proposal rule sets rules for two groups. those making physical and oprationale changes that income the plants hourly rate and those that exceed 50% of the capital cost of a new facility. if you would like more details on either proposed rules there are fact sheets available near the registration desk. today's hear is one of four public hearing we are holding across the country this week. we have had a lot of interest in the hearing and i would like to thank you for taking the time from your day to join us and share your comments. we have a lot of people signed up to speak today and want to hear from all of them. i would like to go through a few house keeping rules that will make the hearing run smoothly. be sure you have checked in at the registration desk even ifia are not planning to speak. if you planned up to speak online or on the phone but haven't told us you were here,

step outside it the registration desk and let the staff know you arrive. if you are a speaker and given a room letter when you checked in it look at it. this is room a. are you in the right room? if not, this is a good time to switch. here is how today's hearing will work. i will call up speakers in pairs doing my best to promowns your names accurately -- pronounce -- when your name is called come to the table in the front of the room. state your name and spell it for the court report. your clients will be included in the proposed rule. you will have five minutes and we have a light to tell you how much time. when it knows green to yellow you have one minute and red signals time to wrap it up. when you finish speaking please remain at the table until the

person next to you has completed his or her testimony. a panel member may ask you questions to clarify but we are here to hear you speak. if you brought a written copy of your testify please give that the to the staff. we will have to strictly enforce the five minute rule because of the number of people that signed up. if you have more opinions submit them in writing. your comments will be reviewed. there is time to get the comments in and there are cards available at the registration desk. they must be received by october 16th, 2014. we will put any written comments in the docket for the proposed rules. we are schedule to go until 8

p.m. and we will take a dinner break so people can get something to eat. the brick break is scheduled for 5:00 now and we may take additional breaks throughout the afternoon as needed. if you have questions, see the staff at the edgestration desk andtion will try to help. i want to ask each of you to be respe respe respectful of everyone that speaks. we ask everyone listen quitely. even applause slows things down and we want to hear from everyone. thank you for coming and i think we should get started. the first two people i would like to call up with leah and leslie fields.

>> l i am leah representing the climate education and climate parents. leah qusba. i testified back in november at the public hearings that the epa hosted for the carbon standards along dozen of leaders i work with. this time i brought someone knew with me. my daughter. she is expected to arrive in two months. i am expecting my first child and now more than every i am ready to stand up for climate solutions. as a long time climate activist and expecting mother i am part of a national group that is

trying to stop dirty pollution. i am the director for the alliance at climate education based out of the san francisco bay area. i have been working ace for the last five years to educate, inspire and activate youth to create lasting climate solutions now and throughout their adult lives. we work with more than 1.8 million people across the country in about 23 states through education and leadership development. over the years i have developed a keene insight in how young people feel about climate change and one thing is clear: they support bold solutions and immediate action to support carbon pollution when presented about with the facts from dirty goal. you will hear from the youth later today and they can speak for themselves and their own generation. as a soon mom-to-be who is about to bring a little girl and

future climate protector into the world i am committed to protect my daughter and all children from the issues. one out of four children under the age of 18 living around major cities suffer from asthma. that is a quarter of our kids. burning fossil fuels is a threat to our health, national security and future as a species and that is why i am here to support the rule to regulate carbon pollution and other cancer and asthma pollutants. i have learned about all sorts of things to make sure may baby is safe from healthy organic food and no bpa in the baby

bottles but climate change is the greatest threat facing our children. the really good news is i can take steps and to not take action is blatant threat to the children's future and their children after that. elected officials, government empl empl employees are are parents and the duty of parenthood outweighs the pull of the big companies, right? besides a clear moral obligation there is a clear economic case, right? crop losses, flood damage and fires cost the country more than $140 billion and american taxpayer picked up $100 billion

to the tune of $1100 per taxpayer. we carbon pollution accounts for 40% of the issue. mercury and lead and others from power plants are spewed but there is no limit and it isn't safe. it must change and need to happen now. these types of programs have delivered cost effective savings at an average net cost of two kilowatts per hour. and several states show they can ramp up the problem. the solution is clear. we can no longer keep trying our

electric and hoping that the next hurricane sandy is going to be avoided like magic. we urge you to write the strict est carbon standards possible. thank you. >> leslie? >> good afternoon. i am leslie fields the director of the community program at the sierra club. leslie fields is my name is spelled. i would like to touch on what the rule for existing power plants means for communities of color and economic disadvantaged misamericans. we hope the epa will address unresolved issues with executive order 129-8 establishes environmental justice and it directs agencies to the greatest

possible of making this a mission of theirs and talking about the human and health. section 2 a summarizes the impact of the greenhouse gases found in the finding. the climate change considered in low income populations found that concern pants of the population are certainly v vulnerable and this is the poor, elderly, living alone and in indigenous populations. this rule limits greenhouse gases by establishing guidelines for existing fossil fuel on egu's and in addition to reducing the admissions it would reduce other kind as well. persons with lower economic

status have been found at higher amounts of disease, limited access to medical care and increase in nutritional deficien deficiency. therefore persons of low economic sectors would benefit. and possibly being required to make modifications for emergency efficiency another effect of the guidelines so they would be to increase utilization of others with modified gas per unit. in particular high efficiency egu's. because they haven't been modified they are not subjected to the review and they would operate pollutants whose environmental affects would be local versus global.

depending on the cleaner act section the state maybe able to predict which communities maybe in the situation and address the concerns. epa is again saying that the existing tracking system need to be increased very significantly. this is where the peep must be vigilant and support resources so the communities and advocates understand what is going on. the epa has done a good job conducting workshops in which people have been working together and collaborating and i participated in one at research triangle park and on june 26th there was one regarding the refinery rule at difficultered university. this proposed rule would amount to reductions but it is likely there would be locations with more times during the year with a higher focus of pollutants and

potentially affect communities. this is epa saying again it can't exactly predict how emissions from the specific egu's change. therefore the epa states it has concluded it isn't practiable to determine if there is adverse effects on the populations. that is not acceptable. they should do a proper analysis as required. we know they can do this. epa must do this same for all rule and simply saying there is, you know, not practical to determine whether it is going to be high or affects on human health isn't acceptable at all. and also epa must be serious about enforcing title six of the

civil rights act during the process because title six mandates that any federal entity receiving funds can't discrimina discriminate. there are concerns that are critical to the communities. i know my time is up and i will continue my comments in a written form. thank you very much >> thank you, leslie, and we encourage you to submit comments on sump the specifics. catherine thomason and rebecca forbes are the next two guest. >> my name is doctor catherine

thom thomasson. i am the executive director for physicians of responsibility representing 4500 members and advocates for this rule. i am hear to speak for a strong rule. a strong clean power plant and make it stronger than it is currently written. as a physician i have taken people with heart attacks and chronic lung diseases. i have had to shock people to bring their heart back to life. my implementing this rule we will reduce the rise of ozone which makes all of these diseases worse. we will also reduce coal burning power plants which produce parti particulits which make the

diseses worse. asmaw is sky rocketing. the temperatures in the summer are going to get a lot warmer if we don't address this issue. but i have worked in migrant clinics in oregon. 31% of the mexican population didn't have insurance before obamacare and didn't get tra treated. the impact of extreme weather on the infrastructure is the main problem. i was appalled that a hospital had to take patients on breathing machines down the

stair well because there was no electricity. hospitals were destroyed after katrina and many haven't been opened. sea waters rising is going to ruin infrastructure at the shoreline. all of this is more expensive than implementing this rule and other measure to reduce climate change. this is the largest single federal action to reduce the threat of climate change and i thank you for that. in addition, it has been con instructed so that every state has the ability to take action based on their political and resource ability. what are the limititatioatiolim?

