, that
this may be about 10,000 that really like to breathe dirty air.  The
rest of us want fresh air, clean air, the kind of air that George
Washington breathed.  That's what we would like to have.

		And so, I would say that even though there's so few of us here, we
really represent the majority of the people, and that should be well
taken into account.  So, I say to you to complete this that public
health must trump corporate greed.  Again, to summarize, clean up or
close down.  The focus, the balance, is public health does trump
corporate greed.  Thank you very much.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  And now I have one more speaker that
we're going to squeeze in before lunch.  I know everybody's probably
really hungry.  But let's hear Peter Pennington.  You may start whenever
you're ready.  Thanks.

		MR. PENNINGTON:  Morning, gentlemen.  Morning, Ernie.  I'm Peter
Pennington, and I'm a resident of Ft. Picklecombe in Cornwall.  Ft.
Picklecombe was built to keep the French out.  It doesn't work too well
because there's a ferry going to Brittany that goes past my bedroom
twice a day.  Sea level is rising four and a half millimeters a year. 
Sea temperatures are rising.  We are planning on 100-year storms
occurring every 20 years.  In fact, this Saturday morning the wind
exceeded 100 miles an hour.

		We are planning for the fishing industry to go into rapid decline as
sea acidity rises and the fish stocks just die.  Every inch of coastline
has been mapped and statutorily designated as being lands that will be
abandoned or they will be managed retreat or it will be held at whatever
cost when, as the sea level rises.

		We look across the Atlantic at America and wonder what on earth is
going on.  The last administration put its head in the sand and refused
to have anything to do with it.  America is the world's biggest
polluter.  I have just come from a meeting about global trade.  This
wasn't an environmental meeting.  These were hard-headed businessmen and
bankers from all over the world.  There was an underlying feeling that
America very soon is going to be number two.  There was an underlying
feeling that America's bully tactics of the past will not succeed. If
America doesn't get its act together on global warming, it will be seen
as the pariah of the world and trade will suffer.

		We hear industry over here whining that it's going to cost more, that
they can't bear the cost.  Goodness me, I'm glad I wasn't here in the
19th century as we converted from horses to the automobile. You may
recall the automobile was only brought in, in order to get away from all
that horse dooey that was lying in the road.  I bet the livery stables
moaned.

		If I was in charge of China, in spite of whatever I might have said to
the President in the last two days, come December 6, I would announce
and introduce the biggest climate change proposals going and therefore
totally wrongfoot America.  Businessmen complain about China and India
and Brazil.  These countries are doing something about their climate,
but they're coming from a much lower base.  But they are picking up
speed.

		So, from my point of view in Ft. Picklecombe, I welcome the EPA's
move.  I welcome the Administration that you serve as opposed to the
previous one and say to America stop pratting about and get on with it.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Any questions?  Thank you.  And with
that, we are adjourned until 2:00 p.m.  Thank you all for your
participation this morning.

		(Lunch recess.)

		MR. LING:  Thank you for coming out.  I recognize a few faces from the
morning.  I see a few new faces.  I will not reread my entire opening
statement from this morning, but I just wanted to touch base with some
important information for those of you who weren't here this morning.

		This is the first of two public hearings on the EPA's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. 
There will be another hearing tomorrow in Chicago.  My name is Michael
Ling, and I am an Associate Director in the EPA's Office of Air Quality,
Planning and Standards.  And with me on the panel is Juan Santiago, who
is the Group Leader of the Operating Permits Group, also with Office of
Air Quality, Planning and Standards, and Howard Hoffman, who is an
attorney in our Office of General Counsel.

		We're here today to listen to your comments on the proposed rule. 
Copies of the proposed rule are available outside.  I want to just very
briefly describe the rule.  It's a rule that establishes thresholds for
applicability of the Title V program and the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program for greenhouse gases.  These proposed thresholds
are necessary to preserve the ability of these programs to continue to
operate and achieve and maintain public health and environmental
protection goals while avoiding an administrative burden that would
prevent State and Local permitting authorities from processing these
permits efficiently if they were done at the levels that are in the
statute of 100 and 250.

		So, under this approach, we are taking comment on the thresholds that
are proposed:  a 25,000 ton major source threshold for Title V and a
25,000 ton major source threshold for PSD along with a significance
level for PSD which is the level that's used to determine whether
changes at an existing source are triggering review.  And for the
significance level, we are proposing a number between 10 and 25,000, and
based on comments and information we get, we will select a number within
that range.

		We will be also developing additional supporting information to assist
permitting authorities with implementing the PSD program, initially for
those sources that are covered by the rule, which would be those above
25,000.  But we also, under this rule, have an approach to look at those
thresholds five years from now, do a study and, after reviewing the
results, determine whether it's necessary to retain the higher
thresholds or to lower them.  And again, we're taking comment on that
five-year proposal of whether five years is the appropriate length of
time.

		Just a couple of logistics.  I'm going to be calling up speakers two
at a time, and we will be accepting oral comments on the proposal today.
 We will be putting together a written transcript.  We have a court
reporter here, and that transcript will be available as part of the
official record for this rulemaking and we will consider it as we move
forward.

		Separately, we are accepting written comments on the proposed rule up
through December 28, 2009, and there's a Fact Sheet available, as I
mentioned.  The proposal itself is also available at the registration
table.  If you will be providing oral comments today, I'll be calling
your name in pairs.  When it's your turn, come up to the table, state
your name and affiliation.  And if the court reporter needs help
spelling your name, we appreciate that.  And in order to be fair to
everyone, we are limiting testimony to five minutes each and we're
asking you to remain at the microphone if you're part of a pair.  Remain
there until both speakers in a pair are finished.  And then, after that,
the panel may ask clarifying questions.  And you can also, if in
addition to your oral testimony, you want us to put a written copy of
your remarks in the docket, please leave a copy with us here at the
table before you testify or leave one at the table outside.

		We have this timekeeping system for the five-minute time limit which
consists of green, yellow and red lights.  So when you begin speaking, a
green light will come on and you will then have five minutes to speak. 
The yellow light will signal that you have two minutes left, and then I
will ask you to stop speaking when the red light comes on.

		So, we are going to stay this evening until everyone who wishes to
comment has a chance to do so. If you would like to testify but are not
yet registered to do so, you can sign up at the table outside.  And for
those who have already registered to speak, we have tried to accommodate
your requests for timing for specific slots.  So, again, thanks,
everybody, for participating.  We just have one speaker who's signed up
in this first time block, and it's Steve Woock.  So I'd like to invite
Mr. Woock to come up.  And, Mr. Woock, you can just start whenever
you're ready, and the timer will start then.

		MR. WOOCK:  Okay, thank you.  I'm Steve Woock.  I'm a Federal
Regulatory Affairs Manager with Weyerhauser.  Weyerhauser is a forest
products company headquartered in Federal Way, Washington.  I will
address two critical issues today.  First is our preference for dealing
with greenhouse gases through new legislation designed for that purpose,
and second, if the agency decides to continue with the rules as
proposed, then the CO2 neutral emissions from biogenic sources need to
be excluded from the applicability and significance thresholds.

		Please note that I'm speaking on behalf of Weyerhauser on both of
these issues.  I will also be speaking on behalf of the National
Alliance of Forest Owners on only the second issue.  We also plan to
file more detailed written comments.

		Weyerhauser believes the best approach to address climate change in
greenhouse gas emissions is through economy-wide cost-effective
approaches, and the only way to achieve that is through new legislation.
 Weyerhauser supports legislation that directs the U.S. approach to
climate change in a coordinated fashion, including energy efficiencies,
emission reductions and provisions for cost management.  Such provisions
can include a cap and trade program, prevention of greenhouse gas
leakage overseas and provisions for cost-effective carbon offsets.  We
believe EPA's proposed "tailoring" approach does not address greenhouse
gases properly and still will lead to "absurd results".

		The agency should defer any regulation of stationary sources for
greenhouse gases under the current Clean Air Act and leave Congress to
enact appropriate legislation addressing greenhouse gases.  Nonetheless,
assuming EPA continues with the proposed "tailoring approach", we note
that EPA's proposal is silent on whether and how the CO2 neutral
emissions from biogenic sources should be treated.  We urge EPA to
explicitly exclude CO2 emissions from biogenic sources such as forest
biomass and biofuel combustion from the proposed thresholds and from the
PSD significant emissions rate.

		EPA should do so based on the internationally established recognition
that CO2 emissions from forest biomass are neutral with respect to the
CO2 inventory in the atmosphere.

		So, how can EPA accomplish a biomass CO2 exclusion?  We believe EPA
should make this exclusion explicit within the rulemaking, and we note
precedents to do so exist.  For example, EPA could exempt biomass CO2
just as certain volatile organic compounds are exempted from being
regulated with other VOCs as a class because their photoreactivity is
negligible.

		Finally, EPA could make the exclusion more generally within the
pending rulemaking on the endangerment finding.  Our request is based on
the universal technical recognition that CO2 emissions from forest
biomass combustion are neutral with respect to the CO2 inventory. 
Within the framework of sustainable forest management practice by the
U.S. forest products industry, biogenic CO2 emissions have no effect on
the atmospheric GHG inventory.

		This concept of biomass CO2 neutrality is widely recognized
internationally and in the U.S., including by EPA, and there are several
examples of that you'll find in our written comments.  If EPA does not
exclude biomass CO2 emissions, we believe the proposed rules will
capture far more small emission source operations than EPA has
estimated.  For example, in our industry, this includes many smaller
wood product mills combusting biomass for process heat.  EPA also will
disincent the use of CO2 neutral biomass as an energy source.  This
could have downstream economic impacts on both small and large
forestland owners who are not intended to be regulated by this
regulation.

