FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

COMMENTS ON

EPA RULE-MAKING FOR GHG EMISSIONS

FROM

ELECTRIC UTILITY STEAM GENERATING UNITS.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the conference call with
EPA on May 23, 2011, and to submit these comments as a follow-up to
that conference call.  As you are aware, the Forest County Potawatomi
Community (“FCPC”) is very concerned about the effects of climate
change on its reservation, Indian Country in general, and the world as a
whole.  Because of this, FCPC has been very engaged in efforts to help
address the causes and effects of climate change.  This has included
FCPC’s involvement as the only tribe on Governor Doyle’s Task Force
on Global Warming, which resulted in development of numerous policies in
the state of Wisconsin to help address climate change issues.

In addition, the Tribe has undertaken significant efforts to reduce its
own carbon profile.  These efforts have included energy auditing of all
of its major energy-using facilities, implementation of numerous energy
efficiency and renewable energy efforts, and developing a quarterly
carbon and energy report for all of the Tribe’s energy-using
facilities.  Because of these efforts, the Tribe has been able to
significantly reduce its carbon profile by approximately 20% per gross
square foot of building space over the last three years.  The Tribe has
also obtained renewable energy certificates to cover all of its
electricity usage, and is presently implementing several renewable
energy projects, including solar and biogas facilities.

Because of the Tribe’s significant concerns and efforts to address
climate change, it is very interested in having EPA develop broad and
stringent rules regarding GHG emissions from electric utility
facilities, as well as other significant sources of greenhouse gas
emissions.  Accordingly, FCPC believes it is very important that EPA
develop rules that cover a broad range of sources, set stringent GHG
levels, and encourage the development of renewable, carbon-free or
carbon-neutral energy resources.

Based upon the above, FCPC makes the following specific comments
regarding EPA’s rule making for GHG emissions from electric utilities
steam-generating units:

Need for broad inclusion of sources.  FCPC believes that EPA should
include as broad an array of sources as possible in its rule-making.  It
is especially important not to limit sources solely to electric
utilities steam generating units, since that would exclude very large
GHG emission sources just because they are somewhat below 25 megawatts
of electricity or even if they are above 25 megawatts because they do
not sell their output to the utility power distribution system.

Especially if EPA allows for flexibility in average emissions between
units, EPA should not apply lesser standards or allow sources to avoid
regulation.  Since EPA can, and it appears likely will, allow for
flexibility and averaging between sources, there should be no reason to
set lesser standards based upon the particular characteristics of
individual sources or categories of sources.  Instead, EPA should
utilize any emission averaging to ensure that the most stringent
possible standards are set.

When considering costs and other factors, EPA should recognize the
reduced costs that will result from any averaging or trading that EPA
allows.  EPA indicated that in setting the standards it is to consider
the degree of emission limitations achievable, costs, and environmental
impacts.  In evaluating the costs of the standards that it sets, EPA
should clearly recognize the likelihood of substantially lower costs
from allowing averaging among units, especially if averaging is allowed
over the large number of units.  For example, if EPA allows emission
trading such as that allowed under the Western Climate Initiative and
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, EPA should recognize that the
costs of achieving CO2 emission reductions will be dramatically less
than they would be if standards were set on an individual
source-by-source basis.

EPA should not set standards based on sizes or types of sources if
averaging or trading is allowed.  If EPA allows emission averaging or
trading, it should not set differing standards based on sizes or types
of classes of facilities.  Rather, in order to create a robust market
for emission reductions, EPA should set the same standards for all
sources.

EPA should require state plans for emission reductions for existing
units be due as soon as possible.  EPA noted that state plans are
generally due with nine months after publication of the final emissions
guidelines, but that other time frames may be set by EPA for specific
standards.  In this case, given the critical importance of implementing
reductions as soon as possible, EPA should ensure that the state plans
are in place as soon as legally possible.

EPA should not allow states to adopt less stringent standards or longer
compliance schedules if emission averaging is allowed.  If EPA allows
emission averaging, especially among a larger number of sources or
throughout geographic regions, there should be no reason for allowing
states to adopt lesser emissions standards or longer compliance
schedules.  In general, EPA should develop the most stringent standards
possible and provide for averaging and trading as needed to allow those
standards to be implemented in a cost-effective manner.

In setting standards, EPA should consider fuel switching, coal-firing,
and combined heat and power.  EPA should consider all mechanisms for
sources to reduce their GHG emissions, not just energy efficiency at
particular plants and post-production technologies.  This is especially
true if EPA allows for any averaging and especially if it allows for
wide-scale averaging/trading, since in that case, the market will
encourage comprehensive changes such as fuel switching, coal-firing, and
combining heat and power systems that will dramatically increase the
options available for GHG reductions and thereby lower the price of
those reductions.  This is what happened under the acid rain program,
which allows for averaging/trading, and resulted in emission reductions
that were substantially less expensive than anticipated before the
program was put in place.

EPA should set standards based on an output rather than input basis.  In
order to maximum efficiency in production of electricity, and thereby
decrease both overall energy costs and emissions, EPA should set
standards based on kilowatt hours of electrical energy output rather
than BTU of heat input.  Only if output-based standards are applied will
units be encouraged to maximize energy efficiency and therefore lower
both pollution and energy costs.

EPA should move as quickly as possible to fuel-neutral standards.  FCPC
agrees that EPA should set GHG emission standards based upon
fuel-neutral standards.  This will encourage the movement to the most
cost-effective and GHG-efficient electricity production.  Moreover, it
will allow for setting standards that are appropriately stringent based
upon emissions from non-coal resources.  Fuel-neutral standards should
occur right away.  However, if they do not occur right away, EPA should
at least move rapidly toward such standards.

In setting standards, EPA should recognize the potential for retirement
of existing high-GHG sources.  In setting emission standards, EPA should
not worry about whether those standards may result in closure of some
older, more polluting sources.  Rather, the EPA should allow market
forces to result in the most efficient and effective emission reductions
and should recognize the important benefits of setting appropriately
stringent standards to achieve needed emission reductions.

EPA should set a generation performance standard that accounts for all
types of energy sources, including renewables.  In setting its
standards, EPA should set GHG emission standards that reflect the
abilities for renewables to be an important component for offsetting
emissions of traditional fossil-fuel sources.  Therefore, EPA should
allow for emissions trading with carbon-free or carbon-neutral renewable
resources to allow them to offset GHG emissions of coal-fired and other
fossil fuel sources.  This will allow EPA to set more stringent GHG
standards, while creating a robust trading market that encourages for
more efficient GHG reductions and therefore lower costs.  This is
especially important for Indian Country, where significant renewable
resources exist and where encouraging the development of those resources
will help our country meet its need for effective clean-energy
resources.

6424163_1 

  PAGE  2 