it a good step. it gets us less than 15% of where we need to do to keep a to two degree rise in the temperature over the next century. they used moderate standards to determine what the states can achieve. with energy efficiency standards as a yard stick, if we did more insulations, white rooms, new appliances, automatic switch off for the devices we could reduce our electricity demand by 50%. i feel lucky i have the ability to put solar panels on my roof. i installed them with a tax rebate and rarely when i purchase electricity i get it from wind. these policies are improving the

likelihood of people accepting and utilizing and being proud of green energy. many studies so increasing energy energy and electricity can achieve what we need. we need less emphasis on natural gas. it is a fossil fuel and when burned it emits 50% carbon dioxide in the air. if we had to include this greenhouse gases from mining to transport to storage natural gas isn't any better than coal. putting more emphasis on green

energy is going to help. thank you. i am rebecca forbes. i am here as a canadian citizen and a member of the next generation. as a child i went to the beaches along the great lake. we went to the canadian side of lake erie. we realized the beach was a toxic waste plant for the power plants and a lot of waste from the air pollution and was taken by the algae and the algae bloomed and killed a majority of the lake. i was terrified as a child because seeing dead fish floating in the waves isn't something you would be used to. i recognized the epa power plant

is a great way of reducing this and causing beneficial traits for the environment as a whole. with that said, i remember my mother was terrified for my health and i was always but didn't understand the extent of the situation. i believe this is a great way of changing the problem. the great lakes are one of the greatest fresh water resources on earth and important for people on both sides of the border. with that said, i believe the clean power plan would be an amazing step for americans to benefit their own health. senator saunders from vermont made a comparison between climate change and tobacco growth in the united states. the correlation he made was the federal government was lobbied by tobacco farmers at the point when tobacco was said to have a

risk to public health and science won the battle and there were legislations put in place to prevent tobacco use in public places. i believe this situation is similar and we can use similar traits to benefit the environment and protect people in both canada and the united states. i applaud the epa for standing strong to advocating. america is one of the most powerful countries on earth and the large scale decisions made by the government have a ripple affect. if the government choses not to go through with the plan the public health of the entire int international community is put at risk. i don't want to be held responsible for have to deal with the consequences of things from the other generation before

me and i don't believe our children and the children of the future will want to. many states have mentioned this flaw. the emissions of one state can spread to another state. there is no way to hold things within bordersism i believe the epa clean power complainant is a step in the right drink. american citizens will benefit economically as well as in terms of public health, but so will the rest of the global community. the american influence is likely to spread and inspire other countries to take similar steps. america is obthe forefront of an emergency revolution and it requires the american government recognize the benefits outweigh the cost. a fear of change or reprecussion isn't relevant. i would like to thank the epa for proposal this and

encouraging it to move forward. thank you. >> next i would like to call up robin moon and nancy coons mary; please. >> i am robin mann. from rosemont, pennsylvania. i appreciated the opportunity to testify and i strongly support the removing carbon pollution from power plants. i am a grandmother of two beautiful grand children and that is what com pels me to be here today. as many have said before me we have a moral obligation to take

action to prevent carbon pollution and to stop the most extreatment climate change we are headed. we have included many including those in the front communities that create to harsher living communities and massive delocation: we have targeted clean energy based and stifled job creation that could have benefited more. i resent their continuing efforts to obinstruct action. their approach is predictable and misleading to put it generously. they are showing hostility when it needs to be about transmission for workers and pinning those who are concerned about leaving a community that is livable to the kids to those against concerned about paying

their energy bills. in southeast philadelphia they are burden by flooding problems and facing threats from sea level rises and storm surge. one of their leaders is expected to testify today and more will be submitting comments. they have first-hand appreciation for the fact that many low income energy consumers are living in front line communitys and -- communities -- and we need to confront the multiple challenges. i reviewed the report that is informative about the industries claims specifically with regard to protecting low income energy consumers from impacts of the rule. they note that states are equipped through practs and programs to help protect low income customers when

electricity cost. it is a disservice to citizens. seeing reggie as the indicator of the economic effects the report concluded: use of dollars ended up lowering electric demand and lower electricity bills. the savings flowed through the economy to spending in the local area. under the clean power plan, the states have the latitude in designing the programs to meet emission limits todries transition assistance for workers and make it a pritory. states have the opportunity to drive the transition in the way that is just and fair to workers

and consumers. it is important for the public to ensure the concerns are given priority. i urge epa to set the bar higher to 30% reduction by 2030 in fuller recognition of the progress talked about and the urgency that is need. >> nancy, looks like you have someone you have. kunz-mary. and this is my 4-year-old son zack. i took the day off from work and left my 1-year-old daughter claire with my dad to be here today because this is important. i did bring a picture. the first thing i would like to say is thank you for listening

to testimony. we love in maple wood, new jersey and consider ourselves lucky considering how much families lost hurricane sandy was devastating to our neighborhood. fuel lines were miles long, power lines down and roads closed for weeks. the most devastating was how much it scared zack and the fath these storms are going to be more and more common in the future. i was happy to see the new jersey shore rebuild. but we cannot be so short sighted selfish. it is hard to believe anyone who has experienced one of these storms first-hand isn't doing everything they can to clean up the air. what will we see to our children

and grand children when they asked us what we did to stop global warming? what will have say to jack and claire? will have say the signs said we would have more terrible weather but we chose to ignore it? will i have to say yes, science told us kids like you will have more health problems and you will have to suffer unbearable heat but no one cares. will i have to say global warming is going to kill off entire species but we were too deaf to listen? or will i be able to tell them what could have happen along with the government, epa, scientist, and a bunch of moms and dads love their children so much didn't take strong steps in cleaning up the air. it is placing limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

the epa's clean power plant plan is an important first step in addressing climate change. i ask that the epa strengthen the plan and finalizes a rule that reduces carbon monoxide emissions 40% by 2020. my family keeps this picture of jack holding hands with the polar bear out as a reminder of us that how we live today affects the people of the planet >> clean up our air for the kids. >> thanks again for your time. >> clean up the air for me and my sister, claire. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next i would like to call chris mayo and rachel moralis, please.

my name is christopher mayo and i am a legal fellow at the center for bio logical diversity. here is some of our thoughts on the proposed rule and plan. the proposed rule is a significant step toward the mitigation of climate change buzz but doesn't avoid the worst impacts of global destruction. science is showing we must lower below 1990 levels by 2020.