		In summary, EPA should leave GHG regulation of stationary sources to
new legislation from Congress that's appropriate to the task, and EPA
should explicitly exclude CO2 neutral biomass from greenhouse gas
regulation in this and all other regulatory programs going forward.  I
thank EPA for this commenting opportunity today.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Questions?  I do have one question for you. 
You mentioned that there's a -- I think you described it as a large
number of mills that use biomass for process heat that could be
subjected to permitting.

		MR. WOOCK:  That's correct.

		MR. LING:  I guess, I was wondering, are you planning on providing
some data on the extent of the number of mills that would fall into that
category?

		MR. WOOCK:  We will do that for Weyerhauser facilities.  I think you
have another speaker this afternoon from the American Forest and Paper
Association, and they, I believe, will be providing data on a broader
cross-section of the industry on that kind of information.

		MR. LING:  Okay.  Yes, I'd certainly be interested in Weyerhauser, as
well, as the broader perspective.

		MR. WOOCK:  Right.

		MR. LING:  Thanks.  Okay, we have one other speaker signed up.  It's
Tim Stevens.  Thank you.  You may begin whenever you're ready.

		MR. STEVENS:  Thank you.  Good afternoon and thank you for holding
these hearings.  My name is Tim Stevens, and I'm retired.  I'm not
associated with any of the power companies or any of the other companies
that you're associated with today in your rulemaking. I just wanted to
express my opinions as a concerned citizen.  I live here locally in the
Falls Church area.  I think enforcing this rule that you're proposing --

		MR. LING:  Can I ask you to stop for one second, please?  The timer
did not start.  Ah, there we go.  Okay.  Sorry.

		MR. STEVENS:  Enforcing this rule is not, in my opinion, the only
thing that needs to be done to address the greenhouse gas issue from
carbon dioxide, but it's probably one of the most important.  Getting
ourselves from the average of 20 tons of carbon per year that we as
Americans emit down to the 2 tons, which apparently is the level that we
have to get in order to sustain and equalize the level of carbon
dioxide, is going to be terribly difficult.  And I think taking the
actions that you're proposing is certainly a big step in that direction.

		I believe if you adopt these rules, it will set in motion a series of
multiple steps which will help all of us get down to the level of carbon
dioxide emissions that we have to.  Higher prices for emitting carbon
dioxide will set in motion a lot of other adjustments in the economy
both to economize, to conserve, as well as to move to renewable energy,
which ultimately is a solution that we're going to need.

		I believe that failing to adopt this rule will make it too easy for us
to maintain the status quo, and I believe there's also a national
security risk insofar as other nations will view us in an extremely
negative light if we continue to conduct ourselves with business as
usual.

		I note with a bit of irony that the name of this room is Tidewater,
and my concern is that if we don't begin to change the way that we
conduct ourselves over time, that this room, in fact, will become
officially a tidewater room.  So, with that, thanks again for holding
this hearing.  You're asking the difficult questions and best of luck.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  All right.  So I am going to suspend the
hearing for just a minute until I get the list of the next two speakers.
 I don't think they're here yet.

		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

		MR. LING:  Okay, we have a few more speakers, so we're going to
reconvene here and go through a couple of more names until we run out of
speakers again.  I'd like to call up Kate Smolski and Bahri Aliriza. 
Yes.  And since you guys may not have been here when I explained this,
we're going to ask you to both go, and we'll have you go first, Ms.
Smolski, and then we may want to ask questions of both of you at the end
after you've both gone.  And this is the timer.  It will turn yellow
when you have two minutes left, and then it will turn red when your five
minutes are up.  And whenever you're ready, just start and then the
timer will start automatically.  Thank you.

		MS. SMOLSKI:  Okay, and I'm going first, correct?

		MR. LING:  Yes.

		MS. SMOLSKI:  Great.  Well, my name's Kate Smolski.  I'm the Domestic
Policy Director at U.S. Climate Action Network, and I appreciate the
opportunity to come and speak today, so I thank you for that.

		I'm here to express the support of U.S. Climate Action Network or
USCAN as our short name is called and its member groups for the EPA's
proposal on proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule or just the "tailoring rule" as I'll refer
to it.  USCAN is the largest U.S. network of organizations focused on
climate change with over 80 member groups.  We are the U.S. node, if you
will, of CAN International, which is over 450 organizations that work on
climate change issues.

		We work to connect organizations working towards similar goals across
the country at all levels of the debate:  Local, State, Federal and
International.  The goal of this coalition is to support the design and
development of an effective, equitable and sustainable global strategy
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we strongly believe that EPA's
proposal on greenhouse gas polluters supports this mission and therefore
urge you to finalize this rule to help us move it forward towards a
clean energy future.

		First, the rule proposes a regulatory method that has been proven as
an effective means of achieving pollution reduction.  EPA's analysis has
found that the Clean Air Act achieved cost-effective reductions in
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter with an economic
benefit demonstrated to be 42 times greater than the cost of compliance.
 Therefore, applying Best Available Control Technology standards under
the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gas emissions continues the legacy of a
successful program to now meet the grave threats of global climate
change and energy independence.

		Second, the rule establishes an equitable framework by setting a
regulatory threshold that holds the largest polluters accountable while
protecting the nation's schools, farms and small businesses.  This
arrangement would most-fairly assign responsibility to the small handful
of big polluters who account for the majority of the nation's global
warming pollution.  This allows the EPA to achieve the greatest impact
with the fewest agency resources and the short timeframe needed to
protect the public from the risks to health and welfare posed by climate
change.

		Next, the finalization of this rule facilitates a sustainable energy
strategy for the country's future.  By applying New Source Review
standards for greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA sends a strong signal of
support to the clean energy industry.  No longer will fossil fuel
facilities reap the unfair advantage of being financially unaccountable
for the costs of their pollution.  Such signals are necessary to drive
investments in low carbon technologies that will spur sustainable growth
and create valuable jobs.

		Finally, climate change is a global problem, and it will require a
global solution.  As nations gather at the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change this December, it is imperative that the U.S. reestablish
itself as a world leader in solving the complex challenges posed by
climate change.  The U.S. must do our fair share to reduce domestic
emissions as quickly as possible, and that requires we use all means at
our disposal from both the Executive and Legislative branches of
government plus State and Local action.

		In addition to answering the call of the science, strong U.S.
emissions reductions commitments will enable a wide range of developing
economies to take more ambitious domestic action and create new markets
to grow the global green economy from which we will all benefit.

		For these reasons, I am here on behalf of the U.S. Climate Action
Network to applaud the EPA for their intent to regulate major greenhouse
gas polluters and urge the EPA to take the final steps to implement a
strong rule to aid in our transition to a clean energy economy.  Thank
you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Aliriza?

		MR. ALIRIZA:  Hi.  My name is Bahri Aliriza. I'm the President for
Northern Cyprus Culture.  I'm sorry, got too many hats here.  I'm just
coming from another meeting.  I'm the President for Polytrade
International Corp. and I want to first of all thank the panel for
inviting me to speak here today which I think is a very worthy cause to
hear from the public and for coming here also.

		We want to encourage the EPA, and thank you for everything that you're
doing, and we want to encourage, specifically, any actions to reduce the
emissions and the looking at the specific power plants, coal-fired power
plants that are emitting tremendous emissions into the air.  And one of
the reasons I wanted to come here and speak is, I'm like one of many
companies out there that have a technology to reduce emissions.  Ours
doesn't do it 100 percent, unlike solar and wind energy, which I
encourage that we should have here in this country because solar is 100
percent no pollution and wind energy same thing.  But they both have
their limitations, because you've got to have wind for one, and you've
got to have the sun for the other one.

		We have a technology which is a catalyst that you could use with all
the liquid fuels and even with coal, and it will at least, with the
liquid fuels, you can reduce the emissions about 38 to 60 percent, and
I'm talking about all the harmful emissions like NOX, which is nitrogen
oxide, hydrocarbons, carbons, sediment, ash, sulfur.  You can actually
spray our technology onto the coal, just as it's crushed and pulverized
before it's -- and then you can spray with our product before it goes
into the burner and you can actually reduce about 82 percent of the
emissions from coal.

		And it's unfortunate that we are a small company and we do not have a
quarter million dollars, which is what is required to get an independent
lab testing.  So we are looking for investors.  We are looking for
anyone that's interested in reducing emissions, and I know, with the
EPA, I have not found any program that also encourages small businesses
or has any programs that we can take advantage of.  I know there's a
program, there's a verification program.  But you still have to go and
spend about a quarter million dollars to get an independent lab test,
and then it's just verifying what somebody else has already done.  So
this is one thing that the EPA can do, either working through the
universities or through other programs, and taking advantage of small
businesses like us, that have some solutions to help in reducing the
emissions in the air.

		And our technology, besides reducing the emissions, it also gives you
fuel efficiency anywhere between 15 to 20 percent.  So that's another
advantage, and makes your engine last longer, run smoother, have more
power, and besides an anti-pollutant at 38 to 60 percent reduction in
emissions, also it's an anti-gel, so guaranteed your diesel fuel or your
fuel oil will not gel up.  So, it will not freeze up basically.

		And again, I encourage the EPA to look at all technologies out there
because it's not just one technology that's going to help us.  It's
taking advantage of all the different technologies out there. With our
product, it does not reduce global warming in the sense that what causes
global warming which is carbon dioxide.  But because our product reduces
the emissions -- I mean because it increases the fuel efficiency 15 to
20 percent, you're going to have 15 to 20 percent less emissions causing
global warming and climate change.  So this is why our technology will
help with the environment also and with the specific threats that we
face with the global warming issue at hand.  Thank you very much, and
that's all I have.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Questions for the panelists?

		Mr. ALIRIZA:  Oh, I just wanted to add also, most of my information is
on our website under www.polytrade.net.  And Polytrade is P-O-L-Y-Trade,
all one word, dot net.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you both very much.  I would like to call up Bryan
Brendle.  Sorry, we don't have anyone to sit with you.

