mums ie that feseil fuels are baduperied.? think the attitude with the EPA antiwar aerial-asterAmerica'e Fewer Lite This Page Attnr'ney' General Seatt Pruitt: Leading the fight against EPA merreaen in Unlanarna. Enal la eritieal fer Arneriean energy Eta tn and tell the EPA that yen euppart anal! Ir- . Lilute Cemment ail-=- St'iare at 4.3a: El?iar'ea 'iew a i-au a n" n* nte Hermit Hewell it' you den't lilie eaal ga tenant: to rneitiee EeJJL EDIE 21113 21115 hh?iizi-IiiL-?LH 1-H ILIHM. IEIH. {lscareh this site Abouttu Alum-dent i A?erdahle 3 cluan EmlTe-chnelegr Hernc Aeeut L. s Members Videes Members The American Eealitien fer Clean [Zeal Electricity is a eealitien ei leading eenteanies trem the electricity.I generatien. transeertatien and eeal ereductien secters. as well as etner manufacturers and 1renders. BEIDW is a centelete list et eur members. Leslng Fewer Deal Future 1ll'iet'll Mere Videes Phetes Alpha Halt-a: Reset-cit. 'ir? ?rearm Meuntaln Slate Fercst Heln: Fleid Pittsburgh. . . . AMERICAN 1Infiew Mere Fheles ArCh CUHL INC. Behind The Plug p) EPA Gina McCarthy is if having 3 Chat "TIN-turban ?mni?'eg?'?nm Beuerners en Beth Sides See a .. ?mtg Future fer Geal '1 I It?s Net Aheut Pelities, It's Aheut Scott Pruitt . if; 12-313 in Scottsdale. AZ today at a lunch with the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Regional Haze. the Clean Air Act. and Sue EH. Settle were on the menu of issues today. Great friends. great cause. Like Comment pi) Share '2 CI COMMITTEE NAME 3, NUMBER Scott Pruitt For Attorney General 2014 114038 REPORTING PERIOD: FROM Oct01,2013 to Dec 31, 2013 SCHEDULE A1. MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS from committees SCHEDULE A1. CONTRIBUTIONS. Give the following information for the contributions of more than $50 in the aggregate from a committee [political action committee, political party committee, or candidate committee] during the reporting period. Name, Ethics Commission number, and address of contributor Principal interest or principal business activity Date accepted Amount of contribution [written instrument only] Campaign-to-date Arvest Oklahoma PAC (204024) Candidate Support. Dec 19, 2013 $500.00 $500.00 PO Box 799 Lowell, AR 72745 ONEOK Inc Employee Political Action Special Interest For Natural Gas Dec 19, 2013 $2,500. 00 $2,500.00 Committee (597256) And Petroleum Industry Other 100 Fifth St Business Tulsa, OK 74103 Unit Corporation Political Action Support Candidates Favoring Dec 04, 2013 $1,500. 00 $1 ,500.00 Committee (204009) Energy Industry. 7130 Lewis Ste 1000 Tulsa, OK 74136 OKCRNA PAC (298417) To Support Candidates For State Dec 04, 2013 $1,000. 00 $1 ,000.00 PO Box 702 Of?ce. Norman, OK 73 070 Union Paci?c Corp. Fund For Effective Financial Support To Candidates Dec 03, 2013 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Government (597346) For Elective Of?ce. 700 13th Street NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20005 Motorola Solutions, Inc. Political ActionTo Make Contributions To Political Dec 03, 2013 $1,000.00 $1 ,000.00 Committee (504014) Committees As Permitted By Law. 1455 Ave NW Ste 900 Washington, DC 20004 Alliance Coal Pac (509007) Multi?candidate Committee Nov 20, 2013 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 1717 Boulder Ave, Ste 400 Tulsa, OK 74137 Okla Independent Energy PAC (OKIE To Support Candidates For The Nov 19, 2013 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 PAC) (297219) Oklahoma State Legislature. 500 N. E. 4th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Chesapeake Oklahoma Pac (210032) To Support Oklahoma State And Nov 15, 2013 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 Po. Box 18496 Local Candidates Oklahoma City, OK 73154 Spectra Energy Corp Political Action Make Contributions To OK Nov 15, 2013 $1,500. 00 $1 ,500.00 Committee (spectra?dcp Pac) (507002) Candidates And Committees 5400 Westheimer Ct Houston, TX 77056 EXXON MOB IL CORPORATION Support Candidates Nov 05, 2013 $1 ,000. 00 $1 ,000.00 POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (511004) Box 20503 Indianapolis, IN 46220 Phillips Murrah PAC (ffkfa Phillips Support Or Oppose Candidates. Nov 05, 2013 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 McFa11 PAC) (200009) Corporate Tower, 101 Robinson 13th Fl Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Qc Holdings Pac (508004) Provide Funding For Candidates Nov 05, 2013 $200.00 $200.00 9401 Indian Creek Pkwy, Suite 1500 Overland Park, KS 66210 Trinity Industries Employee PAC (TRN) Support Political Candidates With Nov 05, 2013 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Inc (297334) Platforms Or Voting Records 2525 Stemmons Freeway Supporting Manufacturing, Tax, Dallas, TX 75207 Environmental Or Other Related Issues. Advance America Cash Advance To Support State Candidates And Nov 05, 0013 $1,800.00 $250.00 Centers Inc Political Action Committee Committees (506028) 135 North Church Street Spartanburg, SC 29306 REFUNDS Name, EC number and Principal Interest or principal Date refunded Refunded Reason for Campaign-to-date ONLY: address of contributor business activity amount refund Total contributions over $50 in the aggregate (itemized above) during reporting period $29,500.00 11. 1111:1-1 511115.511 '1151 :11. :111- 1 51 .111111. 11111:: 1:111: 51 1.11111. 1111 155111 E. 111-151:5- 1 5 E11111EET 1:11:11: 5.151.- .1111 5 551111. 11115115111511 11151111111511: 551111.1111 4'5' [1'1 Ln. :1155511.511.51.11.15.55: 5:11:11: 553:1; 5:11:11- :11. .1151: 551111. 1.1111111: 11511 11111115111511: 551111.1111 1515 1111111115 111 511115.111 1:13.111. 1:11:1- :11. 115111.51 1: 5151-1115111: 551111 11115111111151: 11111115111511: 551111.1111 11111: 5- E11-11. 1.1111505: 1.1.11 .11-11:: 111.11 .11-:11: 111.1LE 51.111 11111.113'1'111 5.151.- :11. .1115 551111.1111 11: 1111 :1 IDEEPH 1:51.55: ?11:11. :15. 11:11: 55.111111 11115111115511 11151111111511: 55 ?111111 1111 .111111 51511111155151 5:111. 11:111-111. 1 1 51.1511: 51' 111.111.11.311. 51.151- :15. 1:11: 5: 511111111: ::511 1111151111511: 551111.1111 1. ID 12:5er:11: Lam: 5 31111111555311 5115.15.95 [111151.115 .111. E55 1.1.11 11.1.1111: 51 1151-5111151: 551111. 11111111511511 11111111111511: 5511111. 1111 1.1111: 51555115511: 111.11. 1 5? 51:11- :11. :111-1 55111111111151.1511 1115511111511: 551111.1111 55111 1115:1111: 13111::er 1 31515111553313?? .1111. 5151- .111. 2:11: 51111111111111.1551: 11151111111511: 511111. 1111 4111-: 11115151115 LARSEN LLP 5 51151- 111. 11:11: 511.1111 :15 11'. 1111115511 .1115. .1151. :1 111 .1-1.1.1.551.115.11.5111111 1 11111EE11T 1111. 111.15.111.51 .5. 1:11:11- :11. :111-1 5: .1111111111'11'15151: 11111115111511: 111111. 1111 15:15:55: 5111' 55115111111 ACLTEE ?1?1'511h1'n151112. DI: 3131:5131: E. 111' 55:5: 11111 .1-1. 5.151.- :11. .1111 51511111151115.1555 11151111111511: 515111111 1111111115115:- 1111511115 E1511. 111' 51.1E1E11 5.151.- :15. 11:11: 5: 511. 111151111- 55111 11151111111511: 5:511. 1111 1? 1.11 [111115115 51511151151111: 1. 5.1.115: .11-15E1: 551111 11115111 1151511 11111151111511: 551111.115 111155 111'. 5111.1: 5T. -1.TE 1:1 5.- 1155111:- 11111151311111?: 5111.11.51 5. 1.1.1111 11.1.1111: 511151- 511. 11515 551111 111-11111 1:11: 11111111111111: 5511111. 1111 151' 51151-51 11.1. 511:1 1511113111111 1 53.11111 57 ?1115150533" 1. 1:111:11 E1E-11LEE '11.:11- 111 :111- 1 551111. 111111111. 1115511111511: 551111.1111 1'1? l1?: Eva-11511511 11.11:. 5.31CE1LIE 5 5:115:55? 1.11: 111.11.11.51EL1. 511111EE5511E 15E 1.11.111 '11::11- 15. :.1'11 5 511111. 11111.11 111.155 11151111111511: 511111.1111 .1-1111 5. 11111115111 1 .1115 5.155.555.5551}: [1.1.1.1 11:1 E1. 511115131111: 3:11:11- 15. .1151: 551111111111: 1:111 1111151111511: 551111.1111 551.111 :11. 1:11.15 5111111111151 E11511: 1 - 1 51.1151. 1:11.555. :11. 51 .51111. 111151: 1:111: 11111115111511: 5: .111111. 1111 11. 1:1. E151. 1111 551.1155 . "11155355411551? 15.151- 15. .1115 51511111111 111115 1111;111:511: .11-115. 1-11.111 1 5.1.11. 55.1.5155 5151155115: 51151.- 115, :1511 5: 511111151111511111111111151: 5:511. 1111 15:11 1:151:55 51115111111111 51.511.511.155 TH11111115 111111LEE '1151- :15. 1:11: 511111.115 1511: 1:551:15:- 1151- 51111151115 1111;111:5111 RDEERTE. '1151 111, 51515 51111111115111.1151: 11111111111151: 511111.1111 15111 115111.55 11:11.1- 15111511111511: 1 515111-155- 1.1111: 1 11:11: Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 1 Nos. 12-9526, 12-9527 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. SCOTT PRUITT, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Oklahoma, OKLAHOMA INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS, OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, SIERRA CLUB, Intervenor-Respondent. Petition for Review of a Final Rule of the United States Environmental Protection Agency PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE PENDING FILING OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT AND TO CLARIFY STATUS OF STAY OF FINAL RULE PENDING ISSUANCE OF MANDATE E. Scott Pruitt, OBA #15828 Attorney General of Oklahoma Patrick R. Wyrick, OBA #21874 Solicitor General P. Clayton Eubanks, OBA #16648 Deputy Solicitor General 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: (405) 521-3921 Facsimile: (405) 522-0669 Service Email: fc.docket@oag.ok.gov scott.pruitt@oag.ok.gov Patrick.wyrick@oag.ok.gov clayton.eubanks@oag.ok.gov ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER STATE OF OKLAHOMA Brian J. Murray Charles T. Wehland JONES DAY 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 782-3939 Facsimile: (312) 782-8585 Email: bjmurray@jonesday.com ctwehland@jonesday.com Michael L. Rice JONES DAY 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 239-3640 Facsimile: (832) 239-3600 Email: mlrice@jonesday.com ATTORNEYS FOR OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Michael Graves Thomas P. Schroedter Hall Estill, Attorneys at Law 320 South Boston Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74103-3706 Telephone: (918) 594-0443 Facsimile: (918) 594-0505 Email Address: mgraves@hallestill.com tschroedter@hallestill.com ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER OKLAHOMA INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 2 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 3 PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE PENDING FILING OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT AND TO CLARIFY STATUS OF STAY OF FINAL RULE PENDING ISSUANCE OF MANDATE Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2), Petitioners State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers (“OIEC”), and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (“OG&E”) hereby respectfully move this Court (i) to stay issuance of its mandate in these cases pending the filing by Petitioners of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court and (ii) irrespective of whether the mandate is stayed, to clarify that the Court’s stay of the Final Rule remains in place until the issuance of the Court’s mandate. For the reasons set forth below, the petition for certiorari will present substantial questions of great public importance. Particularly in light of the costs to be incurred in the absence of a further stay, there is good cause for this Court to stay its mandate at this time. Pursuant to Local Rule 27.3(C), Petitioners have notified opposing counsel of their intent to file this motion, and counsel for both Respondent and Intervenor have stated that they oppose both forms of relief sought in this motion. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (the “Act” or “CAA”), Congress created a visibility-based program with the goal of the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of 3 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 4 visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1). The program requires qualifying sources to install or implement the best available retrofit technology (“BART”), as determined by the States. Each State with qualifying sources was required to balance five factors, including cost-effectiveness measured either as dollars per ton of pollutants removed or dollars per deciview of visibility improvement for each technically feasible control. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The Act further required EPA to issue rules for States to use in determining BART, and EPA’s guidelines for determining cost-effectiveness were made mandatory for sources the size of those at issue here. § 7491(a)(4), (b)(2)(A). EPA’s final regulations applicable to regional haze were issued after Court review and modification, 70 Fed. Reg. 39,104 (July 6, 2005), codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, subpt. P (“Regional Haze Regulations” or “RHR”). As required by the RHR, Oklahoma submitted its BART determinations for the OG&E units at issue here to EPA on February 17, 2010 (“Oklahoma SIP”). After balancing the statutory factors, Oklahoma determined that an annual average emission rate of 0.55 lb/mmBtu consistent with the continued use of low sulfur coal constituted BART for sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) emissions from four qualifying electric generating units operated by OG&E. On December 28, 2011, EPA published a final rule with respect to the Oklahoma SIP, disapproving the State’s 4 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 5 SO2 BART determinations for the four OG&E units and for two units at another facility in the State based on EPA’s own balancing of the five statutory factors. See Partial Approval of Oklahoma SIP and Promulgation of FIP, 76 Fed. Reg. 81,728 (Dec. 28, 2011) (“Final Rule”). EPA simultaneously finalized a Federal Implementation Plan or “FIP” that imposed a 30-day average SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu for each of the four OG&E units. Id. at 81,729-30. The limit imposed by EPA in the Final Rule would require the installation of a scrubber at each affected OG&E unit within five years. Id.. Petitioners filed requests for reconsideration with EPA in February 2012, but no action has been taken on those requests. On February 24, 2012, Oklahoma, OIEC, and OG&E filed petitions for review, challenging EPA’s partial disapproval of the Oklahoma SIP and simultaneous promulgation of the FIP as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements for notice and an opportunity to comment. Petitioners also filed a motion to stay the Final Rule pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 18, and this Court granted the stay on June 22, 2012. On July 19, 2013, a divided panel of this Court upheld the Final Rule, concluding that EPA had not overstepped the authority granted to it by Congress and, while a close call, had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting the State’s cost-effectiveness analysis. Petitioners filed Petitions for Rehearing or 5 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 6 Rehearing En Banc on September 3, 2013. Petitioners State of Oklahoma and OIEC argued that the Court had applied the wrong standard of review to EPA’s action and, as a result, had given EPA too much – and the State too little – deference in making the BART determination, contrary to the distribution of authority established by Congress in the CAA for regional haze. Petitioner OG&E argued in its Petition that, in addition to failing to give the State’s implementation of the regional haze provisions appropriate deference, the Court misread the record, which lead it to conclude incorrectly either that EPA had not acted arbitrarily in its analysis or that Petitioners had not preserved certain issues for review. The Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc were denied on October 31, 2013. ARGUMENT I – STAY OF THE MANDATE This Court may stay issuance of a mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court when “the certiorari petition would present a substantial question and … there is good cause for a stay.” Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(A). Those prerequisites are plainly satisfied here, as discussed below. I. Petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari Will Raise Substantial Questions for Supreme Court Review. Petitioners’ petition for certiorari will present substantial federalism and jurisprudential questions on matters of great public importance, making a grant of 6 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 7 certiorari reasonably likely. The prospect of a grant of review is heightened by the fact that the panel’s analysis and holding in this case regarding the deference due to EPA in the context of the unique CAA provision granting exclusive authority to States to determine BART are, at the very least, in considerable tension with the opinions of the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (“Chevron”) and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) (“Alaska DEC”), and the decision of the D.C. Circuit in American Corn Growers Association v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“Corn Growers”). Chevron mandates that a court must first determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” 467 U.S. at 842. The court does not reach the second step of deference to reasonable agency interpretation unless the statute is silent or ambiguous. Id. at 843. With respect to regional haze, Congress made it plain that BART is “as determined by the State” after balancing the five statutory factors. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(2); accord Corn Growers, 291 F.3d at 8. The D.C. Circuit relied solely on Chevron Step I when it found that Congress afforded the States “broad authority over BART determinations.” Id. In Alaska DEC, EPA disapproved Alaska’s best available control technology (“BACT”) determination under a regime that gives EPA even more authority than 7 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 8 in the BART determination. 540 U.S. at 477-78. With respect to the BACT scheme, the Supreme Court held that the state identifies BACT consistent with the CAA’s terms and that EPA then reviews whether the BACT determination is reasonably moored to the CAA and faithful to the statute’s definition of BACT. Id. at 484. The Supreme Court further found that EPA had an oversight role limited to a determination of whether the state’s BACT determination “is not based on a reasoned analysis.” Id. at 490. EPA itself even recognized that it must accord appropriate deference to a state’s BACT determination and that it may not “second guess” a state’s decision. Id. EPA’s authority to reject a state’s BACT determination arises “[o]nly when a state agency’s BACT determination is not based on a reasoned analysis” and is “arbitrary.” Id. at 490-91. Thus, in reviewing EPA’s purely supervisory role, the Supreme Court held that “the production and persuasion burdens remain with EPA and the underlying question a reviewing court resolves remains the same: Whether the state agency’s BACT determination was reasonable, in light of the statutory guides and the state administrative record.” Id. at 494. Plainly EPA did not give even this level of deference to the State of Oklahoma in the review of the Oklahoma SIP. And rather than require EPA to demonstrate that the State’s determination was unreasonable, the Court of Appeals looked at whether EPA’s after-the-fact, second guessing of Oklahoma’s analysis 8 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 9 was itself reasonable. Indeed, Judge Kelly’s dissent emphasized that in a case in which the State is granted the authority to make—and does make—a first, reasonable, detailed technical conclusion, EPA’s actions deserve no deference. “[EPA] has no authority to condition approval of a SIP based simply on a preference for a particular control measure.” Slip. Op. at 54. Further, Judge Kelly noted that “[m]any of the same reasons for rejecting the SIP were used to justify the FIP[,]” although both measures were taken in the same rulemaking action. Slip Op. at 52. Consequently, Judge Kelly would have found EPA’s actions arbitrary and capricious and would not have deferred to EPA’s substituted technical judgments and experts. Slip Op. at 52-53. The approach taken by EPA and countenanced by the Court is contrary to the unprecedented State-Federal partnership roles established by Congress for regional haze. The important federalism principles underlying the division of authority for making BART determinations – as previously recognized by Corn Growers – provides substantial incentive for the Supreme Court to take this case and consider the issue. This is particularly true here where the framework for a program designed to run for decades is at its inception. In sum, a petition for certiorari will present substantial questions that warrant Supreme Court review. 9 Appellate Case: 12-9527 II. Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 10 Good Cause Exists to Stay This Court’s Mandate Given the strong possibility that Petitioners’ petition for certiorari will be granted by the Supreme Court, no purpose would be served by proceeding at this time on the mandate of this Court’s July 19, 2013 decision. As noted above, in June 2012, this Court granted a stay of the Final Rule upon Petitioners’ motion under Fed. R. App. 18, pending appellate review. The effect of that stay was to delay the five-year compliance period established by the Final Rule. In the Motion to Stay, Petitioners’ provided evidence that – in real dollars – the installation of the four scrubbers will cost OG&E as much as $1.2 billion. Petitioners also demonstrated that, in order to install scrubbers on the four OG&E units while also maintaining the ability to meet customer demand for electricity, OG&E would be required to begin spending more than $200 million in the first two years of the project. Particularly because the regional haze provisions are aesthetic-based and not health-based, a further delay to permit Petitioners to seek certiorari is plainly warranted in this case. Accordingly, there is good cause to stay issuance of the mandate as authorized by Rule 41(d)(2), to be extended, pursuant to that rule, upon the timely filing of the petition. 10 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 11 Conclusion – Stay of the Mandate For the foregoing reasons, the Court should stay issuance of its mandate pending the filing of Petitioners’ petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. ARGUMENT II – STATUS OF STAY OF FINAL RULE In the Court’s July 19 decision upholding EPA’s action, the Court indicated that the stay “is hereby lifted.” In correspondence from EPA dated August 27, 2013 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1), and received by OG&E on August 30, 2013 (the Friday before Labor Day and before Petitions for Rehearing were due to be filed on Tuesday, September 3), Respondent took the position that the Court’s July 19 decision was sufficient to end immediately the stay and start OG&E’s compliance clock. In discussions subsequent to the filing of the Petitions for Rehearing, Respondent has cited no legal authority for its position, but has pointed only to a purported conversation with an unidentified person in the Clerk’s office – a conversation to which none of the Petitioners were parties. (See Exhibit 2.)1 Despite Respondent’s assertion, however, it is fundamental that it is the mandate by which the Court of Appeals acts, and until the mandate issues, the 1 Exhibit 2 contains the correspondence between Respondent and OG&E subsequent to Respondent’s August 27 letter. It consists of a September 6, 2013 letter from OG&E to Respondent; a September 30, 2013 email from counsel for OG&E to counsel for Respondent; an October 17, 2013 email from counsel for Respondent to counsel for OG&E; an October 30, 2013 letter from Respondent to OG&E; and an October 31, 2013 email from counsel for Respondent to counsel for OG&E. As noted above, the August 27, 2013 letter from Respondent (Exhibit 1) was the only communication received by OG&E on this issue prior to the filing of the Petitions for Rehearing, and even that was received only one business day before the filings. 11 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 12 Court’s decision, including the lifting of the stay, is not final, and the Court retains jurisdiction to take further action. See Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that jurisdiction returns to district court only upon issuance of mandate). For example, in Costello v.Wainwright, the district court had entered an injunction, and a panel of the Court of Appeals granted a motion for stay pending appeal. 539 F.2d 547, 548-49 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 430 U.S. 325 (1977). The panel hearing the merits vacated the stay as part of its opinion affirming the district court’s ruling, id. at 549 n.4, just as the Panel did here. After rehearing was granted, however, the en banc Court described the status of the stay as follows: The panel which first heard this appeal on the merits vacated the stay. The mandate has never been issued since rehearing was granted. F.R.A.P. 41. The stay entered July 25, 1975, therefore remains in effect pending disposition of the appeal by the en banc court. Id.; see also United States v. McVeigh, 157 F.3d 809, 815 (10th Cir. 1998) (where district court order removing restrictions on federal prosecutors’ cooperation with state officials was stayed pending appeal and the district court’s decision was ultimately affirmed, Court concluded that the stay “will dissolve on the date the mandate issues in this appeal”); South Dakota v. Ubbelohde, 337 F.3d 1022. 1023 (8th Cir. 2003) (denying emergency motion to continue stay of injunction pending 12 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 13 appeal because “[t]here is no need for it. The stay of injunction remains in effect until the mandate of this Court issues, which has not yet occurred.”). The question of whether the lifting of the stay was effective in July when the Court’s decision was announced or whether it is effective when the Court’s mandate issues is of great significance to OG&E. As noted above, the installation of scrubbers on each of the four OG&E units will require significant capital investment and coordination to both engage in the construction projects and continue to supply OG&E’s customers with electricity. If Respondent were correct that the Court’s July opinion immediately lifted the stay, then OG&E would have had to commence its compliance efforts even while this Court considered the Petitions for Rehearing and even if the Court grants Petitioners’ motion to stay the mandate. Such a result makes no practical sense and is contrary to the legal significance attached to the issuance of the mandate. OG&E has attempted to resolve this issue with Respondent since first receiving notice on August 30 of EPA’s position on the effect of the Court’s opinion, including providing Respondent with some of the case authority referenced above. (See Exhibits 1 and 2.) A ruling at this time that the lifting of the stay of the Final Rule was effective in July would mean the loss of nearly four months with respect to OG&E’s time to comply with the Final Rule and would increase the complexity in meeting that compliance deadline on the four affected 13 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 14 units. To avoid later disputes on this issue, Petitioners respectfully ask the Court to clarify that the stay of the Final Rule remains in effect until the mandate issues. Conclusion – Status of Stay of Final Rule For the foregoing reasons, the Court should confirm that, irrespective of the Court’s decision with respect to a stay of the mandate, the June 2012 stay of the Final Rule remains in effect until this Court’s mandate issues. Dated: November 6, 2013. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Brian J. Murray Brian J. Murray (IL SBN 6272767) Charles T. Wehland (IL SBN 6215582) JONES DAY 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 782-3939 Facsimile: (312) 782-8585 Email: bjmurray@jonesday.com ctwehland@jonesday.com Michael L. Rice (TX SBN 16832465) JONES DAY 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 239-3640 Facsimile: (832) 239-3600 Email: mlrice@jonesday.com ATTORNEYS FOR OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 14 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 15 /s/ E. Scott Pruitt E. SCOTT PRUITT, OBA #15828 Oklahoma Attorney General Patrick Wyrick, OBA #21874 Solicitor General of Oklahoma P. Clayton Eubanks, OBA #16648 Deputy Solicitor General Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 521-3921 (405) 522-0669 Fax Email: fc.docket@oag.ok.gov scott.pruitt@oag.ok.gov tom.bates@oag.ok.gov patrick.Wyrick@oag.ok.gov clayton.eubanks@oag.ok.gov ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER STATE OF OKLAHOMA, EX REL., E. SCOTT PRUITT /s/ Michael Graves Michael Graves, OBA #3539 Thomas P. Schroedter, OBA #7988 Hall Estill, Attorneys at Law 320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74103-3706 Telephone: (918) 594-0443 Facsimile: (918) 594-0505 mgraves@hallestill.com tschroedter@hallestill.com ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER OKLAHOMA INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS 15 Appellate Case: 12-9527 Document: 01019153450 Date Filed: 11/06/2013 Page: 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 6th day of November, 2013, a copy of the Petitioners’ Motion to Stay the Mandate Pending Filing of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court and to Clarify Status of Stay of Final Rule Pending Issuance of Mandate was served electronically on all parties to this matter via the Court's CM/ECF system. /s/ Brian J. Murray Brian J. Murray CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION AND PRIVACY REDACTIONS The undersigned certifies that: (1) All required privacy redactions have been made; (2) This digital submission was scanned for viruses with McAfee VirusScan Enterprise v8.8.0, which was last updated on November 5, 2013. According to this program, this submission is free of viruses. /s/ Brian J. Murray Brian J. Murray 16 Non; Emma?. 301nm Zo,5?ÿ@.9ÿAB?ÿAC*Dÿ.2ÿ**E*BÿF@ 8 96ÿ&3 0 ÿ1-2,3,4,5,67892:+,-4;<+= G.-]:8/2<8?ÿS4Q4ÿF-ÿJ.62ÿ]:2,ÿh,ÿZ,K:,3,ÿ2].2ÿ2]:-ÿK:-2ÿN:KKÿ;<82:8R,ÿ2<ÿ/6]:2,ÿhÿ?@A4Bÿ CDC1EEF1GHCHÿI 00 Jÿ HKL1GCD1GMEGÿI6 7 Jÿ NOPQPRPSPTUVWOXYPNRZ[Yÿ O]XOOPTRZ[Y^_OPQP`SPTÿ ÿ / 2 ÿ02 6ÿ ÿ7 AC: E5 POWER I I. Who Will lead Trump?s December 2. 2015 KEY TAKEAWAY Once named. we look forward to working with the nest Admin to improye the quaiity of life of all Americans As President-elect Trump's cabinet begins to take shape. attention has turned to who will replace current EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to lead the agency come January. The nest EPA administrator will have a tremendous opportunity to reyitatiae our energy infrastructure by incorporating our abundance of natural resources, so that the burden of increasingly costly electricity bills can be lifted from the shoulders of American families. A number of names haye been rumored to be in the running. but four contenders seem to be receiying more attention than the rest. They are: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is likely a familiar name to readers of this blog. and for good reason. He is one of the leading yoices in legal efforts challenging President Obama?s costly Power Plan. Additionally. during his tenure. he has worked tirelessly to counter EPA's legislatiye oyerreach. mentar re?g?btatcry agency in the world after the US. EPA. She too has been a ?erce and yocal critic of EPA's aggressiye power grabs. calling on Congress to pass the ?Stopping the EPA Dyerreach Act? as a means of restraining ?an imperial She is a defender of the use of coal for power. stating in a recent Nationai Review gm that it has ?long been the mainstay of reliable generation." Jeff Holmstead is a partner at the Bracewell law firm. where he heads up the Environmental Strategies Group. Formerly, he sewed as Assistant Administrator of EPA's Air and Radiation of?ce under President George W. Bush. Holmstead. one ofthe nation?s leading climate change lawyers. represented in the legal challenge to the Power Plan. Mike Catanzaro. a lobbyist for CGCN. aiso worked at EPA under President George W. Bush. serying as associate deputy administrator for the agency. He has also scored as associate director for policy for the White House Council on Enyironmental Quality. as an aide on the Senate Enyironment and Public Works Committee. and was former House Speaker John Boehner's energy policy adyiser. These four candidates haye a deep understanding of the energy and enyironmental challenges our country faces today. and perhaps. eyen more importantly. they all appear to recognize EPA's role as an non?intrusiye enforcement agency con?ned by taw. Rolling back some of the unconstitutional mandates that haye been forced on the industry by the preyious administration will haye far-reaching positiye effects on American families and the economy. Regardless of who is named. we look forward to working with the nest EPA Administrator whoeyer he or she may be to improye the duality of life of all Americans. HOME ABOUT WHY THE LLS. NEEDS A COAL FLEET POLICY NEWSROOM Statement on the Con?rmation of Scott Pruitt as EPA dmi is a- By Bloods-?rth - EDD February1?.201? D12. - F-?ollowing Senate con?rmation of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity issued the following statement: "We are pleased the Senate has con?rmed Mr. Pruitt to be the next EPA Administrator. He will make an exceptional head of EPA. Under his leadership, we expect EPA to return to sensible policies that both protect the environment and recognize the need for reliable and affordable coalsbased electricity. PaulBaHey President and GED American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity E. Ameri -- sPow- elm-?i Almost ?illicit; of a re ?eet operand Ie years a is ret ing. i I I ill: lg. Ii oal Fl -t Res omo clone? ll'm CE alley ring oring -r -lsh 'itn so - oft dustn'a :ene lift it? as: -WEnt#ean thanl? part kill: mentdunng .. comma Paul cons this week largest 5' users in Konkus, John Required Ericksen, Doug Required Davis, Patrick Required Benjamin-Sirmons, Denise Required Brennan, Thomas Required Etzel, Ruth Required Hope, Brian Required Hull, George Required K~nny, Shannon Required Klin& David Required Lawrence, Tanya Required Richardson, RobinH Required Zarba, Christopher Required Benton, Donald Required Greaves, Holly Required Sugiyama, George Required Schwab, Justin Required Munoz, Charles Required Kreutzer, David Required Rogers, JoanB Optional Friday, February 24, 2017 Time 12:00 AM -12:30 AM Subject Show Time As Busy Time 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM Subject Chief of Staff Meeting Location Aim Room Show Time As Busy 86 6 Time 3:30 PM - 4:00 PM Subject Mike Ingram Show Time As Busy Tim e 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM Subject 4:00 Meeting with Governor of Guam Location Admin istrator's Office Show Time As Busy POC: Margaret.metcalfe@guam.gov Attend ees Name Attendance Organizer • Richardson, RoblnH Required Bangerter, Layne Optional Time 5:00 PM - 5:30 PM Subject Becky Keough (ARK DEQ) and Julie Chapman (Sr. Asst.Dir e<:tor and Chief of Law and Policy) Locat ion Administrator's Office Show Time As Busy And Julie Chapman, Sr. AsSt Director, chief of Law and Policy ... Time Subject Location Show Tim e As • Time 7:00 PM -7:30 PM Ad'. Subject Show Tim e As Busy Satu rd ay, February 25, 2017 Time 12:30 PM -1:00 PM Subject depart for Gaylord National Resort Show Tim e As Busy • Time 1:05 PM -1:15 PM Subject Arrive CPAC Location Gaylord National Resort - 201 Waterfront St. National Harbor: Speaker Check-in Chesapeake Room J Show Tim e As Busy 91 Do you have any news on which time slot Scott would prefer for the Coal and Investment forum referenced in item 2 below? The organizers are trying to work around Scott’s preference but are also looking to book other speakers around him. Thank you for your help. Joe From: Hale, Michelle [mailto:hale.michelle@epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 4:29 PM To: Joseph Craft Subject: RE: Scheduled speaking engagements CAUTION: This is an email from an external sender. Use caution whenclicking on links, opening attachments or responding. Manythanks!! What is your mailing address? I havea little note to send you. From: Joseph Craft m] Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 5:17 PM Subject: Scheduled speaking engagements Michelle, The requested dates are: 1) In Washington DC, April 27, 2017 to speak to our Board and Sr. Management— informal discussion. Which can be anytime that day convenient to Scott. We could do lunch or dinner or take 45 minutes to an hour in conversation that afternoon. Alternatively he could speak at dinner on the 26", 2) The next event is to speak—prepared remarks and Q&A to the Coal and Investment Forum in Abingdon Va. Sunday evening dinner June 4, 2017 or anytime the next morning June 5, 2017. Wehave speaking slots for breakfast or lunch or anytime in between. Let me know if you have any other questions. Joe 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00006991-00002 To: Hale, Michelle[hale.michelle@epa.gov]; Joseph Craft[ From: Hupp, Sydney Sent: Thur 3/16/2017 9:11:16 PM Subject: RE: Scheduled speaking engagements ] Event Request Form.docx Hi Joe- Good to hear from you! I agree with Michelle on the preference! Would you mind filling out the attached documentso that we can gather some more details on the event? Thank you! Sydney From: Hale, Michelle Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:52 PM To: Joseph Craft > Ce: Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Scheduled speaking engagements Goodto hear from you. I think his preference would be the morning of June 5 but not the breakfast slot — something at 9:30 or 10:00 a.m. IT am copying Sydney Hupp whois taking on the scheduling duties now. Syd, this 1s something that SP has indicated he would really like to do. Thank you, Joe! From: Joseph Craft [mailto: ] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:25 PM To: Hale, Michelle Subject: RE: Scheduled speaking engagements Michelle, 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00006991-00001 Event Request Form for Administrator E. Scott Pruitt U.S. Environmental Protection Agency To request the Administrator to attend and/or speak at your event, please complete and submit the following form. Group: The Olde Farm Name of Event: Coal & Investment Leadership Forum Date of Event: June 4-6 (Speaking June 5 at 9:45 am) Type of Event (banquet, lecture, panel discussion, etc.): Lecture/Panel Discussion Role of the Administrator: Speaker Approximate time will the Administrator's Remarks Begin (example 9:00 am): 9:45 am Expected length of the Administrator's remarks: 1 hour Will there be Q&A? If so, for how long and who from? Ex: press, attendees: Yes, approx. 15 minutes - from the forum attendees. No press will be present al any time during the event. Event begins (example 9:00 am): 7:00 am Event ends (example 9:00 am): 8:30 pm Event address (please include room name or number if applicable): 16639 Old Jonesboro Road, Bristol, VA 24202 ~ The Party Barn Will there be a hold room for the Administrator? (please include room name and/or number): Yes — Cottage (Room name’) Please list the name and title of the individual who will introduce the Administrator: Joe Craft ill Approximate size of the audience. Please also include a brief description of the makeup of 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00005034-00001 the audience (attorneys, business owners, veterans, students etc.): Approx. 75 ~ CEO's, Presidents, Vice Presidents, CFO's, Chairman, Managing Directors, Financial Advisors, Executives - Coal and Investment Industries Please indicate your request for the topic of the Administrator's remarks, if applicable: TBD Please list any special guests, elected officials, or other dignitaries who are invited or are expected to attend: Tucker Carison Please list any other speakersat this event: Tucker Carlson, Chris Horner, [additional speakers pending] Is this event open to the media?: No Please list a point of contact for the day of the event, including a cell phone number and e- mail address for the contact: Marc Eubanks, Club Manager: (423) 534-0167, meubanks@theoldefarm.com If applicable, please list the name(s) and contact information of the person(s) who will greet the Administrator upon arrival, including a cell phone number and e-mail address for each contact: Mare Eubanks, Club Manager: (423) 534-0167, meubanks@theoldefarm.com Please list any special information or directions, such as ongoing construction, specific points of entry, or parking instructions, about the event or location: Please list below any other relevant information such as agendas, background information or other relevant information about the event. (Information may also be attached and submitted with this form.) Please include a contact number for the event location: (276) 669-1042 Please indicate whether this event is held weekly, monthly or annually: Annually Please indicate the attire for this event (business, formal, casual, etc.): Business Casual Please list any agencies, businesses, schools or universities, or other organizations that may be sponsoring or co-sponsoring this event: 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00005034-00002 There are no sponsors. This event is totally private and funded by conference fees. The nosts iisted below are honorary in nature as they are the top representatives of the industry. EVENT HOSTS Jimmy Brock: CEO - CNX Coal Resource, LP; Chris Cline: Owner - The Cline Group Joe Craft ill: President & CEO ~ Alliance Resource Partners Kevin Crutchfield: CEO ~ Contura Energy John Eaves: Chairman & CEO — Arch Coal, Inc. Jim McGliothlin: Chairman & CEO ~ The United Company Bob Murray: Chairman, President & CEO — Murray Energy Corporation Please provide the security contact if contracted or head of security for event location: Mare Eubanks, Club Manager: (423) 534-0167, meubanks@theoldefarm.com 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00005034-00003 To: Phelleps, Moya ; Hupp, Millan Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit Thank you Moya! It will be wonderful to see the Crafts. So, good news-- we were able to get the flight we wanted. We will land at Ft. Myer at 12:35PM and the security detail will be there ready to transport him, which puts us back to the original request of doing things in the early afternoon. Being much more familiar than we are, does that arrival time help in the planning process, I hope? My apologies for it taking a while to work out on our end. Thank you! Sydney Hupp Office of the Administrator- Scheduling 202.816.1659 From: Phelleps, Moya [mailto:MPhcllcps@nma.org] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:32 PM To: Hupp, Millan ; Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit Millan: Apologies for not getting the list of attendees to you sooner. It is as of today March 31. We are expecting approx. 100 people. NMA"s Chairman is Kevin Crutchfield, CEO, Contura Energy NMA's Vice Chairman is Phillips Baker, Jr., President and CEO Hecla Mining As information Joe and Kelly Craft, Alliance Resource Partners , will be at the 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00000684-00014 meeting. Please let me know if you need additional details. Moya Moya Phelleps Senior Vice President, Mernber Services National fv1ir:ing Association 1Oi Consti1ution Ave. NW. Sui1e 500 East Washington. D.C. 2000i Phone (202 J 463-2000 Direc1 (202) 463 2639 mphelleps@nma.org From: Phelleps, Moya Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:28 PM To: 'Hupp, Millan' ; Hupp, Sydney Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit Millan: We can certainly get you the two and even three rooms in our block for Sunday night. Do you want to make the reservations or are you o.k with us making the reservations and letting the hotel know that payment information will be provided at check-in. The meeting with the Executive Committee is very flexible and we can make it work for your schedule. Regarding the remarks to the Board, before lunch is fine but is there any possibility to make it 11 :30 or Noon. It is not unusual for us to have a speaker address the board, leave immediately after and then we serve lunch. Do you have a few minutes to get on the phone? It may be easier just to talk it through. I am 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00000684-00015 To: From: Sent: Subject: Hupp, Millan[hupp.millan@epa.gov] Phelleps, Moya Mon 4/17/2017 3:38:38 PM RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit I hope this is the last one for the day ... we are planning to give Administrator Pruitt a hand painted hard hat with his name. Our legal counsel said it would o.k. based on the gift rules but I want to be sure based on your note in an earlier email today. Moya Phelleps Senior Vice Presid,,mt, Member Services National Mining Association 10i Constitution Ave. f\JW, Sui1e 500 East Washington. D.C. 20001 Phone (202 J 463-2000 Direc1 (202) 463 2639 mphelleps@nma.org From: Hupp, Millan [mailto:hupp.millan@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11:32 AM To: Phelleps, Moya Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit Yes, of course. That is no problem. From: Phelleps, Moya [mailto:MPhc1leps@nma.org] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11 :31 AM To: Hupp, Millan Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit Sorry ... are you o.k. if we put the sign outside of the room? 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00000684-00001 Senior Vice President, Mernber Services ational fv1ir:ing Association 101 Consti1ution Ave. NW. Sui1e 500 East Washington. D.C. 20001 Phone (202 J 463-2000 Direc1 (202) 463 2639 mphelleps@nma.org From: Hupp, Millan [mailto:hu .millan c a.uov] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11 :25 AM To: Phelleps, Moya Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit Not at all. He just cannot accept any gifts, awards, or designations. From: Phelleps, Moya [mailto:MPhc1lcps@nma.org] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11 :24 AM To: Hupp, Millan <11!!.Qp.millan~ cpa.gov> Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit Importance: High Millan: Do you have a problem if we do a sign that will be in the room where we are having lunch that will welcome Administrator Pruitt and acknowledges the luncheon sponsor? Moya Moya Phelleps Senior Vice President. Member Services National Mining As,;ociation 101 Consti1ution Ave. NW. Sui1e 500 East Washing1on. D.C. 20001 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00000684-00002 Phone (202) 463 2600 Direc1 (202) 463 2639 mphelleps@nma.org From: Hupp, Millan [mailto:hu .millan c a.uov] Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: Phelleps, Moya Subject: Re: Administrator Pruitt Visit Perfect. Thank you, Moya. Millan Hupp 202.380.7561 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 16, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Phelleps, Moya wrote: Millan: Kevin Crutchfield, CEO of Contura Energy and NMA's Chairman will introduce Administrator Pruitt. The attached list that I sent earlier is NMA's Executive Committee. Everyone should be at the meeting but Mr. Goldberg and Mr. McMullen who will call into the meeting. Regarding the meeting on Sunday, April 23 at Noon for the walk-thru, we should meet in the lobby. The following individuals will be participating from the hotel: Taylor Svoboda 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00000684-00003 Meetings and Special Events Manager The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples Matthew Murphy Loss Prevention Supervisor The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples I will be at the meeting as well. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need anything. Thank you. Moya From: Hupp, Millan L~=~~=~~~~~J Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 10:37 AM To: Phelleps, Moya Subject: Re: Administrator Pruitt Visit Moya, Do you happen to know yet who will be introducing the Administrator? Also, the list of board members your sent me, if that the list of folks that will be in the Executive meeting? 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00000684-00004 Thanks so much, Millan From: Phelleps, Moya Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 4:08:46 PM To: Hupp, Millan Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit Millan: The lunch will be in Tiberon #3 and the meeting with the Executive Committee will be in Anhinga. Our office will be available should you need a holding space. It is Sabal Palm. A map of the meeting room space is attached. A list of NMA's Executive Committee is attached. If you need additional information on the companies, please let me know. We are confirmed for a walk through on Sunday, April 23 at Noon. I will let you know where we will meet. Best regards, Moya Moya Phelleps Senior Vice Prei~ic!ent, Member Services National Mining Jl,:,sociation 101 Constitution Ave. I\JW. Sui1e 500 East Washington. D.C. 20001 Phone (202 J 463-2000 Direc1 (202) 463 2639 mphelleps@nma.org 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00000684-00005 From: Hupp, Millan [mailto:hu .millan c a.uov] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 10:40 AM To: Phelleps, Moya Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit So sorry - just a couple more questions. Could you please remind me of the name of the room where he will be speaking? Also, will you have a hold available should we need it? Thank you so much. Millan From: Phelleps, Moya [mailto:MPhe11cps@ nma.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 10:35 AM To: Hupp, Millan Subject: RE: Administrator Pruitt Visit Millan: Good morning. Thank you for the information below. Thanks for providing the information regarding Lincoln Ferguson and JP Freire. Derek Burke Office: 239-254-3396 We will be meeting this afternoon and I will let you know who will be introducing Administrator Pruitt. I will send you a list of the Executive Committee members by the end of the day. 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00000684-00006 attendance will cover a meal that is provided to all attendees, It does not cover side events, receptions, and other meals (like a speaker's dinner) that are not open to all attendees. Financia l Disclosure Implications Because this is n~t a gift, there are no financial disclosure reporting obligations. ;,,, Time (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) Subject AA Flight 1557: OKC- DFW Show Time As Busy Record Locator: 11111111 ,U"f'lttlrtl AA Record Locator· "' Time (b) (5) OPP Subject Show Time As "" Time (b) (5) OPP Subject Show Time As Satu rday, April 22, 2017 .-.. Time All Day Subject Earth Day Location (b) (5) OPP Show Time As Free Time Subject Show Time As ,. Time (b) (6). (b) (7)( C ) Subject AA Flight 2426: DFW - TUL Show Time As Busy Status: Confirmed - American Airlines Record Locator: 11111 Monday, April 24, 2017 .,. Time 7:00 AM - 7:25 AM Subject Cheryl to Open Administrator's Office for Cleaning Recurrence Occurs every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday effective 4/3/2017 until 5/31/2017 from 7:00 AM to 7:25 AM Show Time As Busy "' Time (b ) (6), (b ) (7 )(C) Subject Delta Flight 2837: TUL-ATL Show Time As Busy 272 Time 1:30 PM - 2:30 PM Subject Speaking Engagement: National Mining Association Spring Boar d of Directors Meeting Location Ritz Carlton Golf Resort; 2600 nburon Drive, Naples, FL 34109 Show Time As Busy From: Keit h, Jennie Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:33 PM To : Hupp, Sydney Cc: Hupp, Millan Subject: Fw: National Mining Association- For Approval Hi Sydney, There are no ethics concerns with respect to this event. It may be 278 - -,-·· ~·-· -.