the 2030 goal of achieving reduction and the state targets will fail to prevent the worst effects. greenhouse gases build up over contries and waying -- waiting 15 years for reduction is a mistake. the baseline will take created for reductions that have occurred already. second the international community has agreed to use 1990 as the baseline and we should follow suit. the required levels should be based on 1999 and they should be used for reduction. the rule should increase the reliance on energy that is

shifting away from change. green peace found the united states could generate 70% of electricity from renewable energy by 2030. some states are already producing more renewable energy than the epa projects. this rule should encourage growth of renewable energy not maintain the status quo. coal dependent states shouldn't get a pass. increase use of natural gas power generation will not result in 40% emission reduction. methane leakage can happen at any time in the supply line. the methane is a hundred times more harmful than carbon monon x

monoxide. and increase in natural gas increases fracking and damaging the environment and the air. finally, generating power using bio mass from trees should not be considered. this is a highly inefficient process that will increase the co 2 for decades to come. the assumption it has no effect on the climate is not logical and neither states nor the epa should use this assumption in their calculations. while biomass from trees maybe under some circumstances renewable most practices are anything but clean or safe. >> rachel. >> rachel morales is my name.

i am an intern with intern america and i grew up in the second most vulnerable city to pollution. it has started to affect decisions to install military infrastructure and continuing running military operation where i live. the military in hampton roads is a huge pillar of the economy. if the carbon pollution continues to go undealt with my home town will lose that investment and eventually the beach erosion will destroy the towns i grew up in. the instances of lyme disease, and others diseses.

i believe this rule will help protect the health of the communitys and economy. i ask the epa to pursue 40 40 % reduction over natural gas. i believe this is the fastest and safest way to transition american to a clean energy landscape. >> liz geldman and mary crutchfield, please. >> try to keep it moving here. >> thank for giving me to

opportunity to discuss the public health issues of carbon. i am beth geltman and i am an associate professor at the environmental health science program at the city university of new york public health. and i am an attorney with 30 years of experience in environmental law and policy. climate change is one of the most significant public health concerns facing mankind. the human perils of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent with storm damage. i am deeply concerned about certain aspect of the epa plan. first, i understand that focusing on carbon emissions is the presidential mandate.

focusing on carbon emissions to to the exclusion of methane is problematic. focusing on carbon alone is like checking your car's gas tank and ignoring the oil level when the check engine light is on. clean power must focus on methane and carbon emissions. to the extent power plants use natural gas and currently about 30% of our power plants already do, it is imperative that the epa enforce regulations to ensure the best available control technologies are used to detect, prevent and control methane leakages. second, i am worried that components of the epa proposed clean power plan best system oh reduction encourages unsustainable practice that will

not we reduce climate change or best protect human health. i am alarmed at the emphasis on redispatch in block two of the bser and i think it is bad idea. redispatch encourages states to reduce carbon emissions by shifting from coal power plants to power plants that are fuelled with natural gas. the u.s. energy information administration predicts that most, if not all natural gas, soon comes from unconventional sources. primary shale gas or watt the public is calling fracked gas. the science is not clear. it is unclear if it will cause more pollution than carbon-based sources. it is unclear the extent of

pollution to ground water and in sort both the health effects and the environmental effects of frack gras are not clear. the practice of using hydraulic fracking to save should cause pause. we must be sure the health and environmental safety of the extraction before investing in shifting plants to rely on coal to fraced gas to power our lives and economy. congress recognized the uncertainty on the water control by asking peepa to conduct a study. it is irresponsible to encourage additional fracking until they conclude the study on the influence of shale gas and

water. it is necessarily they complete the process of evaluating fracking and mixing of chemical rules before encouraging more gas power power plants. it depeneds on expanding and fracking the once gone the fraced instruture will be hard to deal with. it is very important we weigh the investment in fracked gas that is required. 30% of power plants currently rely on natural gas and 38% on goal. 68% of the economy could be relying on fracked gas if this goes on. in addition, the shales sit on

top of a drinking water pump for 9 million people. think of an incident where we had a deep horizon spill in what carries water for nine million people. we need to consider to redispatch program. i applaud the effort of the epa to reduce the greenhouse gases. reducing carbon emissions is an important goal and three of the blocks are undrafted. making them more efficient and encouraging demand is important. moving from coal to natural gas before taking precaution to protect human health and

environment is a mistake before investigating shale gas. thank you for your efforts. if you have questions i have a lot of citations and tables. >> we welcome those in the written comments. >> i will do that. >> mary? >> she could have some of my time because mine is very short. i am mary crutchfield. and i am with sierra club. >> do you mind pulling the mike up closer? thank you. >> is that better? i come to speak to you today as a concerned citizen and property owner in richmond, virginia. i have already seen some of affects of climate change in my own small property. i have observed we have had more

intense storms, heavier rain fall and more frequency than in the past five years. a few years ago when hurricane irene came by i lost my entire fence. in another storm i had a neighbor had have a tree fall on her house and damage windows, the porch and part of the roof. it was a traumatizing experience for the city and neighborhood to go through the storms and to see the damage that they caused. having more severe storms is one of the effects of climate change. scientist have established that carbon pollution is the main

contributor to the pollution. it is important to set a standard for a coal fired power plants and all plants in order to prevent more serious changes in the climate in the future. ...

lastly, i am concerned about health issues that are the consequence of carbon pollution in our environment. the state of virginia has the highest rate of cases of that night in the country. by the way, my sister-in-law and her daughter both have asthma. i think if carbon pollution can be reduced by having limit for coal-fired power plants, that this will lower the number of asthma cases in our state and in the whole country. they fully support the epa in seven strong standards for limiting carbon pollution from power plants. thank you. >> thank you. next i'd like to invite up richard vessel and shannon minor, please.

>> good afternoon in thank you for this opportunity to speak or phlegm of topics which has always been a priority for me. minimus ritual vessel, vessel. in one way or another i have been involved with technologies to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources for over 40 years. i'm older than i look. i'm very pleased by the clean power plant approach which the epa has taken under which the state utilities within the state will create their own approaches to meet the overall emissions reduction target the epa will be requiring. i see it as a variation taken by the café standards in the transportation industry. though set the bar that industry determined technologies and

market approaches social best meet fuel-efficient see and hence the associated reductions in co2. i'm currently chairman of the working group for power generation efficiency within an international society. i've also recently spent four and a half years of the global product manager for power generation energy efficiency within international $40 billion per year industrial type elegy company. barry hope rated three in the 60 page guide to the efficient design for that foolery systems of fossil power plants. i spent several years trying to get various efficiency improvements into widespread use by the industry and repeatedly encounter particular set of robots. estimates run as high as one aliens had admitted co2 which could've been avoided had the power generation had not been hampered by counterproductive roadblocks to efficiency improvements. all briefly address for roebuck issues or they can use influence

to guide, encourage and assist the states may till the states may till it is to most rapidly implement changes needed to meet the proposed rules. the first roadblock within regulated utilities any fuel cost savings which might be created through efficiency improvements would have to be returned to the power consumer otherwise known as the rate base. this makes any efficiency improvement project have not emetic negative return on investment in such projects never see the light of day. i would like to see epa encourage the state to allow some or all benefits from efficient improvement in co2 reductions to remain with the utilities sell a positive roi is possible and can be used as a justification for the capital projects which will have to be undertaken. the second roadblock. efficiency improvement opportunities are often identified by planetwide studies which examine the power station from head to toe for ways in