		MR. BRENDLE:  That's all right.  Thank you for pushing me up in the
schedule.  I appreciate that.

		MR. LING:  Sure.  Just whenever you're ready to start.

		MR. BRENDLE:  Okay, yes.  My name is Bryan Brendle.  I'm the Director
for Energy and Resource Policy at the National Association of
Manufacturers headquartered here in Washington, D.C.  And by way of
background, the NAM is the nation's largest industrial trade association
representing more than 11,000 small, medium and large manufacturers in
all industrial sectors and in all 50 states.  The NAM is the country's
leading voice for the manufacturing sector and we employ several million
American workers.

		Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental
Protection Agency's proposal to impose first-time ever greenhouse gas
emissions controls on industrial facilities through the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration program and Title V permitting programs, also
known as the EPA's "tailoring rule".

		The NAM has long urged the EPA to defer to Congress when considering
establishment of Federal climate policy, especially one that uses the
Clean Air Act as a tool which regulates emissions from stationary
sources.  As Congress continues to debate the outlines for comprehensive
Federal climate policy, the NAM urges the Administration not to
circumvent the ongoing legislative debate on an issue that would impact
all sectors of the economy struggling to regain its equilibrium.  The
NAM opposes regulation of large stationary sources, those emitting more
than 25,000 tons per year of carbon equivalent as outlined by the
tailoring proposal under the decades old PSD program. Additionally,
manufacturers have serious concerns about the legal foundation on which
EPA is basing its proposal.

		The EPA is definitely entering uncertain legal territory by proposing
to regulate very large facilities initially at least at the 25,000 ton
per year level for GHGs under programs that federal law requires be
regulated at the 100 to 250 ton level.  At the same time, EPA proposes
to establish a process, by which, it will immediately consider ways to
regulate even smaller sources, therefore laying the groundwork for even
greater expansion of its regulatory power.

		Furthermore, litigation offers another avenue to regulation of small
and mid-sized manufacturers as litigants will force EPA to adhere to the
requirements of Federal law.  Federal law does not allow EPA
unilaterally to raise the PSD threshold.  The Clean Air Act explicitly
states that PSD includes any source with the potential to emit 250 tons
per year or more of any air pollutant.  To add to the uncertainty, the
tailoring proposal also allowed States to move forward with more
stringent permitting programs which could lead to the creation of a
patchwork of State regulatory programs, leading to compliance obstacles
for what would amount to first-time regulations.

		According to EPA, though, the "tailoring rule" will directly impact
approximately 13,000 facilities.  The scope is actually greater because
sources below the proposed 25,000 ton threshold will also, eventually,
be covered by the proposed rule.  Despite the relatively limited scope
claimed by EPA, unfortunately for manufacturers, the 25,000 ton level
threshold requirement and the uncertainty in what will be required to
obtain permits will result in the inability of industry to plan and
expand their operations and facilities and subsequently result in a
continued loss of potential revenue, jobs and improvement of the United
States economy.

		Such a one size fits all standard will also not take into account
impacts on energy markets to which the manufacturing sector is
especially vulnerable.  Between 2000 and 2008, the manufacturing sector
lost more than 3.7 million high wage jobs due, in large part, to energy
price volatility.  New mandates from EPA, especially establishing
permitting requirements on GHG emissions using programs designed to
limit criteria pollutants, will further erode U.S. industrial
competitiveness and eliminate jobs by limiting energy choices available
to consumers.

		Along with lengthier permitting requirements, EPA would also mandate
Best Available Control Technology on all plants subject to new
requirements.  These mandate controls ranging from increased energy
efficiency, co-firing of biomass to generate electricity, fuel switching
to natural gas and possibly carbon capture and sequestration technology,
which is still being developed for wide-scale commercial viability.

		Sorting through the definition of backed and imposing technology
requirements on a case-by-case basis as outlined by Federal law will
further add to project uncertainty and increase costs to facilities
subject to the new rule.  NAM would like to point out that with respect
to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and EPA's implementing programs,
the technology necessary to reduce the target pollutants, including the
impacts of acid rain, already existed and were largely
commercially-viable.

		The Administration must allow elected officials to address the climate
change issue through public and transparent debate and craft a
comprehensive Federal policy that will achieve environmental results
while inflicting no economic harm.  By resorting to decades old programs
under the Clean Air Act, which were designed to reduce emissions of
local pollutants rather than more globally distributed concentrations of
GHGs, the EPA is not embarking on a course that will adequately address
the complex issue of climate change.

		The U.S. needs a modern, comprehensive and thorough policy based on
innovative approaches vetted through the legislative process.  The
manufacturing sector urges the Administration not to circumvent that
process.  The NAM looks forward to continuing to work with Congress.

		MR. LING:  I'm going to have to ask you -- you're a minute past time. 
Can you just sum up?

		MR. BRENDLE:  Great.  Well, we look forward to working with the EPA,
the Administration and Congress to craft modern policy and to avoid
using programs in the Clean Air Act to regulate stationary sources. 
Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Okay.  I'm seeing that we have no
more names signed up, so we will suspend again until some more witnesses
arrive.  Thank you.

		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

		MR. LING:  We are reconvened for at least two speakers, especially
since one of them was signed up to speak at 2:50.  So, I'd like to
invite to the table Joe Smythe and Simon Bennett.  And I'll ask Mr.
Smythe to go first here in just a minute, and then I'll ask Mr. Bennett
to go and then the panel may have questions.  And so, you'll each have
five minutes, and the timer will start when you begin speaking and the
yellow light will come on when you have two minutes left.  So, Mr.
Smythe, whenever you're ready.

		MR. SMYTHE:  Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
on the EPA's proposed rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from
large stationary sources.  My name is Joe Smythe.  I'm a spokesperson
for Greenpeace USA.  Greenpeace is an eminent campaigning organization
that uses peaceful direct action and creative communication to expose
global environmental problems and to promote solutions that are
essential to a green and peaceful future.  So, my comments today will be
relatively brief as Greenpeace plans to submit more substantive remarks
on this rule in writing.

		Global climate change is the greatest environmental, humanitarian and
economic challenge the world has ever faced.  Millions of people are
already feeling the impacts of climate change, and an estimated 300,000
people die each year from its effects.  Avoiding the worse of climate
change, including widespread drought, flooding and massive population
displacement caused by rising sea levels, means that temperature
increases must peak as far below two degrees as soon as possible
compared to preindustrial levels.  The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change in its Fourth Assessment Report states that avoiding a
temperature rise above two degrees requires that global greenhouse gas
emissions peak by 2015 or sooner.

		By 2020, developed countries like the United States will need to have
cut emissions by at least 40 percent from 1990 levels.  Greenpeace
applauds the EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  In
April 2007, the Supreme Court determined in its landmark ruling in
Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency has the authority to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.  It's encouraging to
now see the EPA moving forward with this proposed rule.  Action on this
matter is long overdue.

		Stationary sources covered by this proposed rule account for a third
of all greenhouse gas emissions.  Greenpeace supports the agency's
decision to address a group of six greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur
hexafluoride.  We also support the proposal to use carbon dioxide
equivalents as a preferred metric for determining greenhouse gas
emission rates for any combination of these six gases.

		It is important to note, that as a first step, a majority of sources
covered by this rule can dramatically reduce emissions with currently
available pollution control technology as well as energy efficiency. 
So, as noted by Administrator Lisa Jackson in her announcement of the
rule, "We have the tools and the technology to move forward today, and
we are using them."  Energy efficiency in particular has enormous
potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, we have only
harnessed a fraction of its potential.  A detailed study released
earlier this year by McKinsey & Company on the potential of energy
efficiency to cut emissions reveals that an integrated set of energy
efficiency investments and solutions would reduce nontransportation
energy consumption by 23 percent.  This translates into a CO2 abatement
of 1.1 gigatons.  In other words, through energy efficiency alone, the
potential exists to surpass carbon caps in the Congressional climate
bills many times over.  The icing on the cake is that these investments
would come at virtually no cost.

		On top of promoting smarter energy use, this proposed rule would also
create incentives to producers and innovators of green technology, as
well as give preference to clean renewable energy, which will lead to
further emissions reductions in the near future.  The potential for
renewable energy technology to curtail CO2 emissions is vast.  A 2007
study by the American Solar Energy Society outlines how deployment of a
suite of clean energy technologies would cut U.S. emissions by 1.9
gigatons by 2030, more than 15 percent of current annual U.S. emissions.
 What's more, other renewable energy forums, such as Marine North Wave
and Title Power, are nearing commercialization.  When they become
available, their deployment could allow the U.S. to cut emissions even
further and repower the economy even faster.

		And despite what some opponents have said, regulating greenhouse gas
emissions will not ruin the American economy.  On the contrary, studies
show that strong Federal climate policy will help the economy get back
on its feet.  A recent report from the University of California at
Berkeley shows that under comprehensive energy and climate policy the
U.S. could gain 918,000 to 1.9 million jobs and grow household income by
$488 to $1,176 by 2020.  In fact, according to the International Energy
Agency, it is the postponing of transitioning the energy sector to
renewables and greater efficiency that will be costly, not to mention
the exorbitant costs that will come with doing nothing to mitigate
climate change.

		The IEA concluded in a recent report that the economic downturn has
"created an opportunity to put the global energy system on a trajectory
to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions."  Investing in important
technologies and efficiency will be cheapest now.  IEA Executive
Director Nobuo Tanaka notes that "This gives us a chance to make real
progress towards a clean energy future but only if the right policies
are put in place promptly."

		Finally, it is critical to realize the regulation of greenhouse gases
by the EPA and the Cap and Trade Program as proposed by Congress are not
mutually-exclusive.  Emissions limits and requirements for Best
Available Control Technology for greenhouse gases are complementary to
and can even facilitate implementation of a legislatively-mandated
cap-and-trade program.  Therefore, regardless of the action by Congress,
we urge the EPA to move toward finalizing this rule sooner rather than
later.  Thank you for taking our comments into consideration.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Mr. Bennett.