··~ -----~ i important to know t hat the organization extending the offer is a lobbying organization. The White House Ethics Pledge prohibits acceptance of gifts from lobbyists, but as there is no gift offered, the Ethics Pledge is not implicatec;L This information is provided solely for your consitleration, See the following for more complete details. . Best, Jennie for OGC/Ethics White House Ethics Pledge The White House Ethics Pledge does not allow political appointees to accept gifts from registered lobbyists. The persons extending the invitation are registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations, therefore if the official speaks, he must be careful about the organization offering him a tangible gift to take home w ith him. Accept ance of Free Attendance (including meals} Because the official has been invited to speak and present informat ion on behalf of the agency, pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.204(g}(1), acceptance of free attendance an,d any meals provided on the day of the event is not considered a gift. The.official's participation In the event is viewed as a customary and necessary part of his performance of the event and does not involve a gift to him or to the agency. While free attendance will cover a meal that is provided to all attendees, it does not cover side events, receptions, and other meals (like a speaker's dinner) that are not open to all attendees. Financial Disclosure Implications Because this is not a gift, there are no financial disclosure reporting obligations. Attend ees "" Name Attendance (b )(6) Pruitt Cal Acct •(b)(6) Pruitt Cal Acct Organizer Hupp, Millan Required Ferguson, Lincoln Required Kime, Robin Required Time 2:30 PM - 3:00 PM Subject Meeting with NMA Executive Committee Show Time As Busy Attendees: Staff: JP Freire, Lincoln Ferguson ~ Time 3:00 PM - 3:30 PM Subject Depart for Ft. Myers Airport Show Time As Busy '"' Time b 6,b 7C Subject @MM@tl: (b)(6) DC-Area Airpt, (b) (7)(C) Show Time As Busy 279 To: Hupp, Sydney[hupp.sydney@epa.gov] Cc: Deborah Lackey[Deborah.Lackey@arip.com]; Eb Davis[Eb.Davis@arlp.com]; Dan Barron[Dan.Barron@arlp.com]; Ferguson, Lincoin[ferguson.lincoln@epa.gov]; Hupp, Millanfhupp.millan@epa.gov} From: Joseph Craft Sent: Wed 4/19/2017 7:37:04 PM Subject: Re: Board Meeting Request I will see him at NMA meeting on Monday and wecan discuss. Sent from my iPhone powered by Coal! On Apr19, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Hupp, Sydney wrote: CAUTION: This is an email from an external sender. Use caution whenclicking on links, opening attachments or responding. Thank you! Those times work. What would you like for him to speak about? Thanks! Sydney Hupp Office of the Administrator- Scheduling 202.816.1659 From: Deborah Lackey [mailto:Deborah.Lackey@arlp.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 12:03 PM To: Hupp, Sydney Ce: Joseph Craft ; Eb Davis ; Dan Barron Subject: RE: Board Meeting Request Hi Sydney. The setting will be casual and off the record in a private dining room at Del Friscos Grille. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00000240-00001 Cocktails are planned for 6:30 followed by dinner at 7:00. The Administrator's remarks would follow dinner. Wehave someflexibility in the evening's schedule, so please let us know if these times will be acceptable to the Administrator. Best, Deborah Deborah Lackey Controller Alliance Resource Holdings 1717 South Boulder Avenue, Suite 400, Tulsa, OK 74119 @ 918.295.7665 6 918.295.7361 b< deborahlackey@ario.com From: Hupp, Sydney [mailto:hupp.sydney@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 10:07 AM To: Dan Barron Ce: Deborah Lackey Subject: RE: Board Meeting Request CAUTION: This is an email from an external sender. Use caution whenclicking on links, opening attachments or responding. Hi Dan, This is a go on our end! What time does he needto be at Del Frisco’s? Andis this a formal speaking setting? 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00000240-00002 Te: Kelly Creft?telI- Frem: Huee. Sydney Sent: Tue 4l25t2l??i? PM Subject: RE: Jee Ere? Get it. Thank yeui Sydney Huee Exeeutiye Seheduler Df?ee efthe Adminsitreter Driginel Message-nu Pram: sally Craft [mante? Sent: Tuesday. April 25, It 3:1? PM Te: Huep, Sydney ehueesydnEy?Qeeagey} Suejeet: dee Ereft Seed efterneen Sydney. The details fer Wednesday April 26th dinner. Trume Hetel SLT Prime in the GRANT Fteem Jee will he weitin fer Seett et eur designated entrenee- Please feel free te eemmunieete with Jee et I the time yeu heye giyen te melte this happen ferthe Allienee Fteseuree Partners Eteerd meeting- PIeese en emeil with shert eies en memeer et ARLP Seerd ef Direeters. Alse, unfertunetely I em net te attend the dinner with Seett end Ameesseder Meei?leuehten. the inyitetien end leek ferwerd te heying this dinner leter in summer- Please feel free te eut with any euestiens- Agein, thenit yeu. Kelly eras 859?221?01 SE eeil Sent by my eewered lPed Kelly Craft Sierre Club y. EPA ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT SPEAKER REQUEST FORM U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Deadline for Acceptance: Event Title: Alliance Resource Partners LP Board ofDirectors meeting Speech Date: Wednesday, April 2fr 2017 (dinner), or Thursday, April 27, 2017 (lunch, afternoon, or dinner) Is the Above Date Flexible: No Speech Time & Duration: 45 minutes to one hour Speaker Requested: Administrator Scott Pruitt Would You Consider a Surrogate: No Event Location: Wednesday 4/26/17 dinner: BLT Prime by David Burke Private Dining Room Trump International Hotel 1100 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20004 Thursday 4/27II 7 lunch or afternoon: Reserved Meeting Room Trump International Hotel 1100 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20004 Thursday 4/27II 7 dinner: Del Frisco's Grille Private Dining Room 1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20004 Open Press/Closed Press: Closed Is Event Webcast/Recorded/Transcribed: No Purpose of the Event: Quarterly Meeting with Directors & Senior Management (16 persons) Speech Topic: Requested Presentation Format: Informal Discussion, Q&A Dress Code: Business Casual Speech/Presentation Duration: 45 minutes to one hour Teleprompter Available: No Microphone/ Room Setup: Page 1 of 2 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00005941-00001 "z I: 53;: -C .. I -3 - val-1.- an; Ir- I I emf?? ADMINISTEATUR PRUITT SPEAKER REQUEST [Li-i. Emironmental Proteetion Agenele Event Sponsor: Joe [Tralii (TED. Alliance Farmera LP Relationship to the EPA: Honorahle Gueata Attending: Notahle Federal. State or Loeal Appointed or Eleetetl attieiale attending: Individual Introtlueing Administrator: or: (Trali Person to eontaet for purposes: Person to eantaet for media [tarpon-es: ?riein of Imitation: [lay at" E?eeat Point of [?ontaet: Joe Crali Seen rity Contaet: 15 the organiaation or host of the Heat a I'egiatered or has; a 52? Political Action Committee 1 Ir'lx'ilel there be a presentation of a ?gift" to the .?idminiatl'aml'? Hue. 1what in" the eurlene} value gift? Will a meal he prm'idetL if no what is.- the US currency 1 aloe? Please return this form eompleted to eoaagur and Sydney Hupp {huimjnlaew-a ewe-gm]. Page 3 of. 2 Sierra Glob EPA Ta: Huepi Millan[na .rnillan a a. as ac: From: El: Davis Sent: Tue 4f25l201? 9:332?9 PM Subject: Allianea Dinner ?end al'teinean. Mr. Jere Cral't asked that I send je??ll the attaehed list al'tlte Allianee attendees far the dinner with Administratar Pruitt teinerrew evening. Please let me knew ifyeu need anything further. Eb ?aw is I Eat. - Peraanal Privacy L. - - - .i Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. Board of Directors Meetings April 26 - 27, 2017 Attendee Information Chairman of the Board, President and CEO of ARLP and Director, Joseph W. Craft Ill President and CEO of AHGP Brian L. Cantrell Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Nick Carter Director - ARLP J.W. Craft IV Vice President - Strategic Marketing, Planning and Development Thomas M. Davidson Director-AHGP R. Eberley Davis Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Robert J. Druten Director -AHGP Cary P. Marshall Vice President - Corporate Finance and Treasurer John P. (Jack) Neafsey Chairman of the Board of ARLP John H. Robinson Jr. Director - ARLP Robert G. Sachse Executive Vice President - Marketing A. Wellford Tabor Managing Partner, Keeneland Capital, LLC Wilson M. (Mack) Torrence Director - AHGP and ARLP Timothy J. Whelan Senior Vice President - Sales and Marketing Thomas M. Wynne Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Office \\LEXFS1\vol2\LEGAL\RED\Agendas, Meetings and Schedules\2017\April 2017\Alliance Resource Partners Attendees.xlsx 4/2S/2017 Page 1 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00000432-00001 f . .J - Schwab, Justin Required Eric Vance (Vance.Eric@epa.gov) Required • Time 4:45 PM - 5:05 PM Subject Briefing re: Meet the Cabinet Event Location Administrator's Office Show Time As Busy Handling: Lincoln, Tate, Troy, Millan · Attendees Name Attendan(:e (b)(6) Pruitt Cal Acct · (b )(6) Pruitt Cal Acct Organizer Ferguson, Lincoln Required Hupp, Milian Required Bennett, Tate Required Lyons, Troy Required Ringel, Aaron Required Time 5:30 PM - 5:50 PM Subject Briefing re: Alliance Resource Partners LP Board of Directors Meeting Location Administr ator's Office Show Time As Busy *informal setting, bullet ta lking points are good most likely Attendees Name Attendance (b)(6) Pruitt Cal Acct •(b )(6) Pruitt Cal Acct Organizer Hupp, Milian Required Ferguson, Lincoln Required Time 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM Subject Dinner w ith Alliance Resource Partners LP Boarg of Directors Meeting Location Trump Hotel; BLT Prime; Grant Room Show Tim e As Busy Topic: similar NMA topics Location: Trump Hotel; BLT Prime; Grant Room Staffing: Attendees: Quarterly Meeting with Director s & Senior Managem ent (16 persons) POC: Joe Craft; (b) (6) NOTE: Joe will be waiting at the designated entrance -~------------·---------------------------------------------293 ·------------------·----------- From: Keith, Jennie Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 3:45 PM To: Hupp, Sydney > Cc: Hupp, Millan > Subject: RE: Board Meeting Request Hi Sydney, There are no ethics concerns with respect to this event. See the followi ng for more complete details. Best, Jennie for OGC/Ethics White House Ethics Pledge The White House Ethics Pledge does not allow political appointees to accept gifts from registered lobbyists. The persons extending the Invitation are not registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations, therefore the Ethics Pledge is not implicated. Acceptance of Free Attendance (including a meal) Because the official has been invited to speak and present information on behalf of the agency, pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.204{g)(1), acceptance of free attendance and any meals provided on the day of the event is not considered a gift. The official's participation in the event is viewed as a customary and necessary part of his performance of the event and does not involve a gift to him or to the agency. While free attendance will cover a meal that is provided to all attendees, it does not cover side events, receptions, and other meals (like a speaker's dinner) that are not open to all attendees. Financial Disclosure Implications Because this is not a gift, there are no financial disclosure reporting obligations. Attendees Name Attendance (b)(6) Prwtt Cal Acct •(b)(6) Pruitt Cal Acct Organizer Hupp, M illan Required Ferguson, Lincoln Required Thursday, April 27, 2017 _.,._ Time 7:00 AM - 7:25 AM Subject Cheryl to Open Admin istrator's Office for Cleaning Recurrence Occurs every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday effective 4/3/2017 until 5/31/2017 from 7:00 AM to 7:25 AM Show Time As Busy 294 May 15, 2017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Comments of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity in Response to EPA’s Request for Comments on “Evaluation of Existing Regulations” Pursuant to Executive Order 13777, 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793 (Apr. 13, 2017); Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 Submitted to Regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding EPA’s efforts to evaluate regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. 1 ACCCE is a national trade organization whose mission is to advocate on behalf of the coal fleet and coal-fired electricity. 2 To provide some context for our comments, the coal fleet is one of the nation’s principal sources of baseload electricity. Baseload electricity sources are the foundation of the electricity grid because they can be counted on 24/7. Thus, the coal fleet helps to ensure the electricity grid is both reliable and resilient. Unfortunately, EPA regulations have been a major factor in the retirement, so far, of 451 coal-fired electric generating units in 37 states that represent a total of more than 75,000 megawatts (MW) of electric generating capacity. 3 These EPA-caused retirements represent almost one quarter of the U.S. coal fleet. Basically, recent EPA regulations have become a threat to a reliable and resilient electricity grid. Our comments below offer recommendations on eight regulations: Clean Power Plan (CPP); carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new coal-fired power plants; effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs); coal combustion residuals (CCR) rule; New Source Review (NSR) program; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update Page 1 rule; the recent regulations to amend the regional haze program; and the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) SIP call. CLEAN POWER PLAN EPA should repeal the Clean Power Plan. There are three fundamental flaws with the CPP. 4 First, the CPP is unlawful because EPA is prohibited from regulating CO 2 emissions from coal-fired power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) since EPA already regulates coal-fired power plants under Section 112 of the Act. Second, EPA has exceeded its authority under Section 111(d) by setting CO 2 performance standards based on emissions reductions that are only achievable by measures undertaken outside the boundaries of power plants (“outside the fence”). Third, the CPP impermissibly infringes on states’ inherent sovereign authority to regulate electricity by requiring the generation of electricity to shift from coal-fired power plants to natural gas and renewable energy resources. In addition, the CPP is an expensive program that would impose annual compliance costs (according to EPA’s estimate) of up to $8.4 billion per year, while having a trivial effect on climate change. 5 For example, the CPP would reduce global average temperature increase by 0.01˚F and sea level rise by the thickness of two sheets of paper. 6 If EPA determines it is necessary to regulate CO 2 emissions from existing power plants under Section 111(d), the CPP should be replaced with guidelines that give states the authority to set reasonable CO 2 performance standards based on measures that are achievable “inside the fence” at each power plant. NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS EPA should repeal the NSPS. The CO 2 NSPS requires new coal-fired power plants to be equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. 7 This requirement has the effect of banning new coal-fired power plants because current CCS technology is not yet commercially available and adding CCS to new coal fired plants at this time would make them prohibitively expensive to build and operate. Page 2 In the past few years, new coal-fired plants have been built in the U.S. that are both highly efficient and clean. These new high -efficiency, lowemissions (HELE) power plants reduce major air pollutants by as much as 99% or more, and their efficiencies enable them to achieve CO 2 emission rates 20% lower than the existing coal fleet. 8 If EPA determines it is necessary to replace the NSPS, the agency should promulgate new NSPS based on HELE technology, not on CCS. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES EPA should revise the ELG rule. EPA’s ELG rule imposes stringent requirements on wastewater discharges from coal-fired power plants. 9 EPA has announced it is reconsidering the ELG rule in response to petitions for reconsideration filed by the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) and the Small Business Administration. In addition, EPA has administratively stayed the compliance deadlines of the ELG rule while the Agency completes its review of the ELG rule. 10 The ELG rule, if it remains in place, is projected to cost electric ity generators hundreds of millions to billions of dollars and, in combination with the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule, is already causing coalfired power plant retirements. For example, Santee Cooper in South Carolina estimates the cost of the two rules to exceed $700 million for just two coal-fired plants; and Northern Indiana Public Service Company projects the total cost for the ELG and CCR rules to be as much as $830 million and be a major driver in the retirement of four coal -fired electric generating units. 11 In contrast to its cost, the ELG rule would have minimal water quality benefits. According to EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of the ELG rule, its projected cost, $470 million to $480 million per year, exceeds its projected water quality benefits of $150 million to $180 million per year. And EPA projected human health benefits of only $11 million to $1 7 million per year. 12 Therefore, EPA should undertake a new ELG rulemaking that revises the zero discharge limit for bottom ash transport waters because, for example, it relies to a large extent on outdated data, and because bottom ash Page 3 transport waters pose minimal environmental risks. EPA should also revise the stringent and potentially unachievable treatment requirements for scrubber wastewater. 