which efficiency can be improved and promoted. however, many states forbid the expenditure of funds on studies without first being tied to a funded capital product. this has occurred before the horse is the utility would perform a study to determine how best to rent money in an efficient improvement programs. i suggest the epa encourage the states to remove this type of impediment to efficiency improvement efforts in any co2 reduction targets. the third robot, efficiency improvements often lead to real or calculated increases in that land output. the reality or fear of this is a new source review is immediately trigger and the pain and cost is enough to kill any further progress down the efficiency improvement path. i suggested the epa that the nsr trigger rules be amended to take an exception for capacity improvements resulting explicitly from efficiency improvement projects as long as all other emissions standards

continue to be mad as demonstrated by emissions monitoring equipment. the regular site nsr schedule should remain in effect. the fourth roadblock. the focus of state utility regulators has most often been driven by keeping the delivered cost to the rate base at the lowest possible levels. this right has resulted in tremendous calculated savings to the typical consumer of $2 per month, $5 per month, $10 for a month. as a consequence, many facilities operate the doubts levels and systems kept in operation many years past the lessons. i request they be reviewed and a pound foolish approach and less worthy of modification or elimination. i suggest the epa then encourage the states to adopt governance policies which do the following require generating units upgrade to the best available technology

for efficient operation, this usually means that controls electromechanical at foolery positions, as well as as well as the basics the water cycle equipment itself. bow for spreading the cost of improvements over a phenomenal levels. consumers see up her variations to essential utilities such as cable tv, internet, cell phones about in a greater social benefit other than entertainment and improve profitability at the service providers. traversing electric bill goes up 1% to 5% will be found in the financial nights of most households you could benefit the implementation is new to reductions from the one commodity most essential to our modern way of life. the final paragraph. energy sector co2 co2 footprints or concern for society at large and remedial action should be borne by all in some measure. not just buy up our industry through selective financial can strains. artificial regulatory encumbrances such as the ones

i've mentioned are frequently used to manufacture device controversies regarding the sharing of environmental responsibility between power producers empower consumers. i hope the epa can somehow address issues as part of the clean power plant. thank you for listening to make inserts and suggestions. >> we encourage you to submit some of those technical reports of the 360 page you mentioned. >> hello, how are you. i never shannon minor, and i am a student at virginia commonwealth university in richmond, virginia. unconcerned with the issue of climate change and believe the united states government must make this a top priority. i've traveled across the country have been joyed tamping in parks throughout my entire life. my dream is to go to glacier national park in montana. i felt the pressure to do so quickly with a limited threat of the glaciers melting away at an increased rate.

by peers ,-com,-com ma family members young and old and future generations should mean on a planet where the government leads an example of respecting and protect any environment. public transportation, education and health care are to name a few important topic of connected under the umbrella of the environment. i'm fulfilling my responsibility today is a citizen by standing here talking to you containing not. i believe it is time for the government to take responsibility on a larger scale. thank you are a match for your time. have a great day. >> thank you goes. next i would like to invite up william cousin and ronald sussing, please.

>> my name is william cousins. it is william cozzens. i am a retiree and a former i.t. can vote and to the electric and gas utility industry. and have worked in both fossil fired power plants and also nuclear plants. i fully support the effort of the epa to reduce carbon dioxide and other gases which are contributing to global warming. i believe climate change is a very serious threat both to humanity and the larger environment. in this respect to support the intent of the epa regulation to reduce carbon dioxide from fossil fired power plants.

however, i am disappointed in several aspects of the proposed regulations. these relate to number one, the timeframe specified in the regulations and number two, the reductions in the carbon dioxide reduction in the regulations. in terms of timeframe, there are two issues i see. one, the year 2030 is a full 16 years away. that is a huge amount of time for the utility industry to implement efforts to reduce carbon dioxide pollution, especially with a measure being a 30% reduction. the second aspect is the base here of 2005 is problematic. many utilities since 2005 have closed coal-fired power plants,

largely due to the obsolescence and inefficiency as some of these plans and other market changes. so in that respect, they would he receiving as i understand under the regulations automatic red but those plans are disclosed due to these markets and engineering forces. the second aspect% reduction in pollution, a 30% reduction in my mind is a very soft target, especially over a 16 year time frame. there should be more aggressive targets incorporated in the right relation. without any regulation come utilities can probably have reduce carbon dioxide from coal fired power plants by 30% by the year 2030 due to the age and

inefficiency of these plants in the availability of alternative energy sources, does gas, which i anchors other commentators is problematic, but the cost of solar and wind related energy. if 2030 remains a target date for epa, i believe we should be targeting a 70% to 80% reduction in carbon dioxide from coal fired power plants. in my mind, these more aggressive targets will help stimulate both the scientific engineering and market response to implement more clean and efficient energy sources. the cost of solar and wind generated energy are already dropping rapidly in many markets they are already competitive with fossil fuel fired energy

and with aggressive epa targets that will stimulate further innovation and development of these sources, allowing them to represent a much higher percentage of the power provided by the utility industry. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is from a passenger, from old schlesinger. i am just representing myself. i have no organization that i'm representing. i am just essentially very sick and tired of everyone saying no, it can be done. it's about time everyone gets to the idea that at least lets try

and i are grateful for epa for establishing or trying to get this rule five. we do have 16 years to get it implemented and i do not understand at all why the energy companies are fighting so hard again today. i am just thinking back a couple of years ago if the naysayers had their way, we would still be riding in horses and buggies because they would say no to automobiles. bringing it up to more modern times if i remember not too long ago there was such a loud noise that can be lambasted as, yet today i think it's very hard to find a bus that does not deal off because we had the gumption

to say yes, we can then yes we will. i think this is not in that we really need to do and i'm grateful again a safe bet for epa doing this rule. i am also -- i like to travel to national parks and i been to yellowstone and great smoky and glacier. i have not been to yosemite. it is one of my goals i would like to do one of these days. and i would like to see these national parks when they were first discovered. and i don't like the ikea of all of the haze and smog that we sometimes have to put up with because of coal-fired plants stewarding out all the submissions. the thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, both.