		MR. BENNETT:  Yes, my name is Simon Bennett.  I want to thank the
panel for the opportunity to testify here as a private citizen.  I
served four years in the U.S. Air Force in the early '50s.  Then, as an
electrical engineer over a period of 45 years, I worked on
specification, design, testing, operation and management of
communication satellites and their associated systems.  After that, I
retired.

		My career allowed me to visit and observe many parts of the world.  In
my spare time, I've enjoyed watching and studying birds, collecting
mushrooms and doing photography.  As a science-oriented person, I'm very
much aware of and concerned about global warming.  I have followed all
sorts of reports and studies, and this gentleman just mentioned a lot of
them, on this issue and have concluded that greenhouse gas emissions are
a real problem for the long-term well-being of earth's environment.  On
this issue, I'm very pleased and proud that the EPA and President Obama
are accepting the scientific results and taking action now.

		The big polluter rule under current consideration by the EPA is, in my
view, very reasonable and proper if we are to keep this planet earth
from overheating.  The rule would apply only to new facilities and to
expanded or modified existing facilities that are emitting at least
25,000 tons of greenhouse gases every year.  The rule would exempt small
businesses, churches, apartment buildings while addressing the bulk of
the nation's global warming pollution.  It would require the worst
offenders, like new coal plants and other big polluters, to install the
best available technology to clean up pollution that causes global
warming.

		As a person that studies and believes in science and in practical
solutions to problems, I know that there are many technological
solutions that can be applied today and that further advances will
develop if the proposed big polluters rule is enacted and enforced.  As
with communication satellites, we cannot wait to do the right thing. 
Once a satellite is launched, you cannot fix a problem that then arises.
 The design and testing and analyses done before launch is therefore
crucial.

		A similar situation exists with global warming.  Many people argue
that we can wait to reduce what is clearly a major problem:  the global
warming due to greenhouse gas air pollution.  We must reduce it now.  We
must not wait, not for ourselves, not for our children, not for our
grandchildren.

		A final note.  My wife and I visited Egypt in April this year.  We
were delighted to run into many children and adults and many adults who,
upon hearing that we are Americans, smiled very broadly and shouted
"Love Obama."  It was delightful to see and hear.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Questions for the panel?  No questions.  Thank
you both very much.  We're going to suspend until four o'clock and
reconvene at that time.  Thank you.

		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

		MR. LING:  Okay, good afternoon, folks.  Thanks to the folks who stuck
around and I understand we have a group of new folks who are ready to
speak, so we will reconvene the hearing, and I will call up Rhea Hale
and A.G. Randall.  And since you folks weren't around when I explained
this earlier, I don't believe, we'll ask both of you to speak.  We'll
have Ms. Hale go first.  When you begin speaking, the timer will come on
and you'll have five minutes.  When there's two minutes left, the yellow
light will come on.  And then when your time is up, the red light will
come on.  If you're having difficulty seeing the lights, Juan will hold
up cards as well.  And then, after both of you, if you could remain at
the table until both of you have spoken, then the panel may ask you
questions after that.  So, with that, Ms. Hale, you may begin speaking
whenever you're ready.

		MS. HALE:  Okay, thank you.  Can you hear me?  Okay.  Good afternoon. 
My name is Rhea Hale, Director for Climate and Air Programs at the
American Forest and Paper Association.  I appreciate the opportunity to
speak at today's hearing.  The primary point of my remarks today is to
recommend that EPA acknowledge the carbon neutrality of biomass in the
PSD greenhouse gas "tailoring rule".

		AF&PA is the national trade association for the forest products
industry representing land owners, pulp, paper, packaging and wood
products manufacturers.  The industry is among the top 10 manufacturing
sector employers in 48 states, employing approximately 1 million people.
 Not only do our companies make products from renewable and recyclable
biomass raw materials, but we also derive over 65 percent of our energy
needs from carbon neutral biomass.  In the "tailoring rule", EPA has
justified raising the significance threshold based on the doctrine of
"absurd results".  We believe that if EPA does not clearly acknowledge
carbon neutrality in the rule, that too will result in "absurd results"
and upend years of established policy in both U.S. and internationally.

		Carbon neutrality is universally-recognized as a basic tenet of
renewable energy and climate change policy.  It is incorporated into the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidance and the UNSCCC
reporting protocols which the U.S. EPA itself uses to calculate its
annual greenhouse gas inventory of emissions in sinks.  Both the House
passed and Senate proposed climate bills specify that fossil fuel based
carbon dioxide is included in the required 25,000 ton CO2 equivalent
threshold to be considered a covered entity.  Both bills also have a
corresponding exemption for carbon dioxide emissions from renewable
biomass.

		Finally, in its own proposed rule issued in May or its proposed rule
issued in May of this year, to implement the Renewable Fuel Standard,
EPA again recognized the carbon neutrality of biomass.  In addition,
reporting protocols developed by the World Resources Institute, World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, International Standards
Organization, the Climate Registry, Environment Canada, U.S. EPA Climate
Leaders, Midwest Greenhouse Gas Accord Advisory Recommendations, U.S.
Department of Energy 1605(b) Program, and most recently, EPA's Mandatory
Reporting Protocol of Greenhouse Gases, all differentiate biogenic from
fossil carbon dioxide emissions.

		These policies and protocols all recognize that carbon neutrality is
an inherent property of biomass based on the natural carbon cycle.  The
carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere during photosynthesis is
converted into organic carbon and stored in biomass.  When harvested and
combusted, the carbon in the biomass is released as carbon dioxide, thus
completing the carbon cycle.  This convention is universally-accepted
and has been incorporated into every climate change policy in existence
today except for EPA's PSD greenhouse gas "tailoring rule".

		The IPCC recognized that an imbalance between the rate of uptake of
CO2 by plants and the rate of return of biogenic carbon to the
atmosphere through combustion, decay or respiration can affect the
carbon cycle.  In the United States, harvested forests are replanted or
regrown, resulting in increases in carbon stocks.  Based on
comprehensive accounting reported in EPA's annual greenhouse gas
inventory, U.S. forest land carbon stocks are increasing and the biomass
carbon cycle in the U.S. is acting as a net sink for carbon dioxide
rather as a source of emissions.

		Carbon dioxide stocks in U.S. forests continue to grow at a rate of
over 800 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year.  Even on U.S.
timberland supplying wood to the forest products industry, carbon stocks
are stable or increasing.  There are significant consequences should the
PSD greenhouse gas "tailoring rule" not recognize the carbon neutrality
of biomass.  First, treating biomass based fuels essentially the same as
fossil fuels under climate policy would increase the adverse
environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel use. Entities would
prefer to use fossil fuels which have a higher heating value and are
therefore more efficient in terms of energy production.  Beyond
greenhouse gas, fossil fuels also produce more sulfur dioxide when
burned than do biomass based fuels.

		Second, failing to recognize the carbon neutrality of biomass would
create substantial uncertainty, deterring markets for renewable energy
and upsetting strategies to address climate change and energy security. 
Investors in industries planning to undertake investments in these areas
would be paralyzed, precisely at a moment when the national and global
economies need these types of investments.

		Third, economic and job dislocation would result in jurisdictions that
do not recognize biomass as carbon neutral in climate policy.  EPA would
be eliminating a potential cost-mitigating compliance strategy, the use
of carbon neutral biomass fuel, for not only the forest products
industry but other manufacturing facilities as well.  Can I go on one
more second?

		EPA has ample legal authority to exclude carbon dioxide emissions
generated by combustion of biomass from the determination of whether a
facility is a major stationary source or is undergoing a major
modification for PSD purposes.  In fact, EPA has asserted that it does
have similar types of flexibility to interpret the PSD provisions of the
Clean Air Act, including the proposed "tailoring rule".  For example,
EPA shows its discretion in defining the pollutants that will be subject
to PSD permitting as the aggregate of six chemicals whose emissions are
thought to contribute to global warming.

		EPA also differentiates among VOCs that do or do not contribute to
ozone formation when applying PSD under the NAAQS.  Given the scientific
and policy precedent supporting the carbon neutrality of biomass, EPA's
current recognition of this principle in existing rules and programs and
the high level of discretion that EPA has in this rulemaking, AF&PA
believes that EPA should exclude biogenic CO2 emissions from the major
source and major modification threshold determinations.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Go ahead, Mr. Randall.  Start whenever you're
ready.

		MR. RANDALL:  Fine.  Thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief
comment.  In June, I submitted comments on the EPA proposed endangerment
finding.  To date, there has been no response to the public comments,
not mine, nobody else's.  So I have no idea what you feel about those
comments.  Those are pertinent to your rulemaking, your proposed
rulemaking.

		And we have recently learned that EPA has suppressed internal dissent
on this very issue of climate science, and this from an organization
that committed to make decisions based on science and transparency, a
huge disappointment.  Unfortunately, EPA is proceeding without any
validation.  This process is a total waste of taxpayer funds, money that
we have to borrow from the Chinese to get this stuff done.

		I would like to make three points today.  First, an inconvenient fact:
 The climate models that EPA uses are fatally flawed.  The models all
predict warming, but the atmosphere and the surface have been cooling
since 1998, and we are now at roughly 1988 levels.  Europeans are
predicting cooling for another 20 years.  If the New York Times knows
this, why doesn't EPA?