13 Finally, environmental groups have filed a lawsuit challenging EPA’s administrative stay of the ELG rule. ACCCE supports EPA in its defense of the stay and its efforts to proceed with reconsideration of the ELG rule in an expeditious manner. COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS EPA should revise the CCR rule. The CCR rule establishes new requirements for the location, design, structural integrity, and operation of ash ponds and landfills that receive CCR. 14 Many of these requirements are inflexible and prescriptive because at the time of promulgation of the CCR rule, federal statute did not provide EPA or the states with the authority to implement or enforce the requirements of the rule. 15 Last December, Congress enacted legislation to correct this problem by authorizing states to implement and enforce the requirements of the CCR rule through state permitting programs. 16 With the passage of this legislation, these inflexible and prescriptive CCR requirements are no longer needed or justified because there is now a regulatory authority that can oversee the implementation of the program and consequently avoid any potential abuses that could have resulted under a self-implementing program. For example, the existing CCR rule contains prescriptive provisions for the placement of groundwater monitors, even though their placement can best be determined by state authorities on a case-by-case basis. 17 Furthermore, the CCR rule contains other inflexible, overly prescriptive requirements that preclude the tailoring of the rule’s requirements based on site-specific conditions. One notable example is the inflexibility of the closure requirements of the final rule. For example, the failure to meet many of the rule’s requirements immediately triggers an obligation to close existing CCR disposal facilities, even though other corrective action measures may be available at considerably less cost for ensuring the Page 4 protection of human health and the environment based on site -specific circumstances at the particular disposal facility. 18 These inflexible requirements are precisely the type of requirements that justify replacement and modification under President Trump’s recent Executive Orders for regulatory reform. Accordingly, EPA should now initiate a new rulemaking which revises the substantive requirements of the CCR rule and removes those that are no longer necessary due to the fact that state agencies and EPA itself can implement the rule. A new CCR rule can address these and other inflexible CCR requirements to reduce costs and continue to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. Finally, EPA has already taken steps to improve the administration of CCR program through EPA-approved state permit programs, as authorized under the new legislation. This is reflected by a recent EPA announcement that it is working on guidance that is intended to facilitate prompt development and EPA approval of state programs to implement the CCR rule. 19 ACCCE commends EPA for developing this guidance and urges the Agency to expeditiously approve state CCR programs as they are submitted. NEW SOURCE REVIEW EPA should revise its NSR regulations. EPA’s NSR program has been the subject of litigation and controversy for decades. The Agency has taken the position that certain projects that improve the reliability, efficiency, and safety of power plants are “non routine,” cause (according to EPA’s calculations) emissions increases, and therefore subject the power plants to NSR. Because NSR typically requires lengthy permitting reviews and the installation of the most advanced (and costly) emissions control technology available, EPA’s NSR program has been a major deterrent to otherwise-beneficial projects at power plants that, in many cases, would have resulted in emissions decreases, increased electric reliability, and enhanced worker safety. 20 In addition, the NSR program has resulted in almost 20 years of costly and protracted litigation between the EPA and electric utilities. Unfortunately, Page 5 neither EPA nor the courts have able to resolve the basic question as to what is a “modification” that triggers NSR permit review. As a result, considerable uncertainty remains as to whether a particular power plant project to maintain or enhance efficiency or to enhance the plant’s reliability or safety is exempted from NSR review as a “routine” change. Nor do the NSR regulations establish a clear and straightforward emission s increase test for determining whether a non-routine change results in a significant net emissions increase that triggers NSR. To remedy these problems, EPA should revise its regulations to make it clear that reliability, efficiency, and safety improvement projects performed routinely within the electric power sector – as opposed to projects solely performed routinely at the specific power plant – are deemed to be “routine” and, therefore, are not subject to NSR review. In addition, EPA’s revised rules should establish a less complicated emissions increase test for determining whether non-routine projects trigger NSR. That emissions increase test should be based on maximum hourly emissions, the same test EPA uses in its NSPS regulations. In this way, a non-routine change would not cause an emissions increase that triggers NSR unless that change results in an increase in maximum achievable hourly emissions. CSAPR UPDATE EPA should revise the CSAPR Update rule. In 2016, EPA issued the CSPAR Update rule to help achieve attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 21 There are several major problems with this Update rule. For example, EPA made a policy decision that upwind states that are contributing very tiny amounts of pollution to downwind nonattainment areas (1% of the standard) in other states, based on emissions from all sources, must reduce emissions from power plants, which represent only a fraction of the emissions from all sources that contribute to the 1% threshold. This policy decision by EPA was not specifically addressed, let alone statutorily mandated, by the CAA. As a result, it is appropriate for EPA reevaluate this decision, particularly given that it is imposing very costly controls on coal-fired power plants for minimal air quality improvements. Page 6 These and other problems with the rule are detailed in pending industry petitions for reconsideration of the Update rule. 22 EPA should grant these pending petitions and initiate a new rulemaking that corrects the methodological problems identified in the petitions and should specifically reconsider the portions of the rule that resulted in ozone -season NO x budgets more stringent than those established for states under Phase 2 of the original CSAPR. REGIONAL HAZE EPA should revise its regional haze regulations and reconsider its regional haze FIPs. Shortly before President Trump’s inauguration, EPA finalized revisions to its regional haze regulations. 23 While these new regulations have one favorable provision – a 3-year extension of the deadline for states to submit SIPs for the second regional haze planning period – the regulations include provisions that exceed EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act. For example, states must now first establish a long-term strategy to reduce regional haze before adopting visibility-based goals for reasonable progress toward elimination of man-made visibility impairment. This cart-beforethe-horse approach, as well as other troubling aspects of the new regional haze regulations, must be corrected. 24 Therefore, EPA should grant the pending industry petitions for reconsideration and replace the unlawful aspects of its regional haze regulations, while maintaining the extended 2021 deadline for the second planning period. 25 The new replacement regulations should re-establish state primacy in developing regional haze plans and give states broad discretion in determining reasonable glide paths to reduce visibility impairment. In addition, the replacement regulations should establish a more objective and even-handed methodology for setting the emissions reduction levels that states must achieve to meet their reasonable progress goals during the second and subsequent planning periods of the regional haze program. In addition, the Obama Administration imposed FIPs on a number of states. EPA has already begun to reconsider several of those FIPs. ACCCE commends EPA for these actions, and urges EPA to review other Obama- Page 7 era FIPs to determine if reinstatement of state-developed SIPs is the correct approach in each of those cases. STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION EPA should revise its SSM policies. EPA has long recognized that emissions controls often do not operate at optimal removal efficiency during startup and shutdown conditions, and the Agency has also recognized that unavoidable malfunctions can occur despite best operational and maintenance practices. For that reason, EPA has historically recognized these issues in its federal emissions standards, for example under the NSPS and MACT programs, and has also approved SIPs that recognize these realities. However, over the past few years, EPA began rulemakings to remove these exclusions from the NSPS and MACT regulations. And in 2015, EPA issued a SIP call to 36 states requiring them to remove their previously EPA-approved SSM provisions. These EPA policy changes can unnecessarily increase operating costs and could increase the risk of further coal retirements, with little to no environmental or human health benefit. There are two steps that EPA can take immediately to minimize the regulatory burdens being imposed on coal-fired power plants with regard to SSM. First, EPA should repeal the SSM SIP call and reaffirm the authority of states to determine how to deal with SSM. Second, EPA should establish work practice standards that apply during SSM periods for the NSPS and MACT programs. In conclusion, we commend EPA for undertaking this review and ur ge the Agency to move quickly to change these regulations and policies. Sincerely, /s/ Paul Bailey President and Chief Executive Officer Page 8 See 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793 (April 13, 2017) (EPA notice requesting submission of comments on existing regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13777). 2 ACCCE’s members include electricity generators, coal producers, railroads, barge lines, and equipment suppliers. 3 ACCCE, Retirement of Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units as of February 25, 2017 . 4 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (Oct. 23, 2015). 5 EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule , August 2015. 6 ACCCE, Climate Effects of EPA’s Final Clean Power Plan, August 6, 2015; Lomborg, Bjorn, “Impact of Current Climate Proposals,” Global Policy (2015) doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295. 7 80 Fed. Reg. 64,510 (Oct. 23, 2015). 8 See, for example, EPA, “Documentation for EPA Base Case v.5.13 Using the Integrated Planning Model” (November 2013), Tables 5-5 and 3-12, showing SO 2 removal of 96%, NO x removal of 90%, mercury removal of 90%, and HCl removal of 99%. Particulate matter removal by electrostatic precipitators is well over 99%. (See Babcock and Wilcox, “Electrostatic Precipitator Delivers Maximum Efficiency,” http://www.babcock.com/library/Documents/ps -422.pdf (2015)). And, regarding CO 2 emission rates, see Cichanowicz, J. Edward and Michael C. Hein, Evaluation of CO 2 Emissions Rates from State-of-art Coal-fired Electric Generating Units (EGUs), February 26, 2014 (showing CO 2 emissions rates for supercritical coal units entering c ommercial operation since 2007 and burning bituminous and subbituminous coal of 1,700 - 1,900 lb./MWh). EIA, “Frequently Asked Questions,” “How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatt -hour when generating electricity with fossil fuels”? (Last updated February 29, 2016). https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 (showing 2014 average emissions rates for existing bituminous and subbituminous coal units of 2,070 lb ./MWh and 2,160 lb./MWh, respectively). 9 80 Fed. Reg. 67,838 (Nov. 3, 2015). The Steam Electric ELGs apply to all steam -electric power plants, including nuclear and oil and gas-fired power plants. Our discussion is limited to coal fired power plants. 10 82 Fed. Reg. 19,005 (Apr. 25, 2017). 11 NIPSCO, Northern Indiana Public Service Company 2016 Integrated Resource Plan , November 1, 2016, Appendix A, Exhibit 3 (page 405 of pdf). South Carolina Public Service Authority, $52,400,000 Santee Cooper: Revenue Obligations, 201 6 Tax-Exempt Refunding Series C, October 6, 2016, page 44. 12 EPA, Benefit and Cost Analysis for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category , September 2015. 13 See Utility Water Act Group Petition for Reconsideration of EPA’s “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Rule,” 80 Fed. Reg. 67,838 (Nov. 3, 2015), March 24, 2017. 14 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302 (April 17, 2015). 15 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 21,311-12 and 21,332-25. 16 This CCR legislation was included in section 2301 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act), which was enacted into law on December 19, 2016. 17 See 80 Fed. Reg. 21302, 21396-97 (April 17, 2015) (declining to adopt certain provisions for tailoring the groundwater and corrective action requirements) . 18 See 40 C.F.R. §257.101(a)(1) (imposing closure requirements for any violation of a groundwater protection standard). 19 See EPA press release, “EPA Promotes Cooperation with States to Facilitate Safe Disposal of Coal Ash,” May 1, 2017. 1 Page 9 For example, installation of state-of-the-art air emissions controls for a 500-MW coal unit would cost over half a billion dollars. See EPA, Documentation for Base Case v.5.13 Using the Integrated Planning Model: Emission Control Technologies, November 2013. The cost of retrofitting a scrubber on a 500 MW, 10,000 Btu/kWh heat rate coal -fired unit is reported to be $544/kW, while an SCR costs $266/kW, and a baghouse costs $202/kW. All three figures are in 2011$. We adjusted these costs to 2015$ using the Bureau of Economic Analysis Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator, yielding $580/kW for a scrubber, $280/kW for an SCR, and $213/kW for a baghouse. The total cost would be approximately $1,080/kW, or $540 million for a 500 MW unit. 21 81 Fed. Reg. 74,504 (Oct. 26, 2016). 22 See Petition for Reconsideration and Partial Stay of the Utility Air Regulatory Group, in the Matter of: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (81 Fed. Reg. 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016); EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OQR-2015-0500 (December 23, 2016) and Midwest Ozone Group, Petition for Administrative Reconsideration of Updated Cross State Air Pollution Rule (December 21, 2016). 23 82 Fed. Reg. 3078 (Jan. 10, 2017). 24 See, for example, Petitioner Utility Air Regulatory Group’s Nonbinding Statement of Issues, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 17-075, D.C. Circuit (Apr. 14, 2017). 25 See, for example, Petition of the Utility Air Regulatory Group to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency for Partial Administrative Reconsideration of the Final Rule: Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans: Final Rule. 82 Fed. Reg. 3078 (Jan. 10, 2017), March 13, 2017. 20 Page 10 EPA goiter: Statesr if m'rronraenia Protection Agency Iaws??esulatmns AlisstTiiPa. Search EPAgov - CONTACT us SHARE F1 {if} News Releases (J ?a News Releases from Headquarters 2- Water (0W) EPA Takes Action to Postpone Costly Steam Electric Power Plant Effluent Guidelines Rule 05,! 25,! 2t] 1? Contact Information: WASHINGTON LLB. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt today signed a proposed rule to postpone compliance dates for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for steam electric power plants (ELG Rule), which was published in November 2015. ?This proposed rule is one of nearly two dozen significant regulatory reform actions I have taken during my short time as EPA Administrator to protect the environment, jobs and affordable, reliable energy. Today's action, if finalized, will provide relief from the deadlines under the existing ELG Rule while we carefully consider the next steps for this regulation," said Administrator Pruitt. Specifically, EPA proposes to postpone the compliance dates for the more stringent best ayailable technology economically achievable requirements in the 2015 rule for each of the following wastestreams: fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfuriaation wastewater, flue gas mercury control wastewater, and gasi?cation wastewater. Last month EPA determined that two ad ministratiye petitions asking the agency to reconsider the 2015 ELG Rule raised issues sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the rule. EPA is requesting a 3?wday comment period that will begin upon publication in the Federal Register at: and searching for EPA is posting a pre?publication copy at: ruieadocuments To: Cc: From: Sent: Subject: Hupp, Sydney[hupp.sydney@epa.gov] Bennett, Tate[Bennett.Tate@epa.gov] Rashid G. Hallaway Mon 6/5/2017 3:20:58 PM ACCCE Board Meeting Request Hi Sydney, Hope you had a good weekend. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is having their midyear board meeting in Washington on Thursday, June 29th, and would love to have the Administrator attend for 30-45 minutes if his schedule permits. The meeting starts at 10am on the 29th, but we will accommodate the Administrator's schedule if he is available to give brief remarks. There will be several CEOs and senior executives in attendance from the coal, railroad and utility sectors. Bob Murray, who is the current Chairman of ACCCE, and Joe Craft of Alliance are scheduled to attend the meeting as are several senior executives from CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, Union Pacific, AEP, Southern Company, Peabody Energy, etc. The ACCCE board meeting would be a great opportunity for the Administrator to discuss his regulatory reform efforts. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. RH 17cv01906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B _ 00005850-00001 Administrator (b )(6) • Required Lyons, Troy Required Time 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM Subject Meeting w ith Gov. Reynolds Location Administrator's Office Show Time As Busy Topic: Staff: Tate, Troy Attending: Gov. Kim Reynolds, Stephanie Goen, Emily Schw ickerat h POC: Stephanie Goen 202.624.5479 Attendees Name Administrator (b )(6) • I < . . .. Attendance Organizer Bennett, Tate Required Lyons, Troy Required Thursday, June 29, 2017 Time 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM Subject Chief of Staff Meeting Location Alm Room Recurrence Occurs every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday effective 5/19/2017 unt il 7/31/2017 from 8 :00 AM to 9:00 AM Show Time As Busy Please note t he location starting 9 May 2017 POC: ALM Room Cheryl Woodward Attendees Name Attendance Administrator (b)(6) Organizer Kundinger, Kelly Required M unoz, Charles Required White, Elizabeth Required Bolen, Brittany Required Kelly, Albert Required Bowman, Liz Required Inge, Carolyn Optional Burke, Marcella Required 168 Location Adminstrator's Office Show Time As Busy Handling: Lincoln, Millan, Ryan, Byron Attendees Name Adm1rnstrator (b )(6) • Required Ryan Jackson (jackson.ryan@epa.gov) Required Byron Brown (brown.byron@epa.gov) Required Chmielewski, Kevin Required Hupp, M illan Required McMurray, Forrest Required Time 9:30 AM - 9:45 AM Subject Prep for ACCCE Speaking Event Location Administrator's Office Show Time As Busy Attendees Name Attendance Adm1rnstrator (b )(6) < • Organizer Ferguson, Lincoln Required Jackson, Ryan Required Gunasekara, Mandy Required Chmielewski, Kevin Required Hupp, M illan Required McMurray, Forrest Required Time 9:45 AM - 10:00 AM Subject Depart for ACCCE Board Meeting Show Time As Busy Categories Blue Category Time 10:00 AM -11 :00 AM Subject Speak at American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Board Meeting (ACCCE) Location DCI Group, 1828 L Street NW Suite 400 171 Atta chments EPA Administrator Pruitt Speaker Request Form (002) copy.docx Board agenda - Final.docx.pdf Show Time As Busy POC: Rashid Hallaway rhallaway@ hhqventures.com 202.486.0521 NOTE: Having Rashid send an updated request since speaking t ime has been changed Attendees Name Attendance Administrator (b )(6) Organizer < Ferguson, Lincoln Required Hupp, M illan Required Chmielewski, Kevin Required McMurray, Forrest Required Jackson, Ryan Required Gunn, Ashley L. EOP/WHO Required • • • > Time 11:00 AM -11 :15 AM Subject Depart for Office Show Time As Busy Categories Blue Category • Time 11:00 AM -12 :00 PM Subject HOLD: Stop in at OCSPP Locat ion OCSPP Show Time As Free Sydney, Is the Administrator available to come over to OCSPP fo r about 15 min on June 29th, ideally between 11-12 to say a few words to staff regarding our TSCA progress and one year implementation? Hopefully all our rules will be out June 22 and t here is a staff event on t he 29th. If he could stop by that would be ideal. Ryan was supportive of the idea and I could prepare some talking points. It wou ld go a long way to lifting moral and to help me keep everyone motivated over the summer to cont inue doing t he work. Thanks! Nancy Attendees Name Administrator (b )(6) Time 11:30 AM -11 :40 AM Subject Call with Cong. Don Young 172 Attendance Organizer Required To: Heath Lovell[Heath.Lovell@arlp.com] Cc: Jackson, Ryan[jackson.ryan@epa.gov] From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Sat 7/15/2017 6:35:14 PM Subject: Re: Utility Point of Contact Thanks Heath! Sent from my iPad On Jul 14, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Heath Lovell wrote: Samantha, It was a pleasure meeting you at the ACCCE Board Meeting. As we discussed, I have passed your email along to Big Rivers (Coleman closure due to MATS) and Kentucky Secretary of Energy Charles Snavely (sulfur permit issue related to Century Aluminum adding a pot line). If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. Thanks, Heath 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00003261-00001 To; Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy From: pix. com Sent: Fri 7/28/2017 6:45:16 PM text MIKE Thank you Scott. She was voted out of committee Yesterday and hopefully goes before tuii Senate next week. We will be in DC next week and have been cleared to have the "long awaited" dinner with you and Ambassador McNaughton if your schedule permits. We are open Mon thru Wednesday next week. Aiso understand you maybe in my hometown of Hazard around noon on August 29 with Majority Leader McConneii -- My Company has a stakeholders meeting for our suppliers and customers the evening of the 29th in Henderson Ky and would be honored for you to come and speak to that group. If avaiiable I can provide transportation to make the logistics work for you. Let me know if the dinner or visit to Henderson are doable. How at! is well!! 5'31 I [1 ital-1.; -. - - 1 1t9&_st Envworrseo?aanIscaor 1213' . . ?gt? 1,1 g" 12*. 333-37135; I .vf'hrHI- {Rush}; ?345 75;! -.. 35.43 $15373? Lela? ?itlu Lat-past - hea PASHARE I'hnl .3 News Releases News Releases from Headquarters 2? Water (0W) EPA Finalizes Rule to Postpone Steam Electric Power Plant Effluent Guidelines Rule Contact Information: WASHINGTON The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a rule postponing certain compliance dates by two years for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for steam electric power plants Rule) that were issued in November 2315. "Today's final rule resets the clock for certain portions of the agency's effluent guidelines for power plants, providing relief from the existing regulatory deadlines while the agency revisits some of the rule's requirements," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. lhe final rule postpones the compliance dates for the best available technology economically achievable ef?uent limitations and pretreatment standards for two wastestreams at existing sources, bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfuriration wastewater, for a period of two years. Last month, the Administrator announced that he would reconsider BAT effluent limitations and PSES in the HHS rule that apply to bottom ash transport water and PEG wastewater. As part of this upcoming rulemaking, EPA will provide an opportunity for public comment on any proposed revisions to the l?l? final rule. At this time, EPA does not intend to conduct a rulemaking that would potentially revise BAT effluent limitations and PSES in the 2015 rute for fly ash transport water, flue gas mercury control wastewater, and gasification wastewater, or any of the other requirements in the 2D15 rule. EPA is posting a pre?publication copy of today?s final rule at: idelines-E?lS?fin a E?ru leis-pen ding Subject Speaking Engagement: National Stone Sand and Gravel Association Legislative Policy Forum Location Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Ave NW, WDC Attachments EPA Administrator Pruitt Speaker Request Form.docx RE_ Ethics Approval_ National Stone Sand & Gravel Association Speaking Engagement.pdf Reminder 15 minutes Show Time As Busy Flexible on time between 5-6:30PM; Tentatively planned for 5:10PM remarks unless we move. Brief 10min remarks, Q&A on WOTUS and streamlining environmental permitting; 30min max needed but welcome to stay longer POC: Tate **Note that Secretary Zinke is speaking after the Administrator at 5:30 and Senator Rubio may tentatively be speaking. Attendees Name Attendance b(6) Administrator < b(6) Administrator Tate Bennett (Bennett.Tate@epa.gov) Subject Location Reminder Show Time As Organizer Required White House Grassroots Dinner WH Blue Room 15 minutes Busy 6:30 pm Photo opportunities with White House photographer available 6:45 p.m. Dinner begins 7:30 p.m. Dinner concludes and guests depart Tuesday, September 26, 2017 Time Subject Location Reminder Show Time As Attendees 7:15 AM – 8:00 AM Discussion Administrator's Office 15 minutes Busy Name b(6) Administrator Attendance < b(6) Administrator Organizer Hupp, Millan Required Greenwalt, Sarah Required Fotouhi, David Optional Sarah Greenwalt (greenwalt.sarah@epa.gov) Required Subject Keynote: AGC Leadership Conference 125 Location Attachments Reminder Show Time As Willard Hotel Ballroom, 1402 Pennsylvania Ave NW, WDC Administrator Pruitt Request Form 091317.pdf 15 minutes Busy POC: Tate/Daisy Attendees Name b(6) Administrator Attendance < b(6) Administrator Organizer Tate Bennett (Bennett.Tate@epa.gov) Required Gordon, Stephen Optional Subject Location Reminder Show Time As Cabinet Meeting WH Situation Room 15 minutes Busy Subject Location Reminder Show Time As Swearing-In Ceremony: Kelly Craft, Ambassador to Canada Indian Treaty Room, EEOB 15 minutes Busy Subject Location Reminder Show Time As Attendees Williams Board Speaking Engagement Trump Hotel, Patton Room 15 minutes Busy Name b(6) Administrator Attendance < b(6) Administrator Organizer McMurray, Forrest Required Hupp, Millan Required Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Time Subject Location Reminder Show Time As Attendees 10:00 AM – 10:15 AM Meeting: Trey Glenn Administrator's Office 15 minutes Busy Name b(6) Administrator Attendance < b(6) Administrator Subject Briefing: Dicamba 126 Organizer Viee President Penee Sweere in US te Cenede Kelly Knight Craft -. . I . TheWhiIeHeuee w: -. SUBSCRIBE1M Monday, October 9, 2017 Time All Day Subject Columbus Day Holiday Reminder 18 hours Show Time As Free ... Time All Day Subject Hold: Kentucky Reminder 18 hours Show Time As Free Attend ees Name Attendance b(6) Adm1rnstrator Organizer Tate Bennett (Bennett.Tate@epa.gov) ... Time 10:15 AM -11:00 AM Subject Coal Event at Whayne Supply Location Hazard, KY Reminder 15 minutes Show Time As Busy ... Tim e 11:00 AM -11:15 AM Subject FOX Interview Location Hazard, KY Reminder 15 minutes Show Time As Busy ... Tim e 11:30 AM -12:15 PM Subject Roundtable at LD Gorman's Office Location Hazard, KY Reminder 15 minutes Show Time As Busy ... Tim e 2:30 PM - 3:30 PM Subject Agricultu re Event at Mayhan Farm Location Georgetown, KY Reminder 15 minutes Show Time As Busy .._ Time (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) Subject Flight: LEX - ATL Location ~ Reminder 1S minutes Show Time As Busy .._ Time (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) Subject Flight: ATL - • Location ~ Reminder 1S minutes Show Time As Busy 39 Required America First Energy Conference November 9 20 17 Vice-President Public Affairs ALLIANCE RESOURCE A ALLIANCE - PARTNERS. L-P. HOLDINGS GP: L-P. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Hamilton Complex River View Complex Dotiki Complex Gibson South Complex Warrior Complex 6. 7. 8. Mount Vernon Transfer Terminal –2– MC Mining Complex Tunnel Ridge Complex Mettiki Complex Nation’s Coal Fleet    Coal generation capacity totaled 316 GW in 2011 54 GW was retired from 2012-2016 An additional 54 GW is planned for retirement   24 GW scheduled between 2017-2020* 30 GW scheduled after 2020  Average capacity factor 53% (68% in 2010)  Average age 41 years  Opportunity: attributes, especially on-site fuel, important for reliability and resilience Source: ACCCE – Retirement of US Coal-Fired Generating Units, 10/24/17 Nation’s Coal Fleet Source: Energy Ventures Analysis, Outlook for US Coal Power Fleet Presentation, 10/3/17 Used with Permission “Circle of Life”          EPA Regulations -> Higher Cost of Electricity -> Decreased Competitiveness of American Manufacturing -> Loss of Manufacturing Jobs -> Decreased Electrical Load -> Loss of Tax Revenue at the State and Local Level -> Utilities Spend Capital to Generate an Increase in Income -> Increased Costs are Passed on to Ratepayers -> Result is Higher Cost of Electricity (and the circle continues) – 13 – Trump Wins! 16 A ALLIANC - PARINI HS. I.P. - LP, Anew hope! Trump pulls U.S out of Paris Climate Agreement -. "x 17_ ?3 ALLIANCE ?1 ALLIANCE PARTNEREI. LP. HOLDINGS GP. LP. America First! Executive Order to Create Energy Independence 18 RESCIURCE A1. ALLIANCE PARTNERB. LP. HOLDINGS GP. LP. Energy Week 00. raft 19 A1ALLIANCE RESOURCE .1 l.P. (JP. LP. Pruitt announces CPP Repeal in Hazard, KY AIARD KT if Wu Walker 0111' mindful-Elm 0F PRESIDENT CLEAN POWER PLAN EPA DIRECTOR ANNDUNCES A REPEAL NEWS ALERT 20 A1 ALLIANCE ALLIANCE ?3 I .P. ?1 (1P. LP. Regulatory Relief Actions Taken to Date  Legislative actions through Congressional Review Act    Executive Orders    Promoting Energy Independence & Economic Growth  Directs EPA to rescind and rewrite Clean Power Plan (CPP) CWA WOTUS Rule Administrative Stays & Extensions         Voided “Stream Protection Rule” (2/26) Voided “Resource Management Planning (2.0) Rule” (3/27) EPA Financial Assurance MSHA Metal/Nonmetal Workplace Examinations DOI Coal Royalty Valuation EPA Power Plant ELGs MSHA Pattern of Violations EPA Ozone NAAQS DOI SPR Biological Opinion Presidential and Secretarial Memos    – 21 – Review of Electric Grid Ordered by DOE Streamline Permitting Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals Regulatory Relief Underway Resolved • • • • • • • • Stream Protection Rule BLM Planning 2.0 Sage Grouse Withdrawal DOI Mitigation Requirements Coal Leasing Moratorium Leasing Act Royalty Valuation SMCRA FWS Biological Opinion Multi Development Bank Policy – 22 – • • • • • • Social Cost of Carbon Guidance NEPA GHG Guidance Definition of Solid Waste OSM Temporary Cessation of Operations OSM Bonding OSM Blasting • • • • • • • • CERCLA Financial Assurance Permit Streamlining Clean Power Plan Power Plant ELGs New Source Review Waters of the US Clean Water Act Vetoes DOE Grid Rule • • • • • • • Regional Haze Ozone NAAQS NSPS New Poer Plants MSHA POV Rule MSHA MNM Workplace Examinations MSHA Right-Sizing Coal Combustion Waste EXECUTIVE BRANCH EPA CONFIRMATIONS NOMINATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 7 positions ?26? CONFIRMED Administrator Scott Pruitt Dttrilily i'iriilrriw Whirultrl General counsel Matthew E. Leopold Assistant administrator for wate" David Ross Willir-Jrrl I Weh'lirri Assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention Mic nael Doursvon Assistant administrator for enforcemert ar-tl compliance assurance Sosa 1 Bod '1e ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6 positions lChief?nanc al of?oer .?issista rt administrator for administration and resooroos management .?issista rt administrator for environmental information .?issista rt administrator for international a nd tr' oal affairs Assist a rt :1 dministratnr for resea ?eh I: deueln pment Source: Washington Post, mp- administration-appointee- track erfd ata basei. Assists rt adminiStrator for solid waste and emergency response 4? ALL IA NILE RESIZZIU RCE A. LLI ANCE .1 LP. ?nuance GP. LP. From: Sent: Subject: Ford, Hayley Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:10 AM FW: Ethics Approval: UK/Louisville Basketball Game     Hayley Ford Deputy White House Liaison and Personal Aide to the Administrator  Environmental Protection Agency  ford.hayley@epa.gov  Phone: 202‐564‐2022  Cell: 202‐306‐1296    From: Keith, Jennie   Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 2:20 PM  To: Ford, Hayley   Cc: Hupp, Millan   Subject: RE: Ethics Approval: UK/Louisville Basketball Game    Hi there!    Please proceed!    I was able to talk with Justina today just to make sure of everything. And everything as we discussed and outlined in your  email is correct.     Thanks!  Jennie for OGC/Ethics        From: Ford, Hayley   Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:40 PM  To: Keith, Jennie   Cc: Hupp, Millan   Subject: RE: Ethics Approval: UK/Louisville Basketball Game    Hi Jennie,    Can you please respond to the below so that we can proceed?  Thank you!     Hayley Ford Deputy White House Liaison and Personal Aide to the Administrator  Environmental Protection Agency  ford.hayley@epa.gov  Phone: 202‐564‐2022  Cell: 202‐306‐1296  1   From: Ford, Hayley   Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:31 AM  To: Keith, Jennie   Cc: Millan Hupp (hupp.millan@epa.gov)   Subject: Ethics Approval: UK/Louisville Basketball Game    Hi Jennie,    To memorialize our phone conversation, Administrator Pruitt is planning to attend the Louisville/UK men’s basketball  game on 12/29 in Lexington, KY.  He will be bringing his son with him.  The tickets are part of Joe Craft’s season ticket  package on the floor.  UK informed Joe that the face value of the tickets is $130 each.  