                 Summary of Region 3 Public Listening Session 
                          on 111(d) for Power Plants

                     November 8, 2013  -  Philadelphia, PA

On November 8, 2013, EPA Region 3 held a public listening session to obtain public input on how EPA can craft carbon pollution standards from existing power plants.  Approximately 125 people attended the meeting, and of those attendees, 75 people spoke.  Of the speakers, approximately 95% were in favor of EPA moving forward with greenhouse gas rules for existing power plants. 

A high-level summary of the meeting is provided below.  

Overview:

Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin welcomed participants and gave remarks regarding the need for action.  Diana Esher, the Air Protection Division (APD) Director, opened the session with the overview of Section 111(d), ground rules and logistics.  

The majority of the speakers supported EPA's efforts to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants.  They spoke of the need to protect air quality, health concerns (mainly asthma), and preserving the planet for our children.  Region 3 had a significant number of speakers from faith-based organizations, environmental groups, the medical community and the general public.

Representatives of coal and utility organizations stressed the need for (1) realistic timeframes to implement new rules; (2) reliable, balanced, diverse energy portfolio to assure the nation's energy supply; and (3) consideration of the economy of Appalachia by protecting the jobs of those who work in coal mines or coal fired utilities.  

A few people presented ideas on how EPA could reduce carbon emissions from existing plants.  Ideas included establishing a tax on emissions, allowing states to establish a cap and trade program, encouraging investments in new technologies through financial incentives, disconnecting utility profits from power consumption, increasing the use of combined heat and power, modernizing the region's electrical grid, and increasing the use of existing high-efficiency natural gas plants.

A few speakers also believed that the air pollution standards for natural gas plants should be tighter.

Impacts of climate change: 

Many speakers were concerned about climate changes and its impacts on health, outdoor recreation, businesses (including small businesses), jobs, livelihoods, vulnerable populations, natural resources, assets, and communities, and more broadly, the environment and the economy.  One speaker presented information on carbon pollution's impact on sea level rise and melting glaciers citing NOAA's predicted sea level rise of 5-6 feet.  Another speaker said the cost of climate change should be weighed against the cost of not acting and emphasized that this is not a war on coal; it's a battle to save the planet.  Speakers also said the failure of Congress to act on the issue of climate change means EPA needs to do so, that firming up the rule in a timely manner is essential, and that EPA needs to make the rules strong to give us clear air for the next generation.


Overview of Comments on 111(d): 

Most speakers supported action on existing power plants, and asked EPA to act quickly and meet the existing timeline under consideration.  The groups applauded EPA's intention to announce a standard to limit pollution from power plants.  Many speakers supported strong regulation of coal and the phase-out of coal and noted the need to protect air quality, health and the planet.  Many speakers believe the rule is important and should be cost-effective and drive innovation.  

Speakers suggested the standards would send market signals to drive long-term investments, spur technological innovation and create jobs, while providing businesses with needed environmental and economic stability.  Other speakers supported these standards as a part of a transition to a cleaner electricity generation fleet.  

Speakers presented ideas on supply- and demand-side solutions for addressing carbon pollution from power plants and discussed energy efficiency, combined heat and power, modernizing the grid, and incentivizing new technologies.  They emphasized the use of combined heat and power at commercial facilities, more high-efficiency natural gas plants and improved efficiency at existing coal plants.  Speakers maintained that electric prices need to stay stable and that efficiency increases will outweigh the cost of fuel switching at power plants.  They also stated that increasing renewables by 20% would decrease costs by $9 B annually.    

Economic Impacts: 

While most speakers were supportive of EPA standards for carbon emissions, some speakers cautioned EPA on several fronts.  Those speakers urged EPA to ensure that regulations are fair and not rushed through, and account for the human element of those who may be negatively affected by EPA regulations (e.g., coal miners).    

The speakers also encouraged EPA to consider job losses in Appalachia associated with EPA's regulations, and to protect the jobs of coal miners and those whose work is related to coal-fired utilities.  

Some speakers warned that EPA regulations should not harm the affordability and reliability of energy, also articulating the need for a diverse energy portfolio.  

Utility and coal groups want to work together for realistic standards.  For utilities, it's not just about selling more power, but also about opportunities for savings.  Recommendations for EPA: require utilities to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency resources (e.g., cost caps).  


Setting the Standard: 

Speakers encouraged EPA to maintain realistic timeframes to implement the new standards.  

Speakers recommended that EPA maximize the ability that states have to implement regulations and permit states to include energy efficiency and conservation measures to implement regulations.  They also encouraged conversion from dirty to clean energy, pointing out that oil is unaffordable for low income families, and recommended more stringent building codes.

One speaker highlighted Act 129 in Pennsylvania which sets savings and demand reduction goals for the state's large electric utilities.  For utilities, it's not just about selling more power; it's also about opportunities for savings, etc.  The speaker recommended that EPA require utilities to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency resources (e.g., cost caps).

Another speaker stated that government has to lead the community to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.  They added that we have enough reliable knowledge about climate change to regulate and limit it.    
  

Considering the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI): 

Support for RGGI as a compliance pathway fell mostly in two categories: those that believed that RGGI and pacts like RGGI have been successful and should qualify as a compliance path for participating states; and those that believed all or part of RGGI is a successful model that EPA should build upon for a national program.  In particular, speakers urged EPA to consider market-based tools that have worked in RGGI including its auction system and reinvestment program that uses RGGI funds for energy efficiency and clean energy projects.  Speakers demonstrated that RGGI has provided economic benefit while reducing emissions.  

Speakers also recommended a compliance mechanism framework and that multiple states should be able to use these guidelines.  They said EPA should not penalize early movers to RGGI and, additionally, RGGI should be evaluated for other states and assistance should be provided to states who choose RGGI as an option.