		The question then, if the basis for the rule is without merit, how can
EPA justify any action, any action?  Second, EPA's recent analysis shows
that greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to increase no matter
what we do, your own analysis.  On October 23, you submitted a report to
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  Here's an excerpt
from page 25:  "EPA has now analyzed" -- you had until that time -- "how
U.S. targets combined" -- now these are the targets from the Obama
Administration in their 2010 budget -- "combined with international
actions could affect global concentrations."  So, up until recently,
basically the same timeframe for this ruling, this rulemaking, you had
not done the analysis, which is incredible, because President Obama went
to Italy and made all these claims without having any backing for
whether or not we could even survive this.

		Now, the key conclusion was, "It should be noted" -- this is EPA's
words -- "It should be noted that carbon dioxide equivalent
concentrations are not stabilized in these scenarios."  How in the world
can EPA do an analysis at the same time you're proposing this that says
you can't control concentrations, no matter what we do?  "Thus, EPA's
current analysis demonstrates that we have no control over global
concentrations."  How can EPA propose to control any concentration,
which you're going to have to, by controlling a limited number of U.S.
sources as proposed with this 25,000 ton threshold for PSD?

		The staff responsible for this rule needs to digest the October 23
report.  Now I'm not saying what the modeling says.  They ran the
minicam and the magic model.  You have all the data.  Go back and get
that data.  Can we ever compare the two results of what we want to do
with the PSD rule and the data?  There's no way to make these things
converge.

		Third, EPA cannot cherrypick which sources it will regulate.  In your
ANPR, EPA contends that any greenhouse gas emissions at any level
creates a problem, no matter what they are.  If it's methane, if it's
nitrous oxide, anything.  So, if you look at the ANPR and the words in
that proposal, you know that you said if these things follow, then we
can get you on this stuff.  Even though EPA claims that there is no
standard currently, the current policy is headed towards a greenhouse
gas NAAQS with the entire country in nonattainment.  You know fully well
what that means.  Maybe the people in the audience don't, but you have
to explain that clearly to everybody in this country.

		Under NAAQS, EPA must reduce concentrations of the pollutants to a
level that protects the public.  Some have argued like in the Mass. v.
EPA case that current greenhouse gas levels are already harmful.  So,
what would it take to actually lower global concentration levels?  A
perpetual recession in this country leading to a depression will not be
enough to decrease concentrations.  So what gives?

		The only question then, is 450 PPM carbon dioxide equivalent harmful? 
If it is and I know a lot of people have talked about that stuff, you've
got comments on the record.  You're asking for more comments.  Then we
are already at the threshold.  We are already at 450 PPM equivalent. 
CO2, 390.  The rest of the greenhouse gases, we're at that level now. So
there's no question about we're already there.  So we're already what,
in nonattainment?  So, if EPA proceeds with this rule, it must evaluate
the impact and a full impact of triggering greenhouse gas NAAQS on the
condition that we're already at the threshold and the whole country,
every locality, every plant, every region is in nonattainment, and
nobody else understands, but you do, what this means.  This has a huge
impact on our future, high impact on our energy production, our economy,
and our national security.   Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Okay, any questions?  All right. No questions, but I did
just want to make one comment, which is that you began by saying that we
haven't responded to the comments on the endangerment finding. That's a
separate action from today.  We haven't gone final with that, and
traditionally our responses to the comments are provided when we go
final.  So that's why.  And then, similarly, the comments that you've
made today we would look at in the context of the final "tailoring
rule".  So no questions.  Thank you both very much for your testimony.

		And I will call the next two speakers.  Timothy Wise and Jonathan
Blockson.  Okay, so I think you guys were here when I explained it.  But
just in case, you can start speaking whenever you're ready, and the
timer will start at that time and then yellow means two minutes left. 
So we'll start with Mr. Wise.

		MR. WISE:  Okay.  For the record, my name is Timothy Wise and I live
here in Arlington, Virginia.  Although many think I'm a global warming
skeptic, I must say that I keep looking for evidence of global warming,
but the best explanations come from those of the skeptics.

		The problem, in my view, is the introduction of politics rather than
the analysis of quality science.  In the words of Christian Burns, "When
a scientist publishes a study, that study should be reviewed by another,
or a group of scientists, who then publish their review.  The initial
scientist then has an opportunity to refute anything in the review.  A
separate group of scientists should then publish an objective finding of
what was learned.  This process would ensure a much more effective
advancement of science and learning.  But unfortunately," she concludes,
"that's not the case."

		In many ways, mankind has made tremendous progress in the 400 years
since Galileo was almost burned at the stake for arguing the sun, and
not the earth, was the center of the solar system.  However, it seems in
some ways, mankind has made virtually no progress.  Scientists Willie
Soon and David Legates have a column in I believe it's today's
Townhall.com. In it, they discuss how they were invited and then
disinvited to host a session at the fall 2009 meeting of the American
Geophysical Union in San Francisco.  It involved an "integrated
assessment of the vast array of disciplines that affect and, in turn,
are affected by the earth's climate."  As Soon and Legates write,
"Scientific inquiry has once again been silenced just as it was 400
years ago.  The AGU should be ashamed and its members should be
outraged."

		From the stories I see written by the science and climate reporters of
the New York Times and the Washington Post, there is none of this
scientific method in climate science.  Even worse, are the stories
blaming this catastrophe, or that calamity, on global warming.  Just
yesterday, I saw a list of 100 items caused by global warming, for
example, the deaths of aspen trees in the West or the incredible
shrinking sheep.  If high quality, good quality science was being
practiced, such stories would not survive, let alone even being
introduced after some time.

		While I don't know the scientific practices of EPA scientists, it
appears someone needs to assess those practices.  For example, on pages
112 and 113 of Dr. Fred Singer's book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every
1500 Years, he reports on the huge climatic heat vent found by MIT's
Richard Linson and a team of NASA scientists.  The existence of this
heat vent has been confirmed by two other teams.  However, search of
EPA's climate change webpages found no mention of these climatic heat
vents.  I find that especially troubling.

		In addition, I also find EPA's climate change webpages incomplete with
regard to the last 2000 years of climate change.  Like the infamous
documentary, the 2000 year EPA cutoff seems to be a convenient
occurrence.  Why?  On pages 21 and 22 of Dr. Singer's book, he mentions
an unnamed cold period from 600 to 200 B.C. which preceded the Roman
warming, which itself lasted from 200 B.C. to 600 A.D.

		Also missing from the EPA list is the 300 years of the Dark Ages, cold
period.  It's important to ask at this point, what causes these warming
periods since humans were not burning fossil fuels to release CO2, and
what happened to flip the earth from cool into warming if we know the
Post and Times reporters haven't written about it.

		In closing, it seems an essential issue of the "tailoring rule" is
whether any regulation of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, is justified
by the science.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  And Mr. Blockson.

		MR. BLOCKSON:  Yes.  Hi.  I'm Jonathan Blockson.  I'm here today as a
private citizen.  I live in Vienna, Virginia.  I'm employed as a
software engineer at Google here in Washington, D.C.

		So every month or two, Dominion Virginia Power, which is my power
company, sends out a nice little newsletter with their bill and they
include a little pie chart of where my power comes from.  And it's
always very distressing to me to see that somewhere between a third and
a half comes directly from coal and the majority of the rest is
purchased from other power companies which they don't attribute a source
to.  So basically, all the energy I'm using to power the devices in my
house is coming from coal. And that kind of concerns me, because I do
believe in global warming, and I think it's a significant threat to our
planet.

		So, I also have two children, ages 4 and 5-1/2, and we use a
discipline system, 1-2-3 that you may have used where you count them if
they do something wrong and you give them some time to correct that
behavior.  And if they get to three, then the hard part comes where you
actually have to enforce something and you have to take them and put
them in time out or something.  And what you find is if you're not
willing to actually put them in time out, maybe you're trying to get
their clothes on and you need to get to school, then it doesn't do
anything.  So I kind of believe that if this rule is on the books for
whatever reason, we should enforce it.

		Now some of the things I like about the rule are that it targets big
polluters like the people who are providing my power.  And now, while my
homeowners association won't let me go put up solar panels on my roof,
if we change the economics of the situation, then we're much more likely
to get to a point where as a society we're not putting more CO2 into the
air.

		So I think this is a pretty good idea, and it seems like we should
start enforcing it and make these polluters clean up.  So thank you very
much.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Questions?  All right, thank you both very
much.  All right, I'm going to call up two more speakers.  We have Ken
Haapala and Donna Childress, and I would ask you as a courtesy to spell
your name for the court reporter when you introduce yourself.  And we
will start with you, Ken.

		MR. HAAPALA:  Also, can I introduce here, documents for this part of
my testimony?

		MR. LING:  Absolutely.  So whenever you're ready, feel free to start
and the timer will start at that time.  Thanks.

		MR. HAAPALA:  Thank you.  Kenneth Haapala, H-A-A-P-A-L-A,
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.  Four hundred
years ago, educated Europeans strongly disagreed as to what determines
scientific knowledge.  Was it statements by authorities such as
Aristotle or religious leaders, or was it physical evidence as advocated
by Galileo?

		Since then, the miracle of Western science was built on the dictum
that science must never ignore physical evidence.  Unfortunately, the
EPA has reverted to medieval science.  The EPA has failed to present any
compelling physical evidence that man's emissions of greenhouse gases
caused 20th century warming.  Instead, it relied on the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its faulty computer models
that are biased, obsolete and wrong.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide
continues to rise, but the globe stopped warming over a decade ago.  The
science used by the EPA cannot explain why.

		Prior to the formation of the IPCC, it was widely recognized by those
who studied the physical evidence that the earth's climate is constantly
changing.  Since the last ice age, there have been periods of warming
and cooling.  The most striking warm period, at least for the Northern
Hemisphere, was one of over 3,000 years when it was about five degrees
Fahrenheit warmer than today.  These scientists concluded that,
generally warm periods were beneficial to humanity, and cold periods
harmful.

		This physical evidence has continued to grow enormously.  Yet it is
ignored or dismissed by the EPA's science.  The earth's climate is
subject to natural variation the EPA ignores.  The oceans have natural
oscillations, which the EPA ignores.  The first part of the 20th
Century, there were four major disappearances of arctic ice, which the
EPA ignores.