The Administrator will write a  check to Joe paying for the tickets for him and his son.      Joe Craft is the President & CEO of Alliance Resource Partners.  His wife is the US Ambassador to Canada.      Please advise with your ethics guidance.      Thank you!      Hayley Ford Deputy White House Liaison and Personal Aide to the Administrator  Environmental Protection Agency  ford.hayley@epa.gov  Phone: 202‐564‐2022  Cell: 202‐306‐1296    2 Spagnuolo, Amy Brown, Nathan Wednesday, May 2, 2018 8:58 AM Spagnuolo, Amy FW: EPA Administrator Contact/Info From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Saylor, Alan Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 12:27 PM To: Pelarski, Cory ; Scott, Walter E Subject: Re: EPA Administrator Contact/Info - ---- ---- -- - . . I have made arrangements with the Chief for them to have theses passes and she will have them. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Notes. an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------From: "Pelarski, Cory" Date: 12/28/17 12:00 (GMT-05:00) To: "Scott, Walter E" Cc: "Saylor, Alan" Subject: EPA Administrator Contact/Info LT. Scott, The EPA Administrator is going to be attending the game tomorrow with his son (college age). They will have- KSP with them as an advanced party and -EPA Agents arriving with the Administrator and his son approximately 30-45 min prior to tip off. They will be sitting in front of the Euruption Zone near the UK player entrance at the high table. The Administrator will probably be visiting Mrs. and Mr. Kraft and going to the locker room. The governor will also be in attendance with his group. I have included the contact information for the EPA agent in charge below. He did ask if I would be greeting them and available and I told him unless something changes there will be no UKPD officer available to their team. Mr. Harold (Rupp Security) and SA Dass have included me in a group thread if anything changes. EPA Special Agent Paul L. Dass Cell: (202) 897-8206 Respectfully, Ofc. Pelarski Contact: 218-330-2977 1 Ambassador Kelly Craft {3 I Congrats te eh tL en the big win and Shai fer player at the game! HE Great to see 33? at? at the game. I) w. 1 ?i . "1h. ?ll-0 - b(5), DPP Thursday, December 28, 2017 Time Subject Location Show Time As 2:30 PM – 3:00 PM Radio Interview: Rush Limbaugh with Mark Stein (b) (6) Call-In Busy 51 Attendees Name Attendance b(6) Adm1rnstrator Organizer Hewitt, James Required Bowman, Liz Required Ferguson, Lincoln Required Hupp, M illan Required Monday, January 1, 2018 Time All Day Subject New Years Day Holiday Reminder 18 hours Show Time As Free Time Subject Location Show Time As Attendees 52 ffieial Reno lids Cites-to 30 l. attain. 331.3}..icii..u.g Lezxingto n, 1535" 3-0 ii 0 (3?0 0 3 3 - 8:59 May 23, 2018 8:9 5325?1 {3613. W. u. k. 6; cl. VIA EMAIL: steve.eder@nvtimes.com Mr. Steve Eder New York Times RE: Open Records Request Dear Mr. Eder: This letter is in reSponse to your Open Records Request received by this office on May 18, 2018. You requested the following information: ?Thanks again for your assistance with this request. I'm hoping you can clarify a couple points. In your response, you advised ?that the tickets for the section were Mr. Pruitt was seated are not sold on an individual game basis but rather held by university season ticket holders." is our understanding that these seats belong to Joe Kelly Craft, as I am sure you are aware. How much do each of these seats cost, for a season ticket? In addition, is there a minimum donation amount required to secure these seats and if so, can you tell me What that amount is?? RESPONSE: Pursuant to your most recent request, please be informed that the University?s Athletics Department has advised that the cost of a season ticket for section FL39 rows and is $1300 (per seat) for the 2017-18 season. If available as a single game ticket for the of game on 12/29/17, the cost would have been $135 per ticket; however, since these tickets were sold in the season ticket package, the cost for this game was $130 per seat. A minimum donation for a pair of seats in section FL39 rows and is for $11nillion, payable over a speci?ed tilne. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact the Open Records Of?ce. Requctfully, a ?8 ?r 522?s,g/larei we? . Bill Swinford pp, -- Of?cial Records O?stt 'a fl 5?23 in, Lrnneo Slates r353! ifmrri in? 1.35:: ritpency I H. .- . .23. . era?2?- r-ri -- Aida-Edsel? Search EPA-sew - comacrus SHARE {er} to") live. News Releases News Releases from Headquarters Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) EPA Proposes First of Two Rules to Amend Coal Ash Disposal Regulations, Saving Up To Per Year in Compliance Costs DEIDHZUIB Contact Information: EPA Press Office Today, the LLB. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the first of two rules that will amend the regulations for the disposal of coal combustion residuals, also known as CCR or coal ash, from electric utilities and independent power producers. EPA's Regulatory Impact Assessment shows this proposal, if finalized, will save the utility sector up to $100 million per year in compliance costs. ?Today's coal ash proposal embodies commitment to our state partners by providing them with the ability to incorporate flesibilities into their coal ash permit programs based on the needs of their states,? said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. ?We are also providing clarification and an opportunity for public comment - something that is much-needed following the public reaction to the 2015 coal ash rule.? EPA estimates this proposed rule would save the regulated community between $31 million and $100 million per year. Today?s proposed rule includes more than a dozen changes to the 2015 final rule, which established minimum national standards regulating the location, design, and operation of existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments at more than 400 coal-fired power plants nationwide. The final 2015 CCR rule remains subject to litigation pending before the U.5. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The proposal addresses four provisions of the 2015 CCR rule that the D.C. Circuit remanded back to EPA in 2015, as well as additional provisions in response to comments received since the final rule went into effect and a petition for rulemaking EPA received in May 201?. The proposal would allow alternative performance standards for coal ash disposal units with operating permits issued under an approved state or federal coal ash permit program. The proposai also requests comment on whether a regulated facility could develop and implement similar alternative standards that wouid be subject to oversight and enforcement by EPA. Many of the proposed changes are based on the environmental protections and regulatory fleaibilities contained in longstanding rules governing disposal of municipal solid waste. The proposal includes: I A change to allow a state regulatory program to establish alternative risk-based groundwater protection standards for constituents that do not have an established mazimu contaminant level rather than the use of background levels that are currently required. The proposal also requests public comment on whether a facility may be allowed to establish alternative risk-based standards using a certified professional engineer or other means, subject to EPA oversight. I A request for comment on whether the current deadlines for groundwater monitoring and analysis remain appropriate in light of the new legal authorities and potential regulatory changes. I A request for public comment on modifying the location restrictions and associated deadlines concerning construction or operation of a CCR landfill or surface im pou ndment in certain areas. I Changes to allow states to establish alternative requirements for how facilities respond to and remediate releases from CCR landfills and surface impoundments. The proposal also requests comment on allowing states to determine when an unlined surface impoundment that is leaking may undertake corrective action rather than be forced to stop receiving CCR and close. I The addition of boron to the list of constituents for which facilitites would need to perform assessment monitoring. I Streamlined administrative procedures that a facility may comply with ifthere is a non-groundwater release that can be addressed within 180 days. EPA also requests comment on whether this time period is appropriate. I Modification of the performance standard for vegetative slope protection to protect against erosion and failure of a surface impoundment. I A change to the closure provisions to allow the use of coal ash during the closure process and to allow non?CCR waste to continue to be placed in a CCR surface impoundment that is subject to closure. At that time the final CCR rule was issued in 2015, EPA did not have the authority to allow states to become authorized to administer their own CCR permit programs in lieu of the federal regulations or to provide alternative regulatory standards and compliance options. However, in 2016, Congress amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act with passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act Act], which provides authority for states to become authorized to operate CCR permit programs ?in lieu ofthe federal regulations,? as long as the EPA determines that the state?s requirements are at least as protective as the standards in the 2015 final rule or successor regulations. The WIIN Act also provides EPA new authority to provide oversight of CCR units. EPA will be accepting public comment on this proposal for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register and plans to hold a public hearing to receive additional feedback on the proposal during the public comment period. EPA also plans to propose additional changes to the CCR rule later this year. Additional information on this proposal and how to comment can be found at: 01ÿ34456578ÿ9 5 ÿ34ÿ ÿ 15 ÿ 7 ÿ 3 1 1 ÿ ÿ !"ÿ# $%& ' () *+ ÿ! ÿ', -$"*.* ' '!ÿ/-)0 1 *$ .'* ÿ2 "!ÿ!.ÿ3"4 " .' '*!.ÿ! ÿ-* 5& *'6ÿ7' .$ $ ÿ7,! + ÿ81-ÿ1!9 ÿ!. 1!"!'*.9ÿ:!" '*+ÿ2 .& +'&*.9ÿ .$ÿ;!< = '*!. -$"*.* ' '!ÿ1&*''ÿ' > ÿ *. ÿ +'*!.?ÿ.!ÿ+, .9 '!ÿ ' .$ $ ÿ !ÿ.*'!9 .ÿ$*!@*$ ABCDECEADF G31 76 ÿH143 7 531Iÿ JK L K7 3 M N-7#3 OP) ÿÿQÿR3 7STÿU 5 1 ÿV3178 ÿR W Kÿ 5 1 ÿ7ÿX 3 71 W ÿ43 ÿ0 515 7 3 ÿ34ÿ ÿY1 5 31 1 78ÿU 3 6 531ÿ0 16SÿJYU0MTÿ 5 6 51 ÿYU0 3ÿ 1 W ÿ 44565 1 ÿ71 ÿ63 Z 44 6 5 ÿ5 K8 1 7 531ÿ34ÿ75 ÿ[W785 Sÿ 71 7 W1 ÿ ÿ\7 53178ÿ0 5 1 ÿ05 ÿ]W785 Sÿ 71 7 ÿJ\00] Mÿ71 ÿ 53178ÿ 7^ K 3 7 ÿ34ÿ ÿG8 71ÿ05 ÿ06 _R 5 ÿ 3 71 W ÿ 8K ÿ 1 W ÿ 7 ÿYU0ÿ67 5 ÿ3W ÿ5 ÿ63 ÿ 5 531Tÿ9 58 W651 ÿ W87 3 Sÿ W 1 ÿ43 ÿ 3 56ÿ 71W476 W 51 T̀ÿ *$ÿ81-$"*.* ' '!ÿ7+!''ÿ1&*''aÿ_H1 17 53178ÿ71 ÿ 76b 3W1 ÿ 3W 6 ÿ34ÿ75 K388W 531ÿ7 ÿ6 5 5678ÿ5 W ÿ47651 ÿ 7 Tÿ83678Tÿ71 ÿ 5 78ÿ7 165 ÿ5 K8 1 51 17 53178ÿ 71 7 ÿR ÿU 5 1 c ÿ8 7 5Kÿ9588ÿ W5 ÿ3W ÿ0 16Sc ÿ631 51W 63 5 1 ÿ 3ÿK 3K ÿ5 K8 1 7 531ÿ34ÿ ÿG8 71ÿ05 ÿ06 ` R ÿ 3Tÿefghgijklÿmghnoijpÿqrkstrpisfjklÿrkuÿvgwÿxfnrijgkÿyyÿegzjpjnoÿrku efgpnusfnoÿ{nzrijklÿigÿ h}znhnkirijgkÿgtÿ~jfÿsrzji€ÿirkurfuoTÿ6788 ÿ43 ÿ 51 75 ÿ[W785 Sÿ 71 7 ÿ 7 ÿ31ÿ 71 K7 1 ÿ 65 16 ‚1ÿ0K 58ÿƒTÿ0 515 7 3 ÿ 63 ÿU W5 ÿ 33bÿ45178ÿ76 531ÿ 3ÿ 751Tÿ95 3W 5 531 Tÿ ÿ6W 1 ÿ 78 Z 7 ÿ 71 7 ÿ43 ÿ3„5 ÿ34ÿ15 3 1ÿJ\‚„M ÿR 5 65 531Tÿ5143 ÿ Sÿ ÿ 63 1 7 531ÿ34ÿ ÿ0 16Sc ÿ51 K 1 1 ÿ 65 16 7 5 3 ÿ71 ÿ631 5 1 ÿ95 ÿ63 1 ÿ4 3 ÿ 7 ÿ71 ÿb Sÿ 7b 38 Tÿb K ÿ31 Z 3W ÿ 71 7 ÿ7 ÿ7ÿ8 8ÿ34ÿDAAÿK7 ÿK ÿ 588531ÿ71 ÿ71ÿ711W78ÿ 71 7 ÿ34 …†ÿK7 ÿK ÿ 588531 ÿÿR ÿ 71 7 ÿ436W ÿ31ÿ15 3 1ÿ 53„5 ÿ 3ÿ7 ÿ\‚„ 012ÿ4567ÿ89 9 6ÿ 7ÿ 89458 ÿ 8 49 ÿ 7 9 89 ÿ 68 98 8 49 ÿ8 4 ÿ5 56 7 ÿ7 79 ÿ49 ÿ 89 ÿ 4 8 54 ÿ 4 ÿ6779 ÿÿ 86ÿ 8 49 ÿ 855ÿ ÿ 8 89 ÿ 96ÿ 7 ÿ ÿ 49 4 6 ÿ 5 49ÿ28 ÿ2 ÿ 8 6ÿ012ÿ 7ÿ6 ÿ!22" ÿ 7 ÿ 8 84ÿ 755 49 6# ÿ 8 89 5 ÿ!$%#ÿ 7 9 &5 5ÿ7 79 #ÿ 4 8 54 ÿ 4 ÿ'ÿ49 ÿ7 ÿ 755 49 6 ÿÿ!$% 8668796ÿ 4 ÿ 7 ÿ (ÿ 7 ÿ 49ÿ)*ÿ 9 ÿ689 ÿ+***ÿ49 ÿ 9 5(ÿ 4 ÿ97ÿ 798 7 6ÿ89ÿ ÿ ÿ 46 89 ÿ 755 879ÿ4 7 ÿ 76 ÿ6 49 4 6 012ÿ 46ÿ45 4 (ÿ 4 ÿ 9 7 6ÿ 7 66ÿ 7 4 ÿ1 68 9 ÿ ,6ÿ 8 879 7 ÿ 54 7 (ÿ 58 ÿ$ 4 4ÿ2 8986 4 879ÿ8 76 ÿ 7 ÿ 49ÿ)*ÿ. 45ÿ/ 5 9 4 879 15496ÿ0./161ÿ79ÿ6 4 6#ÿ4 7 ÿ2*ÿ 8 6ÿ ÿ9 ÿ7 ÿ./16ÿ (ÿ ÿ 87 6ÿ4 8986 4 8796ÿ 7 89 ÿ 9 ÿ2 8986 4 7 ÿ1 8 #ÿ012ÿ 46 9 ÿ49ÿ4 4 ÿ7 ÿ79 ÿ./1ÿ89 7ÿ4ÿ 4 ÿ/ 5 9 4 879ÿ1549ÿ0 /11ÿ ( 79 2 8986 4 7 ÿ1 8 ÿ89 8 ÿ4ÿ 4 357 ÿ7 ÿ 7 ÿ 49ÿ4**ÿ /16 ÿ 89 54 ÿ+*24#ÿ012ÿ 46ÿ 43 9ÿ 8945ÿ4 879ÿ79ÿ 7 ÿ 49ÿ6)*ÿ /16 012#ÿ89ÿ 576 ÿ 7554 7 4 879ÿ 8 ÿ6 4 6#ÿ 5496ÿ 7ÿ89 46 ÿ ÿ9 ÿ7 4 46ÿ 4 ÿ ÿ!22" ÿ (ÿ4 7%8 4 5(ÿ+*ÿ 9 ÿ2 9 (ÿ86ÿ 4389 ÿ4 879ÿ 7ÿ68 58 (ÿ ÿ! ÿ 7 ÿ7 8 ÿ 7 66 49 ÿ 46ÿ 7 8 ÿ 7ÿ #ÿ (ÿ)*ÿ 9 #ÿ ÿ9 ÿ7 ÿ 8 89 & 54 ÿ 868796ÿ 4 ÿ % ÿ68%ÿ 79 6ÿ (ÿ$ 7 ÿ+*28 9 85 ÿ 9 7 6ÿ 7 66ÿ 46ÿ 9ÿ 4 ÿ89ÿ 89 ÿ 8 84ÿ 755 49 6 49 ÿ 87945ÿ 4 #ÿ 4 3 7 9 ÿ49 ÿ89 94 87945ÿ48 ÿ 755 879ÿ 79 8 6 68 98 8 49 5(ÿ 7ÿ48 ÿ 458 (ÿ866 6ÿ 9 ÿ89 4689 5(ÿ6 89 9 ÿ6 49 4 6 012ÿ86ÿ 7 8 ÿ 7ÿ 4%8 8 ÿ 5 %8 858 (ÿ 7 ÿ ÿ 5 49ÿ28 ÿ2 ÿ 7756ÿ 7 54 7 (ÿ 58 #ÿ89 5 89 ÿ 7 ÿ ÿ % 5 6879ÿ7 ÿ 4 4ÿ 7 ÿ % 87945 9 6 ÿ49 ÿ 7 868796ÿ 7ÿ4 66ÿ 8754 8796ÿ 4 6 ÿ (ÿ89 94 87945ÿ' 89 5 89 ÿ979&!7 ÿ2 8 49ÿ'ÿ67 6 ÿ 89 ÿ+*2:#ÿ012ÿ 46ÿ 8 49 ÿ4 ÿ 79ÿ 7 ÿ 49ÿ+*ÿ % 87945ÿ 9 ÿ 796 4 8796#ÿ9 4 5(ÿ455 7 ÿ 8 ÿ 79 ÿ 8 ÿ6 4 ÿ 7 9 4 8796 /9ÿ;49 4 (ÿ+*2<#ÿ012ÿ4997 9 ÿ 868796ÿ 7ÿ 868 ÿ79 7 6ÿ49 58 4 8 ÿ 4 6ÿ7 ÿ ÿ$ 4 4,6ÿ2 8986 4 879,6ÿ7 87945ÿ=4 ÿ7 5 ÿ49 7ÿ 89458 ÿ4 8 87945ÿ 5 %8 858 8 6ÿ 7 ÿ6 4 ÿ 5496ÿ ÿ89ÿ+*+2 ÿ2 8 794ÿ> 4 9 ÿ7 ÿ09 8 79 9 45ÿ" 458 (ÿ 46ÿ 9ÿ4ÿ5 4 ÿ89 % 87945ÿ 9 ÿ 796 4 8796ÿ49 ÿ ÿ4 84 ÿ ÿ2 8986 4 879,6 7 8 9 ÿ 7ÿ 8 5(ÿ 8 ÿ7 ÿ ÿ64 ÿ29 #ÿ ÿ 75 4 5(ÿ6 7 ÿ 79 89 89 ÿ6 (ÿ7 ÿ 4 3 7 9 ÿ49 ÿ89 94 87945ÿ 496 7 ÿ7 ÿ48 ÿ 755 49 6# ÿ?@AB CADEFGHDÿHJÿGKEÿLDAMHN@ÿCEO@DGPENGÿHJÿQNRADHNPENG@SÿTU@SAGVÿWA?@ES X@YDED@Z 86ÿ9 ÿ 8 8 ÿ 7ÿ6 4 589 ÿ ÿ4 7 45ÿ 7 66ÿ 7 ÿ6 4 ÿ48 ÿ 458 (ÿ 5496ÿ86 5 7 ÿ9 6# ÿ?@ABÿ[A?FHN?ANÿCEO@DGPENGÿHJÿ\@GUD@Sÿ]E?HUDFE?ÿ^EFDEG@DV C@NÿWEVEDZÿ 012,6ÿ 7 6ÿ 7ÿ 7 3ÿ 77 4 8 5(ÿ 8 ÿ6 4 6ÿ79ÿ 5 49ÿ28 ÿ2 866 6ÿ89ÿ4ÿ 8 5(ÿ 499 ÿ 855ÿ 9 7 4 ÿ 797 8 ÿ 7 ÿ 85 ÿ 7 89 ÿ 9 8 79 9 =4 89 ÿ ÿ48 ÿ 755 879ÿ 7 ÿ57 45ÿ67 6ÿ89ÿ7 ÿ 879ÿ (ÿ 7 ÿ 49ÿ<) 9 #ÿ ÿ4 ÿ 4 5ÿ 7 ÿ012,6ÿ898 84 8 ÿ 7ÿ6 4 589 ÿ8 5 9 4 879ÿ49 7 8 ÿ 7 ÿ ÿ4 7 9 89 ÿ7 ÿ89 94 87945ÿ 755 879ÿ 496 7 ÿ46ÿ ÿ 79 89 012ÿ4550267ÿ60ÿ5126842ÿ2491 4ÿ 2ÿ 0 16 0 ÿ 9ÿ 20 4ÿ 1 ÿ84 68ÿ502ÿ 0 1 ÿ 4 ÿ247 94 67 ÿ ÿ !"#$ %!ÿ& '!"$('ÿ()ÿ$*!ÿ+ ,ÿ-( .# ,ÿ/ 00!1 2 'ÿ3(00#$ (,ÿ4(,$'(0ÿ& $' "$ÿ ,ÿ4 0 )(', ÿ+!1! ÿ+ '! ,5 6784ÿ 1224 6ÿ8 4 ÿ9 2ÿ9 6ÿ24:1 602 ÿ24 4;ÿ 20 477ÿ 7ÿ 0 517 : ÿ2471 67ÿ 0 5 6 :ÿ76 9 297 ÿ 9ÿ9047ÿ 06ÿ 20 94ÿ 0 ÿ055 7ÿ; 68ÿ684ÿ 249 6 6 684 ÿ 449ÿ60ÿ94 4 0 ÿ 0 :<642 ÿ62 7 026 6 0 ÿ 7ÿ 49ÿ 6ÿ2491 :ÿ4 77 0 7= 9>7?9ÿ4 902747ÿ684ÿ721 ÿ99 762 6 0 @7ÿ ÿ60ÿ24502 ÿ684ÿ 20 477ÿ60ÿ7 449 1 ÿ684ÿ94 42 ÿ05ÿ62 7 026 6 0 ÿ 20 4 4 6ÿ 20A4 67ÿ;8 4ÿ 70ÿ 6 : 4 20 4 6 ÿ 2064 6 0 7 ÿ ÿ2B!' " ,ÿC( ÿDÿE' , F('$ $ (,ÿG# 0 !' 2 (" $ (,ÿ3'! !,$ÿDÿ4 Hÿ3!$!'ÿC# ,!5ÿ IJKLÿNOPJLQPÿRSÿJOTUIÿVWXÿWYVZ April 26, 2018 Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355 EPA Docket Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WJC West Building, Room 3334 1301 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Comments on EPA’s Proposed Rule to Repeal the Clean Power Plan The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) submits to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) the following comments in strong support of EPA’s proposed rule to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP)1 in its entirety.2 As discussed below, EPA should repeal the CPP for two important and compelling reasons. First, the CPP is illegal because the rule greatly exceeds EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fueled power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Second, even if for the sake of argument the CPP were determined to be lawful, it would establish bad environmental policy that would have substantial adverse energy and economic repercussions for the nation. These adverse consequences would result from the fact that the CPP would impose massive costs on consumers and businesses without providing any meaningful effect on climate change, cause substantial additional retirements of existing coal-fueled generation that, in turn, will increase risks to the reliability and resilience of the nation’s electricity grid, and usurp states’ and grid operators’ traditional role of determining the appropriate mix of electricity generating resources in each state or region ACCCE is a non-profit organization that is the only national trade organization whose sole mission is to advocate at the federal and state levels on behalf of the nation’s coal fleet. Our members represent every sector of the coal-fueled electricity industry, including electricity generators, coal producers, railroads, barge operators, and equipment manufacturers.3 In addition to these comments, ACCCE is a member of the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) and supports and incorporates the UARG comments on the Proposed Rule by reference herein. I. ACCCE Members have a Substantial Interest in the Repeal of the Clean Power Plan. ACCCE and its members believe it is critically important to preserve the fleet of existing coal-fired power plants. The importance of the existing coal fleet was recently reaffirmed by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). These entities and others have recognized the essential reliability and resiliency attributes the coal fleet provides to the electricity grid.4 In the last several years, threats to the resiliency and reliability of the electric grid have increased. More than 111,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fueled generating capacity have retired or announced plans to retire.5 This disturbing