next i would like to invite up scott rooker and robert young, please. >> good afternoon. my name is scott subsided, god burger. i'm a member of the seroquel appeared a group in northville, virginia and i live in richmond, virginia. by a friend negatively affected by rising sea levels caused by increased carbon levels. in richmond, my family and i suffered experience illness due to excessive air pollution and

smog most notably from power plants to the southwest of us. in addition, i'm concerned about water pollution in the james river, which i live close to. mercury levels are of concern. the coal trains, the incessant coal trains ac go buy all the time. the bad joke as i'm watching west virginia go by. they are a constant reminder of the pollution that surrounds us. it is worth noting how the coal train traffic also interferes with plans for more and better passenger window. people often complain about the traffic in northern virginia and until we get rid of the gordian knot of energy policy and transportation policy, i'm afraid we will see more of it. we need to have better passenger

whale. it doesn't have to be this way. in 2009 i installed solar on my house. i employed neighbors by doing so. i also increased my neighborhoods energy efficiency and disaster recovery ability by doing so. there is a certain amount of resiliency that comes from going to cleaner power. you heard some people speak earlier about the hurricane succumbed to richmond and certainly norfolk and we've been very lucky so far and i'm very concerned about the category five hurricane that comes through. i don't think virginia beach has seen one of those and maybe 100 years. whole spit of land in hampton roads are formed by hurricanes. you know, regardless of what you think about the effects of climate change i am concerned about the ability to respond comfortably resides in the in the face of such disasters and

that is where solar and wind can help autoblog. that is. i encourage the country to go to console her clean energy. i appreciate your time. >> hi, my name is robert young is robert young and i'm a youth leader with the alliance for climate education. you may remember from the last we had here. i was close a tab with a family in nature. i started volunteering at my local nature center when i was nine and around that time i first learned about by the change. i was terrified by the impact on the natural world and i began to learn as much as i could about the issue. the nine years i want the law but most of all it comes to realize the fight against climate change is not just saving the natural world yet it's also saving me among my generation and future of the globe and that is why you must issue the most ambitious power

plant carbon dioxide emissions possible in order to mitigate climate change and protector feature from its devastating impact. the practice time is running out. our nation has been ignoring reality and hitting snooze button for far too long. it's time to wake up and make a responsible decision. climate change is the single greatest challenge of the century was i not have time to overcome it. the most recent report for the panel on climate change stated that we must cut emissions by 40% to 70% by 2050 in order to limit global mean temperature rise to 3.6 degrees fahrenheit. the maximum increase that will avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate change. a 30% reduction from the united states power plants is a good step and the direction. these impacts are not the kind that will hurt the polar bears. i'm not here to ask you to see the trees. my generation is the one about how to do with the destructive impacts of a negligence up to

this point. including the collapse of ice sheets, mass. plant animal extinction, food shortages, flooding and extreme events. human society and especially sources of energy have been dumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are more than a century and our planet cannot longer tolerate the abuse. change is possible and climate change is as much as an opportunity for a nation as a challenge. having let my high school environmental club and works with other concerned youth nationwide through the climate education i can confidently say hope is still alive and especially among young people. grassroots action and technological breakthroughs continue to lead us towards a more sustainable future. now as i began at stanford university in a few weeks i have to have the to create the incredible technological innovation that move us closer towards the future. you have to give us a chance. if the government of the people,

by the people, for the people does not represent our future and climate change it hardly matters what i hear anyone ih does. although no one can promise the process will be easy, it is clear the long-term benefit of taking action vastly outweigh any short-term economic concerns. business as usual simply isn't enough anymore and the opportunity to clean up our power plants is truly one of our final chances to avoid the devastating impacts the climate change will have on our future. my generation is counting on you to make the responsible decision. please issue an ambitious final carbon solution standard for existing power plants. thank you. >> thank you, robert. next i would like to call up corn walk and tv smith -- dede smith.

the >> my name is karen wolk and i represent clean our counsel. pennsylvania nonprofit organization advocates for what's right to breathe cleaner. the concerns about the proposed carbon roles and may take steps for slow climate change. however while the cardinal is to restrict emissions it has natural gas as a viable alternative to burning coal. there're numerous issues poster with the climate impacts. according to epa's figures of 3.2% from a natural gas be better for the climate than

coal. estimates of leakages range widely but a recent study at cornell university founder of previous estimate of 3.3 massive leakage was reasonable for probably low. already you've been conservative estimate for natural gas provides the advantages. the reality is even less positive. the figure currently used by epa at 21 times the potential over 100 year time span. the most recent estimate of potential is actually 34 times that of carbon dioxide from the 100 year timeframe. epa said plenty of time to update sciences even the previous book global warming potential at 25. one wonders why one epa will choose to update the figures on which a basis such crucial calculation. furthermore given the next two decades are critical for staffing climate changes, the

shorter timeframe is more relevant in choosing a course of action. the eyepiece ec says there's no scientific argument for the 100 year measurement of the 20 or timeframe 86 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. from the same study the influence at today's emissions on global warming 200 or 300 years in the future will reflect carbon dioxide not methane in the last daily to tipping points in the fundamental change in the system. that could happen as early as within the next two to three decades. the inclination to switch from one fossil fuel to another is already happening with encouragement. because of the air pollution. the existence of the renewable alternatives in the vulnerability to climate change should be sufficient evidence to switch from fossil fuels.

instead, state government is pushing for construction of a natural gas pipeline in the pristine natural recreational resource with other natural gas. despite her governor's opposition to the rule, the other motives. governor kernan's administration opens more public waterways and overturn the moratorium on additional gas on state lands despite warnings from previous officials there's no areas left that could be drilled without risking serious environmental impacts. epa is touting the preschool years, but what about the growing public health impacts for natural gas? until you've been exposed to the realities of fossil fuel extraction, it's easy to discuss the abstract figures of prices and reserves. at the pennsylvania act of environmental advocacy i've met people suffering the impacts of pennsylvania.

besides the people whose water supplies have been rendered non-potable and those who can no longer safely live in the house because of height and the methane levels, there's thousands of people chose to live in rural areas for the peacefulness of the natural environment only to have it broken by constant trust traffic flaring in the high-intensity lighting through their windows. what a natural gas drilling wants to encourage mac, governmental person of public health in internal protection. last month pennsylvania department of health officials from start did she not speak to residents concerned their health is being impacted by natural gas drilling. last week the opposite of fate under general released a scathing report on the oversight of natural gas drilling. the auditor general compared oversea natural gas drilling to firefighters trained to put out a fire with a 20-foot garden hose. despite concerns about public health impacts, and the widespread record-keeping major

study of health impact of natural gas exploitation exists. cleaner and decisive epa action on climate change coming in the greenhouse gas emissions is essential. however the proposed rule does not constitute that. epa needs to create and enforce regulations that bring us closer to solving climate crisis. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is dee dee smith and i'm smith and i'm here from shouts out, virginia behrman elected official of city council and vice mayor. i've come to add my voice to the chorus of concerned citizens can elect officials to support new limits on carbon pollution. as a longtime resident of charlottesville, home to thomas jefferson's monticello, i find it fitting that in his declaration of independence, jefferson proclaimed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as read alien about

rights. i say that because last week charlottesville was named america's happiest city. he would be proud. >> congratulations. >> we've also been named the best college town, one of the healthiest small cities, best place to retire the list goes on and on. which is why i am here to support stricter regulations on the vesting power plants. you see the recent charlottesville is so happy is that we have a very high quality of life and a big heart of that is a commitment to a high-quality environment. charlottesville city government has in the last five years reduce our carbon footprint or 30%, even in the face of the rising population and were not done yet. just weeks ago we launched an initiative called solarized charlottesville in which purchasing and we cannot for

solar installations to residential homes than half the cost. in our own facilities, every new building is certified and highly energy-efficient. in addition, we offer tax credits and exemptions for residential and commercial energy efficiency. for established a revolving loan for commercial solar retrofit as well as grants for new innovative projects such as a publicly available staff charge stations for electric cars. further goal of further reducing their local carbon footprint. we do this because we firmly believe our quality of life, which makes this so happy is intricately linked to rare quality. but in truth, for city government it is not just about happiness. it is an economic issue as well. like many cities, tourism is a major economic engine in charlottesville and much of our tourism depends on air quality

