               Summary of Headquarters Public Listening Session 
                          on 111(d) for Power Plants
                                       
                     November 7, 2013  -  Washington, D.C.

On November 7, 2013, EPA Headquarters held a public listening session to obtain public input on how EPA can craft carbon pollution standards from existing power plants. Approximately 500 people attended the meeting, and of those attendees, 243 people spoke.  Of the speakers, a majority 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:

Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Janet McCabe and Joe Goffman, Senior Counsel for the Office of Air and Radiation provided opening remarks. John Millet and Paul Gunning of the Office of Air and Radiation described how Clean Air Act section 111(d) has worked in the past and moderated the session.

Speakers included and represented members of Congress, public officials, industry representatives, faith-based organizations, unions, environmental groups, community groups, students, public health groups, energy groups, academia and concerned citizens.  

Impacts of climate change: 

The majority of speakers expressed concern over climate change and the direct impacts that they see on public health and the environment. A number of speakers voiced concerns over the impacts of climate change on future generations. There were a number of children who spoke that discussed their concerns with climate change and how inaction now, will create more problems for them and future generations.

Overview of Comments on 111(d): 

The most common theme heard from speakers was that the EPA has to put standards in place that helps address the issue of climate change. Additionally, speakers asserted that it is vital for the agency to set standards in the short term, as opposed to waiting years down the road, to address climate change. Amongst these speakers, many also encouraged strong standards and a number of state and regional programs were given as examples that EPA should model its federal standards after. Furthermore, a number of speakers advocated for credits for states that already have programs in place.   Several speakers spoke of the importance of coal in their communities and in the generation of reliable electricity from coal.

Economic Impacts: 

While most speakers were supportive of EPA standards for carbon emissions, some speakers cautioned EPA on several fronts. There were some speakers that stated that the research supporting climate change is not conclusive to warrant action. Supporters and representatives of the coal industry expressed concerns that EPA's actions would adversely impact jobs, the power sector and the economies of coal-producing states. Some speakers expressed concern for small cooperatives and the impact that regulations would have on the cost of electricity for consumers.  They asserted that their cooperatives have already spent millions of dollars to meet past standards and that additional standards would require more modifications that would be costly to the consumer. They expressed the need for a balanced solution. Additionally, others asserted that industry should get credit for programs already implemented to reduce carbon pollution.

State Regulations: 

Speakers urged EPA to provide states ample time and flexibility for designing their state regulations.  Many speakers asserted that state and regional conditions differ and technologies available and applicable to states differ and it is imperative that these differences are accounted for when standards are designed. It was stressed by many speakers that states need more than a year to comply with the standards. Additionally, attendees emphasized that existing programs should be encouraged to continue and that those programs should serve as a model for federal guidelines. Additionally, views varied as to whether to set guidelines based on a system-wide or source-based approach. Those that supported a source based approach asserted that this type of approach was essential in reducing environmental justice concerns that are often observed at the local level. Speakers encouraged EPA to give states the flexibility to choose between a mass versus rate based standard.  

Market Based Approaches:

Speakers urged EPA to allow market based approaches, like a cap and trade system. Some asserted that EPA should allow credits to be banked for future use and that the agency should let states set stronger limits to encourage over-compliance. A recommended approach would be to allow states to hold funds from auctions in strategic reserves to use them to prevent price swings which would help stimulate long-term investments.

Energy Efficiency (EE):

Speakers urged the agency to remove barriers to EE improvements at plants. Furthermore, speakers asserted that assistance is needed in translating EE into greenhouse gas reductions. Renewable energy and EE were cited by many speakers as essential to achieve compliance. 

Technologies to be Used:

A number of technologies were mentioned by speakers as possible methods to get carbon reductions.  These included: turbine inlet cooling at natural gas facilities, encouraging the combined heat and power partnership and waste heat to energy projects (both at 111d sources and offsite) and biomass co-firing.  Several speakers mentioned that fuel switching to natural gas should be an allowable compliance option while others favored renewable energy and EE over switching to other fossil fuels.

Additionally, a number of speakers stated that carbon capture and storage systems are not adequately demonstrated to be successful in getting reductions and are not commercially available. It was argued by some that EPA should not dictate what technologies are used. 




Impact of Regulations:

A number of speakers asserted that U.S. regulations to reduce carbon pollution would not have an impact on global carbon pollution. They asserted that other countries' production of carbon will outweigh any benefits that U.S. regulations will have on carbon pollution.  Others emphasized the adverse impact the guidelines would have on coal mining, coal jobs, and coal production in the United States.