		The most powerful force in the solar system, the sun, upon which the
earth's climate depends is changing in ways the EPA never considered
even though observations of such changes have been made since Galileo
pointed his telescope towards the sun.  These, and other physical
evidence ignored by the EPA and the IPCC, are discussed in two reports
by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Nature, not human
activity rules the climate in the extensive report, Climate Change
Reconsidered.

		The EPA regulations before you assume without physical evidence that
increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is harmful to public health and
welfare.  This assumption is contrary to the physical evidence.  Carbon
dioxide is a necessary food for green plants, thus necessary for life on
this planet as we generally recognize it.  As discussed in the second
report, thousands of experiments and observations show that virtually
all food crops and green plants thrive better in an atmosphere enriched
in carbon dioxide and better resist stress such as drought and insect
attacks.

		Contrary to the EPA's claims, carbon dioxide enrichment, condemned by
these regulations, is in the benefit of agriculture, humanity and the
planet.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Ms. Childress.

		MS. CHILDRESS:  Hi.  I'm Donna Childress, last name is
C-H-I-L-D-R-E-S-S, and I live here in Arlington.  I have my own writing
business, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak.  I'm
here simply to support EPA's rule to cut global warming emissions by big
polluters.  I do believe the science that EPA is following on this.  I
do believe that global warming is a huge threat.

		I wanted to tell you why I care about this issue.  Just from a
personal standpoint, I grew up playing outside.  I had many happy hours
in my granddad's cabin nearby in the Blue Ridge Mountains hiking,
horseback riding, appreciating the great outdoors.  Until a few years
ago, though, I didn't really know anything about environmental issues. 
I loved to be outside, but I didn't know any of the science.  I didn't
know much about global warming, none of that.  When I found out, I was
horrified.  I was horrified at what we're doing to our mountains, what
we're doing to our lakes, what we're doing to our air and how our
actions are causing climate change that not only endangers the planet's
natural beauty but also ultimately human existence.

		I also was horrified at how, in the name of improving our quality of
life, we're releasing poisons into the air that cause an increase in
diseases like asthma and cancer, which I understand that, by curbing
pollutions that contribute to global warming, we also would be curbing
some of those pollutants.

		I feel that from talking to friends, family, even strangers about
these issues over the past couple of years, there are scores of other
Americans just like I was two years ago that are blissfully unaware of
what's going on, of what carbon dioxide and these other pollutants are
doing to our planet.

		And so, I'm here because I feel it's a broad issue that affects a lot
of people, even though a lot of people may not be aware of it.  I'm very
pleased that President Obama and the EPA are paying attention to the
science that says we need to move quickly to cut our greenhouse gas
emissions in proposing this rule.  I believe it moves us in a positive
direction, quickly cutting our global warming emissions in half.

		Cost, of course, is an issue.  While coal-fired power plants and large
factories will incur costs to meet the requirements of this rule, I
believe we're past the point where we can simply shrug our shoulders and
say we can't afford to address it.  Keeping our air free of these
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions isn't and never should have been
an optional expense.

		What we need to do now is look beyond the next quarter's profits and
on to the greater good of having a stable climate and healthy
population.  To accomplish that goal, let's create new green jobs that
further develop and refine the clean energy technology and move to a new
way of thinking about this.

		I ask that as you hear comments and consider how best to implement
this rule that you think of how you can make it the strongest to achieve
the greatest reduction in pollution in the fastest way.  Thank you for
the opportunity to speak and for your time.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Any questions for the panel?  Oh, you were
asking about the written comments, written material to put into the
record?  If you will just leave that at the table outside with the
request that you have written materials to put into the record, they'll
make sure that it gets there.

		MR. HAAPALA:  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  So no questions.  Thank you both for your testimony.  Okay.
 Now we call Ana Prados and Steve Thompson.  Welcome.  Ms. Prados, you
can start whenever you're ready.

		MS. PRADOS:  Okay.  My name is Ana Prados.  I live in Springfield,
Virginia.  I am an emissary scientist with 15 years experience in air
pollution research, including the monitoring of air pollution and air
pollution trends using satellite data.   I work with the University of
Maryland at Baltimore County, although I'm here representing myself
today.

		I'd like to express first of all my support for the PSD and Title V
Greenhouse Tailoring Rule.  Personally, before I go a little more into
that, I want to thank the EPA for the new direction it has taken since
January 2009.  I think I speak, not just for myself, but for a lot of my
colleagues that we really appreciate the new direction EPA has taken in
respecting science in its decisionmaking, particularly with regard to
global warming, and we hope that this new direction will continue and
that the latest science of climate change, which is always changing, is
fully incorporated into regulation and rulemakings such as the one
you're considering today.

		So NASA's top climate scientists, for whom I have the most respect,
tell us that we must phase out all coal emissions rapidly. 
Specifically, the timeline that he has come up with based on his studies
is 20 years maximum.  So I think this in my opinion I think requires two
important actions:  (1) no new coal plants, and the other one is the
phasing out of existing coal plant emissions, which the current rule
would help with that.  It's a necessary step towards the urgent task of
phasing out greenhouse gas emissions altogether.

		Even as the scientists tell us that we must make these reductions, and
this is coming from the experts, what we do know from the satellite data
and from the observations is that coal emissions such as greenhouse gas
emissions from coal are actually increasing worldwide, and we are
getting further and further away every day from the 350 PPM target,
which as you probably have heard is the target that we must meet to
avoid catastrophic climate change, and we're already well beyond that. 
We're at 387 parts per million.

		So, I really think the U.S. now really can and must lead in making
these reductions.  I urge you to please consider the part of the Clean
Air Act to require BACT for facilities currently emitting 25,000 tons or
more per year as you have suggested.  And as for the significance
levels, I think that given what the science is telling us, I think you
should go with the lower limit of 10,000 tons for that threshold.

		Regarding the new sources, that's the only part that I'm not so sure
of.  I have some reservations about it because I think we need something
a little tighter as a threshold for triggering PSD for the new sources
as a disincentive for new coal plants.  Specifically, I'm talking about
coal here, not the other sources.  But I think that we need some kind of
a disincentive.  We cannot -- and this is what the scientists tell us --
we cannot meet that 350 PPM target if we allow construction of new coal
plants.  So I would hope that you will consider lowering that threshold
to something more like along the lines of half of that.

		The Clean Air Act has worked before.  I mean, we see it in our
observational data.  It has worked so well, and an example of that is
the Acid Rain Program.  I think that cutting back on greenhouse gas
emissions from these large sources will also have an additional benefit,
which is on the criteria pollutants, because you are giving these
sources a lot of flexibility on how they can cut these emissions.  And
some of the measures such as efficiency are definitely going to decrease
our criteria pollutant concentrations.  And so, we're going to have a
lot of added benefit from that, and there are plenty of areas still not
meeting attainment.  So, just here in the D.C. area where we still don't
meet the ozone NAAQS.

		So those are my comments.  Thank you for your time and the opportunity
to speak today.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  Mr. Thompson.

		MR. THOMPSON:  Thank you for allowing me to speak today.  I'm speaking
extemporaneously because I would like to have been here this morning at
9:30 for the Sierra Club press conference.  Then, I would have been more
informed of what I'd like to say today, because I support their
position, whatever it is.  I'm a member and I think they're on the right
track and I think EPA is, and I commend the Obama Administration and
President Obama for the initiatives he's taking in helping us to curb
dramatic and harmful climate change.

		And I am Steve Thompson.  I live in the District of Columbia.  So I'm
here as a private citizen.  I would support no new coal plants, electric
generating plants and the phasing-out of all current coal electric
generating plants, and that we focus on solar renewable biofuels and
wind.  I would say I'm a Ph.D in economics.  I don't have any background
in my professional career regarding climate change or those subjects. 
But I do think we need to be careful how we phase-in things so that we
don't hurt the economy any more than we have to and don't harm it
irreparably.  But we do have to transition to renewable sources and we
can do that and we should do it.  And I think the future of humankind on
the planet depends on us doing it in a timely way.  Thank you very much.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  No questions.  Thank you both very much.  I'm
going to hold on for just a second while I check to see if we have any
more speakers.

		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

		MR. LING:  Okay, we're all caught up.  So I'm going to again suspend. 
We do have a few more people signed up who are not yet here, so I will
not adjourn the hearing yet,  but I'm going to suspend and will not be
able to estimate when we might reconvene. But I do expect we'll
reconvene once more for folks who are interested.  Thank you.

		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

		MR. LING:  All right.  So while I'm waiting to see if anybody else is
going to come in and listen, I'll just explain to you that we're using
this timekeeping system and we'll call you up to the table. And whenever
you start speaking, we'll just start the timer and you'll have five
minutes.  And then that little yellow light will come on when it's down
to two minutes, and then you can sum up and then a little red light will
come on when the five minutes is up.  All right.  So Terry Armao, all
right.  Come on up.  How do you spell your name again?

		MS. ARMAO:  A-R-M-A-O.  I didn't prepare any remarks.  I just came to
give comment.  So I've been following the problem for probably about two
years with fossil fuel pollution.  Unfortunately, I was a little late to
the game.  You guys were way ahead of me on that one.  But now I'm
paying attention, and I'm not liking what I see.  These coal companies
and the coal plants and the oil industries are basically destroying our
planet to the point where it's going to be unlivable if we let them keep
getting away with this.

		So, I can only tell you that it's your job to make them stop.  The
fact that the room is empty is kind of sad.  But I think most people
anyway, you know, don't want pollution.  They don't want to breathe it. 
They don't want to drink it, and that's what we're subjected to.  So the
fossil fuels came out of the earth.  They need to stay right there. 
They don't need to come up and poison every living thing on the planet,
which is what's happening.