because a lot of our tourist attractions are outdoors. if you haven't yet visited any of the 30 wineries surrounding charlottesville, you should. you don't even have to like wine because these are so spectacular. views that are dependent on clean, clear air. and if you question whether air quality matters for the view scared, go to the shenandoah national park in a particular smoggy day when the dirty emissions up on and from the midwest power plants that limit the view scared to a few miles when in fact you should be able to see 100 miles. the tourism isn't the only economic reasons charlottesville needs clean air. you see, we are home to the university of virginia, the commonwealth flagship university with its nationally recognized medical center, one of the future cherri hospitals in the

state. uva hospital treats serious medical conditions including the all too common forms of lung disease like emphysema and lung cancer and shocking novels of chronic ability denies the all life to aim for the many uva hospital patients who visit charlottesville in all impacted by air quality. i'm not a spy charlottesville is dedicated to doing our part to improving air quality are reducing our robed carbon footprint. but of course we have no control over the coal burning power plants upwind from us. but you do and that is why we appeal to you to put in a strong clean power plant so that we all can breathe a little easier. and i have attached my statement today to resolutions approved unanimously by city council in support as the epa to enforce and strengthen the clean air

act. thank you very much. >> to submit those for the registration desk. >> thank you. >> next i would like to invite tenderer and what column, please. >> my name is tim at the rate i'm. my last name is spelled whitcombe. i live in a suburb of richmond. i'm a member of the sierra club, but today i am speaking for myself today. i would like to thank you or the opportunity to testify today.

every year, coal-fired power plants are jumping over 2 billion tons of dangerous carbon pollution and other pollutants into the air. these power plants are betting t.a.r.p. carbon dioxide, but they also admit sowed, sulfuric acid and heavy metals and other toxins into the air. mercurius admitted for this coal-fired power plants and mercury is known to cause mental retardation. the clean power plant proposed by president obama in the epa on june 2nd full text scurvy and pollution from power plants that will force the phaseout of a large number of coal-fired power plant. as a consequence it will prevent 150 asthma attacks and 6600 deaths annually by the year 2030. there is many people who say restricting powerplant and their emissions will be very expensive

and will harm the u.s. economy. they say it will raise electric rates substantially and posed big problems for businesses and consumers. this view ignores the fact coal pollution in this country is currently causing more than $100 billion annually in health care costs. in fact, i have read the clean power plan will have benefits of $74 billion annually by 2030 whereas this cost will be only $8 billion annually. richmond, virginia has for coal-fired power plants within 25 miles of the city. there's a major coal-fired power plant in chesterfield county and there's also a coal-fired power plant on the campus of the university of richmond. i've been told richmond has twice been named the ethnic capital of the united states due to its high prevalence of asthma. in july 2013 i began unlocking program to help you lose weight and improve my health. i was taking a brisk walk of

about three miles each and every day. then i knocked over 2013 i got a bad cause. my doctor diagnosed me with bronchitis. the cost was so bad that i was forced to discontinue my watching program. i was not able to walk for about six months. tanksley i've now during my walk around the neighborhood again although i am walking at a slower pace than i had been walking last year. i have generous area of virginia is having big problems due to sea level rise as a result of global warming. i've seen the videos flooding in or fold. they showed streets and businesses and homes and cars in flooded. one nobleman in the video said she was trapped in her house for a week due to the flooding. our sailors and naval officers live in norfork and thereabouts. do we really want the homes and cars of our sailors and naval officers spotted on a regular basis?

i ask you to implement the clean power plant in fact exceed the 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. global warming is a very serious and ongoing problem and we need severe reductions in carbon emissions as soon as possible. i would say we need to reduce carbon emissions at least 50% by the year 2030. i say this for these reasons. global warming is causing more powerful storms have these enhanced hurricanes and tornadoes are costing us lives and are costing fema and state and local emergency agencies a lot of running. also this country has already reduced carbon emissions by 12% to 15% since 2005 and the shows large bubble of production are back possible. also the epa estimates for greater efficiency and four levels -- from our alternative energies in the 50 states appear to be low, these estimates.

we can put many, many more wind turbines and also solar panels out there. also if we have a level of carbon reduction of 50% from the rest of the world will notice. u.s.a. will be setting a great example of the rest of the road would then be more likely to follow our example. thank you for your time and for your consideration. >> okay, good afternoon. my name is chris, duress. i live in richmond, virginia with the sierra club and i am talking from personal experiences. i was born at ua hospital because of virginia commonwealth is moving out way too now. anyway i was born in that area in my grandparents had a farm which the southern part of outsmart county and said things

like that, so i grew up summers there working and having fun and things like that. over time, grandparents fire and on a small basis, 87.5 acres, a thick farmhouse that was a log cabin converted. they farmed fare from the 30s to the seven e. and my sister and i were able to take over the farm and we have a tree farm they are. notice over there but the drought about 10 years ago, said they might have went to 4.5 years essential virginia. queen creek which borders the property was totally dry. my sister and i watch for a mile in the bed of that creek. the creek is pretty big to 25 feet wide at full capacity that flows into the river, which flows into the james river. a lot of decreasing at that

time. so really concerned about that and they were calling it. nobody in the area had heard of that happening, so is the least of 500 year flood if not more there. so that's an example. i work in health care management and public health hospitals. i was in eastern north carolina for quite a time and we had fran and floyd come through there. wilson was the place i worked, the hospital and was a devastating effect for several days the hospital served coffee breakfast into because we were basically the only place that had active generators and i was like one or two years apart and of course the goal posts they are of north carolina, so that's just an example of my experiences there and of course you have a lot of loss of the flood insurance, the loss of work, lots of housing, things like that.

lastly having been the health care administrator, public health hospitals see the increase in asthma, allergies among cancer as a result of carbon pollution, so we appreciate you addressing this problem. we need to move forward in that some goals because i don't think it's going to get any better the way we are going. so that is basically we have to say the opportunity. just one personal example. one of my relatives traveled to china recently on business and when he returned i said what is the one word to describe your visit and things that. she said smog. i set my gosh, so we love the folks there, but we don't need that. thank you for the opportunity. the >> thank you. thanks i like to abide erin

fagan and ryan arnold, please. the >> hi, my name is erin fagan. i am here today from our foe, virginia. i came to the sierra club and the sustainability coordinator for old men university. right now i'm eating non-a human being who has asthma. when i was very young i started developing respiratory issues i lived in dover, delaware. the doctors they can general hospital decided it was because of air pollution there. so my family, mom and dad when they were just about my age between 22 and 24, they had to relocate and so they came to

virginia strictly because i absolutely could not breathe with all the pollution. so fast-forward to now when i lived in norfork attending old dominion, i have a giant hole. in my backyard. i'm glad someone start a reference all the flooding in norfork because i've waited home through knee-deep water regularly. it only takes a little bit of a rainstorm to do that at your chest deepwater a couple times during hurricanes. my house has been flooded before. ..

this is one of those opportunities we can set an example the were proud of. thank you. firth's. >> my name is ryan arnold. thank you for the chance to speak here today. climate changes that threaten national and global security, public health, and our economy. a recent report from the

american association for the advancement of science sums it up this way. we are pushing our climate system toward abrupt, and predictable, and potentially irreversible changes. the sooner we act to lower the cost and the lower the risk. this is not news. i've been hearing most of his son's elementary school. and been deeply disappointed that our government. that's why the proposal to limit carbon pollution does a welcome piece of good news. i know that we can and our production of greenhouse gases and secure a long and prosperous future. what worries me as though we have long had a scientific consensus we don't have political or social consensus. a recent poll found fewer than 60 percent of americans even believe it is caused by human activity.

we should be able to come together and demand solutions. lack of widespread agreement hinders our ability to enact comprehensive remedies or to follow through on the good solutions already being proposed and implemented. sociologists tell us that the idea of climate change raises uncomfortable emotions in people , feelings of guilt, fear, helplessness, maybe denial. i once met a guy you agree that climate change is a problem but was contend that there is nothing we can do about it. they say a good strategy to overcome is to bring messages of hope. we can make a difference. we can ensure a bright future. that think one message we were hearing for a while, the thing to do is change our light balls and keep tires inflated was not really working because we know the challenges some much bigger than what we can do as individuals. we need government to set fair

rules and credible plans to get our emissions down star quality of life can stay at. that will give us hope and reason to believe we can face the unpleasant realities. what i hope to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can help spark discussion among americans about climate change which has been on the back burner for too many of us for too long a. and those conversations lead to greater awareness and understanding, a greater sense of urgency and shared resolve to sustain our way of life for a long time to come. thank you. >> thank you. >> next would like to invite laura kaplan and poorly.

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. my name is laura kaplan. i would like to start by saying that i am an attorney lyses in pennsylvania and d.c. in their resident of delaware and member of the executive committee. i am here today on my own. speaking in favor of the proposed rule. i have focused my attention on environmental law and climate change. the environmental natural resource clinic. and the opportunity to study the clean air act and federal energy loss in cases dealing with air pollution among other issues.

it is incumbent upon the united states to lead the way in reducing carbon emissions. at the present time many states have individual plans, but some do not. pollution does not stop at the state lines. similarly, the effects of global warming affects everyone, not just residents of a certain state or country. these proliferating effects are called externalities'. it is imperative that have strong nationwide and worldwide sustained effort to reduce carbon emissions. climate change is real, caused by human beings and only human beings can reverse it. seizing this pivotal moment in the history of environmental regulation and by having a united vision. there have been new signs of cooperation among emerging nations in progress is being made. the united states must move forward quickly. must be all role model and must

not delay the proposed action any longer. i urge the epa to promulgate the emission standards the president obama's climate action plan and to strengthen them by reducing the target date and the maximum level of emissions. prior to 2007 army commissions which were included in the list of qualified air pollutants as designed by the clean air act could be regulated. they claimed it lacked authority to regulate carbon dioxide because co2 is not considered to be in air pollutants. however, in the landmark cases the supreme court ruled that co2 did indeed qualify as an air pollutant. the epa then showed that human health is endangered and finally showed that co2 emissions pose a hazard to human house.

important because it targets existing power plants which create the largest single force of co2 emissions between 30 and 40 percent of our nation's car emission. section 111 gives the epa their responsibility to set maximum emission standards or emission guidelines performance resources that contribute to dangerous air pollution. there are approximately 1,000 existing fossil fuel fired plants and old and efficient power plants, 63 percent of them are 40 years old rural. about 3,000 covered by this. the proposal requires states to create state implementation plan to put forth a bus system for existing sources. the epa does not approve a federal plan will be issued.

reducing emissions by increasing the efficiency of power plants which will not only reduce emissions but decrease electricity consumption and encourage alternative energy sources such as wind farm in solar panels. regarding the cost of the economic indicates the benefits outweigh the cost. according to a report by the national resources defense council in 2013. the model analysis projection shown would reduce emissions are 26% from 2005 levels by 2020 and 34 percent by top 45. this sounds like too little too late. nonetheless health benefits will be achieved if the byproduct is emissions reductions. carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, a 22% reduction of nitrogen oxide and a reduction by 25 percent by 2020.

the contribute to high rates of asthma, and other lung disease, and heart attack. in delaware attorney general pointed out that the health is threatened by harmful pollution produced in other states and carried here by wind current. and a d in particle pollution. i personally know that a disproportionate percentage of children and adults in delaware suffer from asthma and related health problems. thank you for the agenda to speak here today. >> wine says -- to i am from

delaware. i am pleased that the epa is beginning to tackle this very important problem, carbon emissions from existing power plants. i think that some of the rules make very good common sense looking for efficiency in both power production and values. pretty common sense. i think that the goals but forth by this program could be readily attained and wish that there were a little bit higher because i am very concerned about the increasing affects we see from global warming. the most serious problem i have with the plan because it is only measuring the carbon dioxide burned at the port clinton it may have a tendency to increase the use of fuels that burn

plainly bud only carbon and environmental footprint when extracted and transported. chief among that, of course, we mention the methane in which is coming from wells that are horizontal fractured or frank to get gas or oil. we know that the methane is being emitted in a very large amounts. we really have no -- we have a few good measurements on that. we have clearly got to get a lot more measures to really understand the magnitude of the problem. we also know that methane if committed whether gas is transported through oil pipelines san and compressors it

as clearly. the epa -- and gas companies have not really kept track of losses so that they could monetize. it is up to the epa then to find ways to get measurements. we predicted that the gas usage will peak and then began to decrease in the coming decades. but there still will be quite a bit of gas obtained through drilling. furthermore, when the old wells go out of service there and dug in bed methane. the studies have shown that when you cap of well by putting cemented some of these will begin to leak methane and other material from the process almost immediately. it is inevitable that the cement will fail some time in 50 to 100 years.

and we really, again, have no idea if this is a big problem comedian problem to my last hundred years or a thousand years. so those are concerns. i guess i am very concerned with the problems i was raised in a very small town in miami -- wyoming they worked in the mines political was used for the union pacific during the cold. nobody told us that the carbon dioxide was banned. the only problem we did note was that the miners had black lung disease and some of them were killed or badly injured when a mine cave in. these mines closed in the fifties when the rose started using diesel and said of coal. we learned that cole was low in

sulfur said. produces 40 percent of the coal used in the u.s. as a child i've visited the mountains. relief. there was just crystal and duke it easily see yonder miles. now the mounds are near what i have learned to call that and sideline. this is where there is extensive gas extraction. the crystalline air is turns to something as smoggiest los angeles. my father worked.

there was very little damage. quite a pristine. now the water is considered bad enough. all of the approaches that we have had to getting fuel have created problems. i think that the epa needs to consider these and also to help demonstrate that other plans to use clean energy, renewable energy may have lesser environmental of facts. on the epa has the power to look at the state and nationwide and make regulations nationwide. >> thank you. >> nextel would like to call on press.