		The problem with ocean acidification I guess was a kind of a newer
thing that science was not aware of.  And to me, it's almost the most
critical because when you destroy the food chain in the ocean, you just
basically can't live here anymore.  I mean, too many people rely on that
and making a planet that isn't going to be habitable by humans or
animals anymore.  And so people talk economy, economy, but what's the
point of having an economy if you don't have a planet?

		So, yes, people may lose jobs and coal companies may have to spend
more.  But they need to be regulated.  They need to stop polluting.  And
if we need to get off coal, we need to get off coal permanently.  I, for
one, feel so strongly about it, I'd rather light candles at night than
do what we're doing now to the planet.

		So, I mean, basically, that's my comment.  I think a lot of people
don't realize how drastic the situation has become, and otherwise the
room would be quite full.  But they don't realize it, and they also
think that left in your hands you're going to do the right thing and
take care of it.  That's why you get paid.  You're not paid to be mouth
pieces for the coal industry.  You're paid to keep the planet clean. 
That's the deal.

		So, I think that's why people don't bother showing up, and that's too
bad.  But I'm here, even though I was driving around in circles for 40
minutes. I'm here.  So it's important, and you've got to do it. That's
what we pay you for.  You've got to get it done.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Any questions?  And if it makes you
feel any better, we did have a nearly full room earlier today.  So thank
you very much.

		MS. ARMAO:  You're welcome.

		MR. LING:  So we will now suspend again until we get a couple more
speakers.  And again, there are still three folks signed up, so we will
not yet adjourn.  Thank you.

		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

		MR. LING:  All right, do I have a timekeeper ready back there?  Okay,
great, and court reporter's ready?  Great.  We're going to reconvene. 
We're going to have a short session here with at least two speakers who
are here and are signed up to speak.  So, I will call up both of you,
and then after you've both spoken, we may ask questions.  And then both
of you remain at the table until both of you have spoken, and then we
may ask questions.  The yellow light will come on when there are two
minutes left, and the red light will come on when your five minutes is
up.

		So, at this time, I will call Al Burt and Sadaf Mortezavi.  Either
one's fine, yes.  Mr. Burt, if you could go first, that would be good
and the timer will start whenever you start speaking.  So just whenever
you're ready.

		MR. BURT:  I'm ready.

		MR. LING:  Go right ahead.

		MR. BURT:  Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak this
evening.  I'm going to try to come up with some potential solutions. 
They may be a little bit bizarre, but here we go.  I'm advocating that
instead of increasing the power supply in the United States over the
next 10 years that we whittle away at the waste of electric power.  I'm
talking about electric power mostly now.  Some figures I've found in the
last few months, the waste approximately is 30 percent of our
consumption of electric power, and I'm suggesting we try to reduce that
by three percent a year.  That way, we would not have to build more coal
plants and pollute the air anymore.

		So how do we get Americans to cut down on our waste?  Well, one way is
to raise the price.  I know energy is not that elastic, but there is
some elasticity.  The reduction in driving last year when the gas prices
got up shows that there is some elasticity.  So what I'm suggesting is
in the cap-and-trade system that's being proposed now, instead of giving
away 85 percent of the credits that all the credits be auctioned.  This
would also help our budget a little bit, and it would make it more
expensive for the power suppliers and they would then have to pass the
increased cost along to the people and the people then, including
myself, would have to cut back on the waste or would cut back on the
waste once the price got up there.

		So taken over 10 years, we should then have our consumption go down at
about the same rate as increased requirements go up due to population
growth and more gizmos that you plug in.  So that's my suggestion for
the next 10 years.  As far as gasoline goes, raising the excise tax to
make gasoline more expensive, people would cut down on waste driving and
we might have a little bit of money to fix our broken down bridges.  So
that's consumption for the next 10 years, try to cut the waste down
rather than just supplying more power to feed more waste.

		Okay, now that we've solved the problem for the next 10 years, going
out into the long range, I'm suggesting that during the 10 years that I
just talked about we start building nuclear plants.  I have no financial
interest in uranium, nuclear plants or anything else, so I'm speaking
just as a person here.  If we build nuclear plants, which emit nothing
but steam over the next 10 years, thank you, while we're using the
conservation to keep us from increasing the pollution, we would then, I
believe, solve our problems from the 10 years on out.

		Why not wind mills?  Well, I've got some numbers here, and this is
what's probably going to sound bizarre.  But one nuclear power plant
with two reactors can replace 388 miles of wind mills stretched along
the ridge of a mountain.  That would be almost the entire Blue Ridge
Parkway could be replaced by one nuclear plant with two reactors.

		Now, if you put wind mills up along that range and you have people
looking at them, it distorts the view or disturbs the view, and this is
assuming a 450 foot wind mill on top of a 1,000 foot mountain, a swath
of approximately 80 or 90 miles wide.  If you take that swath and run it
down the 388 miles from peak to peak, you are destroying a view of
66,247 square miles of disruptive view shed for hikers and so on.  Peak
to level, if you're talking about a ridge and a plain, again the same
heights and so on, it's 36,192 square miles.  So, I'm trying to get it
across to people that we can either destroy America the Beautiful with
all these wind mills with the idea of having clean air, and if you have
clean air, you can just see more wind mills.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  You can remain at the table.  That
would be fine.

		MR. BURT:  Oh.  May I?  I have a meeting at the Air and Space Museum.

		MR. LING:  Oh, you need to get going?  Okay. Any questions?

		MR. SANTIAGO:  No, no questions.

		MR. LING:  All right.  No questions for you, Mr. Burt.  If you need to
go, go right ahead.  Thank you.

		MR. BURT:  Okay, thank you.  I left my email on the thing if you have
any questions about where those numbers came from.

		MR. LING:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

		MR. BURT:  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Ms. Mortezavi.

		MS. MORTEZAVI:  Hi.  So my name is spelled S-A-D-A-F.  I'm just here
to show that I care and --

		MR. LING:  Did you also spell your last name for him already?

		MS. MORTEZAVI:  Oh, no.

		MR. LING:  Okay.

		MS. MORTEZAVI:  M-O-R-T-E-Z-A-V-I.  So it's kind of embarrassing to go
after him because he had all these statistics and I'm just here to say
that I care and to show support.  I'm a student.  I'm an activist, and
I'm here because I want to hold polluters accountable.  I never used to
give them much thought or really care about environmental issues until I
started working at Fund for the Public Interest and I started working
there on another campaign.

		But when I found myself exposed to all this information about the
environment and all the stuff that was going on that I had no idea
about, I realized that, wow, I should care and I shouldn't be so
passive.  So I don't want to be passive anymore, and I don't want
polluters to be passive about their actions.  And I believe that they
should be held accountable, and that's why I'm here today.

		Global warming is a really serious issue, and the coal industry is one
of the very serious problems that's causing global warming.  Big
coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of global warming
pollution in the nation, and many coal plants are old, inefficient and
rely on outdated technology.

		So what I would like to see is that they update this technology and
become more efficient and start to care about the environment and the
atmosphere.  And it's time to ask them to stop using the atmosphere as
their personal dumping ground.  It's time for big polluters to clean up
so that America can fight global warming and move towards clean energy. 
It's important to move to clean energy sources like wind and solar
power.  They don't harm the environment, and they don't run out and they
create new jobs.  Companies such as Solyndra would do just that.  They
create jobs that also can't be outsourced, which is a big plus.

		Global warming isn't something that we should be passive about and
wait for someone else to clean up.  We need to stop treating the
environment as our own personal dumping grounds and take action now. And
I really thank you for this opportunity, and I hope that you guys
finally finalize this important rule to fight global warming and move
America towards clean energy.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Any questions?

		MS. SANTIAGO:  No questions.

		MS. MORTEZAVI:  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thanks for coming.  Okay.  I will now call up Ellen
Bateman, already on her way up.

		MS. BATEMAN:  Hi.  I'm Ellen Bateman.

		MR. LING:  Hi.  Great.  Hang on just one second.  I think the court
reporter's distracted.  Okay, great.  So the yellow light comes on when
there's two minutes left, and then the red light comes on when the five
minutes are done and the timer will start whenever you're ready.

		MS. BATEMAN:  Okay.  Well, thank you very much.  I'm Ellen Bateman.  I
want to thank the EPA for its commitment to environmental justice, which
is probably why I'm here participating.  I'm a student of environmental
conflict resolution at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and
Resolution, and I'm also a concerned citizen and advocate for green jobs
and renewable energy technologies, of course.

		I'm also a parent of two youngsters who love the outdoors.  So I want
to tell you about a time that I took my kids to visit Cumberland Falls
in Corbin, Kentucky.  I don't know if you've ever been there.  It's
gorgeous.  We drove to Daniel Boone National Forest from Central North
Carolina one summer weekend to get a glimpse of the famed Moonbow.  It's
a phenomena that appears each month when the full moon shines over
Cumberland Falls, which is sometimes referred to as the Niagara Falls of
the South.

		The drive was memorable.  We passed through Pisgah National Forest in
North Carolina and ascended the mountain slowly.  I don't think my car
had ever done anything like that.  We passed Nantahala National Forest
and continued on to Daniel Boone National Forest, which is named for the
heralded pioneer.  I'm sure you're familiar with the legend of Daniel
Boone.

		So when we arrived and set up camp, I was surprised by the hazy
conditions and the very close, humid, uncomfortable almost, air quality.
 I expected to breathe more deeply, and with more refreshment.  We
enjoyed the beauty of the mountain ecosystem.  I had never seen rocks
like that in my life, and we set up a tent and sleeping on the ground in
a sleeping bag in a tent was a very hard experience, shall I say.  We
kept sliding down because it was basically just grass over rock.