>> i am a student at old dominion university of north fork, virginia. north look is located in the coastal region of virginia that is rated second only to new orleans as the area most tolerable to sea level rise in the united states. as a resident of a region that is feeling the drastic effects of climate change every day i am happy to see the end caramel protection agency taking action through the clean power plant. a clean power plan is a ground-breaking and necessary step in addressing climate change. power plants are responsible for 40% of a carbon pollution and the united states making them

the single largest source of carbon pollution in the country. the major cause of climate change for too long. carbon emissions reduction is a much-needed catalyst to make energy efficiency and renewable energy a prairie for the u.s. virginia is becoming increasingly horrible to sea level rise and the devastating effects of climate change are already having severe plications for the region. climate changes not only affecting americans, it is a bullish. in response america must become a leader in taking action to reduce car emission. i look forward to seeing our country on the forefront of creating a clean and sustainable future. i feel ground-breaking action like the epa clean power plant will play a significant role in creating the future for our generation and generations to come. thank you.

>> the statement. difficult. one name is john carmelo. my wife and i have lived in philadelphia for more than three years. before that we live just south of concord, massachusetts, about 25 miles west of boston. now we live in a co-op. i strongly support the plan to tighten emissions standards for existing fossil fuel power plants for two reasons. number one, my wife has asthma and it has done significantly worsens limited of philadelphia. suspends time coughing and having trouble breathing. unfortunately we found an apartment building which has pretty good air quality. we also have our own air filtering device which will run when conditions are bad. my second reason for supporting tighter eurasia's standards is that we have two wonderful daughters in their late 30's.

the world does not get its act together within the next shift into 25 years of my daughters will almost certainly see an extreme global warming catastrophe. we will have passed the point of no return. and most of the population of the earth, especially the poor and vulnerable, will die or become seriously disabled from extreme weather anchorage as the foul air and water. only the wealthiest will be able to shield themselves from these effects. that terrible damage will destroy the economy and seriously affect the wealthy. ever, by then it will be far too late to do anything about it. thank you for your attention. >> thank you very much. >> next test of susan miller.

>> thank you for your time today . we have heard a lot about what that organization as. in my world here in d.c. a lot of what i do is reach out to people and connect with our affiliates and partners and individuals and activists from the country to meet their stores, and try to relate those stories and try to a chancellor's some of the policies that are impacting them at home. you have probably heard a lot of stories. i have one more here that i would like to share with you. al qaeda in an er, founder and chairman of conservation to my group of hunters and anglers here care about protecting the natural world for the next generation sportsmen. and he asked me to read this testimony for him.

so i lived in vicksburg, montana i'm a sportsman, enter command angler and a longtime outdoor writer. would like to take this up latinity to comment on the epa proposed clean power plant. none of los like expensive and unnecessary regulation. yet the same time the vast majority of americans to support clean air and water, healthy landscape, and a strong, robust economy. we also want to give our kids and grandkids the best possible shot at a prosperous future. unfortunately climate change is beginning to slam the united states. we are seeing extreme heat, mega drought, dying forest, and catastrophic wildfires. paki's the sea level rise and crazies storms and major flooding and lots of lots of hungry disease-carrying ticks and chicago's. the science on climate change is clear and unequivocal. the fossil fuels are changing the chemistry of our atmosphere,

solidify our oceans and warming the planet. the why of any open of defending american way of life when he to reduce our co2 emissions dramatically and make an immediate shift. one final point. with that in-support the epa proposed clean power plant. we need to lower carbon emissions from existing power plants and take our addiction to fossil fuel. it is the only way we will all lots of hunting and fishing or give our kids and grandkids a shot at a healthy, prosperous future. one final point i would like to make. these epa regulations would not be necessary of congress for doing its job. unfortunately congress has been missing in action which means we have no choice but to rely on the epa to reduce carbon emissions from power plants and other major sources. they need to do their job. it is time to set aside of the

anti science rhetoric and the partisan politics and defend america against the single largest at the we all face. we have to address global warming and we have to do it now. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is susan miller. i am of vice-president for environment safety for the brake industry association. i offer these comments on behalf of dia and its member manufacturers and distributors. a small trade association representing an industry of mostly small businesses defined by the small businesses administration. many of our companies have been around since the late 1800's and many remain family-round. i am here today speaking to my industry because we want to be around for the next hundred years and more. while our industry did not make it into any of the epa analyses about the impact of this role

make no mistake that we are impacted by it. our biggest concerns mirror those were your from other industries. natural-gas and the uncertainty of exactly what the outside defense mandate it means my plan. the manufacture claybrook requires energy to transform raw materials into a durable, sustainable, long-lasting quality building material. claybrook manufacturers and distributors nationwide operate in a sustainable manner while committing to doing our share to minimize the environmental impact to protect our employee health and safety. the clay brick industry understands the importance of reducing greenhouse gases and is committed to measure is : including minimizing energy consumption, pursuing alternative energy sources and improving manufacturing processes and technology. we share a lot of the same views as the people who are on the other side of the aisle. we just have some concerns over

the vastness of this rule. the clay brick industry also encourages balanced policies that protect the environment well allow reasonable economic growth. our industry wants to remain a part of our nation's economy. to do that we need to survive the next few years at. we simply can't jump to 2025 or 2030 and look at viability then. we must be derived each and every year in between, employing you to look beyond select target years. large number of small businesses far more, we would love to encourage a panel be held. please look at every year and make sure the impacts are reasonable, have a positive impact commensurate with the cost and allow our economy to continue with their slow recovery. the impact of natural gas prices and availability must also be

included and have an impact on our industry. the predominant fuel that we use natural gas. having evaluated the impact to my proposal based in part on the assumption that utilities can increase natural-gas use. possibly availability. this is not the only rule that will do that. another rule of your organization is considering air quality changes. that will also affect natural gas and availability. i must say one of the questions i receive most from my members when they hear about it is this outside the fence mandate and what it might mean to an industry like ours. huge, hard to get through in that time that we have to give you good cummins. remember, this does not come to us in a vacuum void of any other regulations coming our way for our industry.

on that note i will take one minute to address one overall concern. as i stated, this is not the only rule that will impact our industry. our industry will have two major rule proposals that directly impact brick manufacturing. you can say to you can not concern yourself with that. but like i tell my middle school, just because it is hard does not mean it is the right thing to do. the ability for an industry chose or the cost of one regulation is impacting by the money that we have to spend to comply with another. we have financial resources to run out. epa and other government agencies continue to take a pitch and all look at the impact of their regulation of the impacts of the regulation of industries such as ours manufacturing in the u.s. does not stand a chance. adequate, affordable, and

reliable energy supplies are essential to the growth and viability of the u.s. economy. a clay brick industry is no different. critical to brick manufacturers to continue to produce quality claybrook product that consumers and builders rely on for new construction. we have all heard those that say this administration does not care if manufacturing disappears in america. please prove them wrong. thank you for taking time to listen. >> thank you. >> i am going to go ahead and call a few more people. a court reporter and a couple panels stretch their legs. the half-hour mark. with that please.

>> i am from chesterfield county, virginia. the constitution and most regulations have never found tax breaks they did not love and a regulation that did love. as a result, we bear the brunt of rising waters in the seven parts of our state. in norfolk, virginia beach, the asman capitol of the world, the united states anyway. and consistently in the 10 percent of the wealthiest inconsistently in the 10 percent of the states that provide the as