		So we crowded the rails of the falls at midnight with the other
tourists to try to catch a glimpse of this Moonbow, but we never did. 
But we did enjoy the trip, and we'll never forget -- I'll never forget
the sound of the toy long gun that my son got.  It's like a Daniel Boone
thing.  I'll never forget the sound of that popping.  But I'll also
never forget the image of those rolling green mountains shrouded in
haze.  So ladies and gentlemen, only a handful of sources, including
coal power plants, are responsible for more than half of all the global
warming pollution in the United States.  These megapolluters should be
held responsible for their share.  The EPA is proposing a rule to clean
up these big polluters under the Clean Air Act, and we should definitely
enforce that Act.

		By targeting the worst offenders, the big polluters rule will quickly
cut global warming pollution while still helping our economy grow.  I'm
sure you've heard this today before.  The rule would only apply to
offenders emitting at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases each year. 
In the Appalachian region, I think there's 109 tons of mercury being
emitted into the atmosphere, and there are several complicating factors
associated with mountaintop removal which impact not only our air but
our clean water supply as well, which could have a very detrimental
effect on the entire water supply for the East Coast.

		Under the big polluters rule, the worst offenders, like new coal
plants and other big polluters, would have to install technology to
clean up pollution that causes global warming, and I hope that you will
transform the energy future of our nation by supporting the big
polluters rule, eliminating mountaintop removal and helping to create
green jobs.  Thank you for your consideration.

		MR. LING:  And thank you.  Questions?  No questions.  Thanks very
much.  I think, okay, we are now caught up on speakers.  I'm going to
suspend again until we have another speaker.  I don't know exactly when
that will be.  And then if we don't have anyone show up, we'll still I
think hold open until seven.  So we're suspended until another speaker
shows up.  Thank you.

		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

		MR. LING:  Great.  We're going to reconvene for our last scheduled
speaker, and we also have one other speaker.  Again, we will hold the
sign-up process open until seven tonight in case there's others who want
to speak.  But our last scheduled speaker is Malin Moench, and we also
have Mary DiSenna.  So, if you could both come up at the table here, I
will invite you to both give your testimony and then we may ask
questions after both of you have spoken.  If you could just remain at
the table until both of you have gone.

		We do have this timing system set up.  The timer will start when you
start.  And then the yellow light will come on when you have two minutes
left, and the red light will come on when your five minutes are up.  So,
Mr. Moench, whenever you're ready, you can begin.  Thank you.

		MR. MOENCH:  Okay.  My name is Malin Moench.  I spent all my
professional life in the East, but I'm counting the days until I retire
and can go back to the Colorado Plateau where I grew up to turn to
nature photography full-time.  The Colorado Plateau is the most
spectacular 140,000 square miles in the world.

		It troubles me greatly that this may not be true when I finally have
enough time to record it with my camera.  I visited the Colorado Plateau
several times this summer.  The evidence in my camera lens shows climate
change is beginning to overwhelm its natural systems.

		Why blame greenhouse gases for the dying forests I see each summer and
the smoke that seems to always be in the air?  The American West is
warming twice as fast as the rest of the country.  Climatologists tell
us that the buildup of greenhouse gases is causing the polar air mass to
shrink.  This is causing the subtropical jet over the American West to
migrate northward at the rate of 100 miles each decade.  Heat and
drought creep northward as the jet retreats.  The greatest warming in
the West is occurring in the Colorado Plateau and the West's great
mountain ranges.  These areas of highest impact unfortunately are also
the areas containing the country's iconic national parks:  Grand Canyon,
Zion, Bryce, Yosemite, Yellow Stone, the Grand Tetons, Glacier and the
North Cascades.  Winter snows are shifting to rain.  Spring rain is
disappearing.  Less snow means less stream flow and less groundwater. 
The shortage is stressing ecosystems now and will strangle the economies
of the West very soon.

		Specific signs that natural systems are deteriorating are all around. 
Fire is becoming to the West what hurricanes are to the Gulf.  I head
west with my camera two to three times a summer.  Over the last decade,
the majority of photography trips have been fruitless.  This is because
the summer skies are so often brown rather than blue from massive fires
whose pall is often spread over three, four or even five states at once.

		According to a recent study, since 1987, higher spring and summer
temperatures and earlier snow melt have caused a fourfold increase in
the number of western wildfires, burning 6.5 times as much land area
each year as they did before 1987.  This is spurred by warmer
temperatures, invasive grasses and weeds that thrive in spring and dry
out in summer, have turned Bandelier National Park and Mesa Verde into
tinderboxes.  Catastrophic fire is now so inevitable that it is expected
to permanently eliminate the forest cover in both parks.

		If nothing changes, Western glaciers are doomed.  Sixty percent of the
glaciated land in the lower 48 is in North Cascades Park.  Since 1958,
80 percent of that mass of glaciers has been lost.  In the last 20
years, half of the glacial mass in Glacial National Park itself has
melted.  In the next 20 years, it will all be gone.

		With higher temperatures, high mountain tundra is disappearing and
alpine wildflower meadows are turning to grassland.  Subzero
temperatures are increasingly rare in high mountain ranges of the West. 
This means that populations of bark beetles of every type, spruce, white
pine, you name it, no longer die off in the winter.  The result is that
vast swaths of forest in the high country are sick and dying.

		I recently attended a family reunion in Cedar City, Utah.  We stayed
in a cabin on the edge of Cedar Breaks National Monument.  On the last
day, we gathered to watch the sun setting from the rim of the monument
10,000 feet above the valley floor.  I looked out over the 2,500 foot
deep amphitheater carved out of soft pink and white limestone with fins,
columns and spires of every hue.  It was like an enormous choral garden
framed by the deep shadow green of fir trees.  A silver ribbon swerved
in the sun and lost itself in a dozen layers of purple mountain ranges
stretching 100 miles to the west.

		But this magic was an illusion.  It could be sustained only as long as
our gaze avoided the harsh reality of the views North, East and South. 
Global warming has laid the plateau from which Cedar Breaks was carved
and its vast spruce forest at the mercy of the spruce bark beetle. 
Turning our heads to either side required us to face the gray ghosts of
what were once a million spruce trees leaning like vertical driftwood
waiting for the torch of a summer lightning strike.  Can I have 10 more
seconds?

		MR. LING:  Yes, if you're close to the end, that's great.  Go right
ahead.

		MR. MOENCH:  Similar scenes, heartbreaking to a photographer, are
spreading all over the West from Arizona to Montana.  It is the buildup
of greenhouse gases that is bringing nature to its knees in the American
West.  Politics has become so dysfunctional I despair that Congress will
ever act to rescue this land.  Our only hope lies with administrative
action:  this rule that you are now considering to control the major
sources of greenhouse gases that have unleashed this damage on the crown
jewels of the West, please implement it as quickly as possible. 
Everything is riding on it.  Thank you.

		MR. LING:  Thank you.  And Ms. DiSenna.

		MS. DISENNA:  I'm a citizen living here in the D.C. area and a former
editor of a national publication called U.S. Water News, and I followed,
both as a citizen and a professional person, this issue of climate
change before, long before it was accepted or while it was still being
undermined by many and not paid attention to, and I applaud the former
speaker's comments on the gravity of this situation.

		To get to another issue, the acidification of the ocean is
accelerating so fast that not only the life in the ocean, but all life
on earth, would be impacted because when the plankton goes, as the folks
at the Center for Biological Diversity say, as the plankton go, so goes
all life on this planet.  It's the building block of our ecosystems, and
our ocean cannot take what we're doing.  Of course, our forests cannot
take what we're doing.  Our glaciers cannot take what we're doing.

		And the Arctic, I recently attended a workshop on issues of the Arctic
and of course there's so many that I don't have time to detail it all. 
But the Arctic Ocean or the Arctic Region is responsible for regulating
so much of our climate.  And when that goes and the sea ice all melts,
we are then accelerating the process of the warming by exponential
degrees.  And all that we are doing, all that we can do now, right this
minute, is still going to leave us trying to patch a lot of holes and
trying to scurry to make sure that total devastation doesn't result.

		So we have no time.  I applaud this rule, and I agree with the former
speaker, I've been following the House and Senate bills on the climate
and it is very discouraging that we have so much leverage from the
industries that we need to better regulate, that every time something is
put into the bills to make it actually do what it's supposed to do, it's
removed and we get a bill that everybody applauds.  And it doesn't do
any good.  That is ever more dangerous because we are deceiving
ourselves.

		So I applaud this rule, and I believe as the former speaker said, we
have to act now.  And I thank you for the opportunity to talk.

		MR. LING:  Thank you very much.  Questions?

		MR. SANTIAGO:  No questions.

		MR. LING:  No questions.  Thank you both for coming.  So the last
signed up speaker has now gone, and so we're going to hold the hearing
open.  And whenever anyone shows up to speak, we will let them speak
right away at that time until seven o'clock.

		(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

		MR. LING:  It is now seven o'clock.  And seeing nobody else signed up
to speak, we will adjourn the hearing, thank everybody for their
attendance and we'll be in Chicago tomorrow.

		(Whereupon, at 7:00 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was
concluded.)

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

	REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

DOCKET NO.:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517

CASE TITLE:  Prevention of Significant Deterioration

		   and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring

	        Proposed Rule

HEARING DATE:  November 18, 2009

LOCATION:  Crystal City, Virginia

		I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully
and accurately on the tapes and notes or digital recording reported by
me at the hearing in the above case before the Environmental Protection
Agency.

				Date:  November 18, 2009

                                  

Gary Millstein

Heritage Reporting Corporation

Suite 600

1220 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20005-4018

 

 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

Official Reporters

1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600

Washington, D.C.  20005-4018

(202) 628-4888

contracts@hrccourtreporters.com

	 page \* arabic 1 

	Heritage Reporting Corporation

	(202) 628-4888

	 page \* arabic 2 

	Heritage Reporting Corporation

	(202) 628-4888