trend in coal plant retirements would be exacerbated with the implementation of the CPP. EPA has projected that the CPP would cause the retirement of an additional 29,000 MW of coal-fueled generating capacity by 2025.6 The pace of coal plant retirements has caused cascading effects throughout the coal industry and industries that support coal, such as railway and barge transportation, not to mention coal-producing communities. Roughly 90% of coal produced in the U.S. is transported by rail or barge.7 From the peak of U.S. coal transport in 2008 to 2016, U.S. railroads have seen a 45% decrease in carloads of coal.8 In one year alone, from 2015 to 2016, gross revenues attributable to coal transport fell 25% for Class I railroads.9 Workers across the coal industry have been hit hard too. Between 2011 and the second quarter of 2017, 65,484 coal miners lost their jobs, a 45.7% decline.10 In that same period, nearly 8,000 well-paying jobs have been lost in fossil-fueled electric power generation.11 Unfortunately, these types of quality jobs are increasingly hard to find in the workers’ current regions. Nor are jobs generally available in other energy sectors (such as solar energy development), as such opportunities “vary regionally and often do not correlate well with concurrent job losses in sectors such as coal mining or power plant operations.”12 EPA’s failure to repeal the CPP will do further harm to American workers who depend on the coal industry for their livelihoods. Analysis of lost coal jobs in Southwestern Virginia by the King University School of Business Institute for Regional Economic Studies found that each coal mining job supports 1.27 jobs in other sectors of the region’s economy.13 The loss of 100 coal mining jobs would lead to 127 jobs being lost Page 2 in all other industries, for a total loss of 227 jobs.14 Each job in the coal mining industry generates almost $128,000 in earnings paid to households employed in all industries of the region’s economy.15 Therefore, a loss of 100 coal mining jobs would depress the local economy by $12.8 million.16 For these reasons, ACCCE and its members have a substantial interest in EPA’s Proposal to repeal the CPP in its entirety. The Clean Power Plan Is Illegal and Should Be Repealed. II. In the Proposed Rule, EPA has provided a detailed analysis of the Agency’s authority to regulate CO2 emissions from existing electric generating units (EGUs) under section 111(d) of the CAA. This analysis concludes that EPA only has authority to require states to set CO2 performance standards that satisfy two related statutory requirements. First, the standards must be based on control measures that are determined to be the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) and second, in making this BSER determination, EPA may consider only control measures “that can be applied at, to or for” an individual stationary source.17 Based on this reading of the statute, EPA proposes to determine that it does not have authority to establish CO2 performance standards for existing sources under section 111(d) based on the “beyond-the-fence” methodology used in the CPP rule. That methodology resulted in the establishment of stringent CO2 emission standards that could not be met by individual coal-fueled power plants and would instead have required generation shifting to natural gas and renewable energy resources. ACCCE strongly agrees with the Agency’s conclusions for the reasons explained below. A. CAA Section 111 Bars EPA from Requiring States to Establish Generation-Shifting Performance Standards. Section 111 of the CAA only authorizes the establishment of technology-based performance standards applicable to individual sources within each regulated source category based on the BSER control measures that can be implemented at each individual source. This source-specific and technology-based methodology for establishing performance standards is required by section 111 of the CAA, which expressly requires the setting of performance standards “for” and “applicable … to” individual regulated sources.18 Importantly, EPA’s role in setting performance standards is limited to establishing a “procedure” for states to submit “plans” that “establish standards of performance for any existing source” in accordance with that procedure.19 State plans in turn must “apply[] a standard of performance to any particular source.”20 The CAA defines a “stationary source” as “any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any Page 3 air pollutant.”21 Thus, section 111(d) permits EPA to call on states to establish performance standards only for the building, structure, facility, or installation whose emissions are being controlled. This statutory language unambiguously bars the CPP methodology of establishing performance standards that are based on the shifting of generation to energy resources with reduced or zero CO2 emissions. Such generation shifting does not entail setting standards that are “for” or “applicable” to affected EGUs (i.e., the building, structure, facility or installation that emits CO2). Rather, it involves something else entirely, namely, the shifting of generation from coal-fueled EGUs to lower-emitting gas-fueled units or the shifting of generation from fossil-fueled EGUs to zero-emitting renewable energy resources. This is plainly beyond what the CAA permits. Judicial precedent confirms this interpretation of the CAA. In several cases involving the regulation of emissions under section 111, the courts have ruled that performance standards set under section 111 must apply to individual sources in regulated source categories, rather than to groups of sources or the category as a whole.22 EPA has ignored this clear and unequivocal legal precedent by setting emissions reductions that are impossible to achieve by any individual coal-fueled EGU but rather are achievable only through shifting of generation to gas-fueled and renewable energy resources across the electricity grid. Requiring an owner or operator of a coal-fueled power plant to construct or purchase generation from other facilities with lower CO 2 emissions (or emissions credits under an emissions trading scheme) is not a standard “for” that individual source at all and therefore is clearly illegal under the CAA. B. The CPP Is Illegal Because It Violates the Supreme Court’s Clear Statement Rule By Seeking To Transform the Power Sector Without A Clear Statement Of Authority From Congress. In order for the CAA to authorize the CPP’s attempt to transform the power sector, EPA must show that the Act contains a clear statement compelling the Agency’s reading of section 111(d). Because the Act includes no such clear authorization―and in fact, as indicated above, the statute unambiguously forecloses such an interpretation―the CPP violates the clear statement rule established in several recent Supreme Court rulings. One such ruling is Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (“UARG”).23 In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that no federal agency (including EPA) can exercise transformative power over matters of economic and political significance unless it has clear congressional authorization to do so. In rejecting EPA’s effort to dramatically expand to two CAA permitting programs for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the Court explained that when an agency seeks to make “decisions of vast ‘economic and political Page 4 significance’” or “bring about enormous and transformative expansion” in its authority under a “long-extant statute,” it must point to a “clear[] statement from Congress.”24 There is no question that the CPP is a transformative rule that would have enormous economic and political impacts on the electricity sector and the nation as a whole. The Obama Administration itself expressly confirmed this fact during the rollout of the CPP when it stated that the objective of CPP was to achieve an “aggressive transformation” of the electricity mix in nearly every state by systematically “decarboniz[ing] power generation” and ushering in a new “clean energy” economy.25 The transformative nature of the CPP is also confirmed by the fact that the emissions limitations imposed by the CPP would require states to transform their mixes of electricity generation, force the premature closure of coal-fueled plants, and dictate how much electricity each electricity source may generate. In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that clear congressional authorization is required when a federal agency intrudes on an “area[] of traditional state responsibility,” such as the states’ traditional role in structuring their own energy markets and resources.26 This clear statement rule bars any federal agency from broadly interpreting the CAA in a manner that would invade or encroach upon a traditional state regulatory power unless “unmistakably clear … language” compels the federal agency to do so.27 In the case of the CPP, there is no language in section 111 or any other provision of the CAA that clearly authorizes EPA to encroach upon traditional powers of states to regulate the generation and use of electricity. Rather, as discussed above, section 111 of the Act contains only a very general authorization to establish technology-based performance standards based on those BSER control measures that can be applied to or for an individual source. This general language is simply not sufficient to satisfy the Supreme Court’s clear statement rule and therefore provides an independent legal basis for the repeal of the CPP in its entirety. C. Prior Agency Practice and the Broader Statutory Context Further Confirm that The Clean Power Plan Is Illegal and Should Be Repealed. Prior agency practice and the broader statutory context for setting performance standards for stationary sources under other CAA regulatory programs support EPA’s proposal to repeal the CPP. These factors further demonstrate that the BSER control measures used for setting CO2 performance standards under section 111(d) must be measures that can be taken at or applied to each individual power plant itself. The generation-shifting performance standards established by the CPP fail to comply with this requirement and therefore provide an additional legal basis for concluding the CPP is illegal and should be repealed. Page 5 1. The CPP Approach is Contrary to Over 45 Years of Prior Agency Practice Under CAA Section 111. The generation-shifting approach taken in the CPP departs from 45 years of consistent EPA practice, further confirming that this approach is contrary to the requirements of the CAA. Each of the approximately 100 new source performance standards that EPA has set under section 111 for more than 60 source categories has been based on a system of emission reduction that can be achieved with technological and operational measures that the regulated source itself can implement.28 In promulgating standards of performance for new and modified refineries, EPA recently reiterated its long-standing view that “[t]he standard that the EPA develops [is] based on the [best system of emission reduction] achievable at the source.”29 EPA also took the same well-established approach in promulgating the CO2 performance standards for new coal- and gas-fueled EGUs under section 111(b) of the CAA. EPA based the standards on its examination of the level of emissions performance these EGUs achieve by using control technologies and operating practices at the EGU facilities themselves, and not based on some CO2 emission level that could be achieved by shifting some portion of the EGU’s generation to new lower- or zero-emitting energy resources. Notably, the Agency issued these performance standards for new EGUs at the same time EPA issued the final CPP rule. This radical departure from past EPA rulemakings and Agency practice further demonstrates the arbitrariness of EPA’s statutory interpretation, and that section 111(d) does not provide EPA with authority to adopt generation-shifting performance standards in the CPP for the first time in the history of the CAA. 2. The Broader Statutory Context Reinforces EPA’s Proposed Interpretation. EPA’s proposed interpretation of section 111 is reinforced by the overall statutory context into which section 111 fits. For example, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program requires that performance standards be set for each affected source based on the “best available control technology” (BACT). In setting those standards, both the statute30 and EPA regulations31 require that the section 111 standards set the “floor” and thereby prohibit the BACT limits from being less stringent than the applicable section 111 emission limits. EPA’s approach under the CPP, however, could have the effect of imposing more stringent performance standards under section 111 than can be established as BACT, given that the BACT performance standards must be applied Page 6 to the source itself and do not include control options that are beyond-the-source, such as generation shifting measures called for under the CPP.32 This problem can be corrected by reading the provisions of section 111 in a manner consistent with the PSD requirements noted above for setting BACT performance standards. Under this interpretation, the provisions of section 111 must adhere to the same source-specific standard-setting framework used for establishing BACT limits, a framework that does not rely on generation-shifting measures that cannot be applied at, to, or for a particular source. Other CAA regulatory programs also require EPA to set performance standards that are focused solely on achieving emission reductions at individual sources. Notable examples include the performance standards based on “lowest achievable emission rate” for criteria air pollutants under the nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program,33 those based on “maximum achievable control technology” (MACT) for hazardous air pollutants under the air toxics program,34 and “best available retrofit technology” for mitigating visibility impairment in Class I areas under the regional haze program.35 In contrast, where Congress did authorize emission control measures that go beyond a specific source for the purpose of meeting aggregate emission reduction goals, it spoke clearly and precisely. Notable examples applicable to the power sector include the acid rain emissions trading program specifically established pursuant to Title IV of the CAA and the interstate emission trading programs (such as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule) authorized by section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act. In both cases, Congress expressly authorized EPA to pursue a particular air quality objective through the establishment and implementation of emissions trading schemes. In the case of the acid rain program, Title IV of the Act established a detailed regulatory framework for the establishment and implementation of a cap-and-trade program for reducing SO2 emissions nationwide from all fossil-fueled EGUs. Similarly, Congress expressly authorized the use of “marketable permits” and other types of emission trading mechanisms to achieve emission reductions necessary for addressing interstate transport of air pollution in order to achieve national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under section 110 of the CAA.36 Viewed in this context, Congress’ silence on the use of control measures that can be implemented outside the regulated source in setting the performance standards under section 111(d) reinforces the interpretation that CO2 standards for existing EGUs cannot be set based on such generation-shifting measures. In particular, this broader statutory context indicates that unintended and illogical consequences would occur by employing the CPP approach. For example, the CPP approach of setting performance standards based on beyond-the-source control measures can result in the imposition of more Page 7 stringent emission reduction obligations under section 111 than could ever be established for the source-specific performance standards like BACT, LAER and MACT. Such outcomes are at odds with general CAA regulatory framework. III. The CPP Should Be Repealed In Its Entirety. EPA should withdraw the CPP in its entirety. There are significant legal and technical errors in the methodology that the Agency used for setting the CO2 performance standards under the CPP. These errors are so fundamental that the Agency has no choice but to repeal the CPP rule in its entirety.37 EPA’s proposed legal basis for repealing the CPP in its entirety is that the generation-shifting measures identified under Building Blocks 2 and 3 of the CPP were unlawful for the reasons noted above, while the on-site efficiency measures of Building Block 1 “are not severable and separately implementable.”38 In support of this conclusion, the Agency cites to a prior EPA determination made in the CPP that Building Block 1 efficiency measures “cannot stand on their own” and be separately implemented due to the “rebound effect” that would result from EPA’s repeal of Building Blocks 2 and 3. According to EPA’s determination in the CPP, the rebound effect would result from the “improved competitiveness and increased generation at the EGUs implementing heat rate improvements” required under Building Block 1 and, consequently, this response “could weaken or potentially even eliminate the ability of Building Block 1 to achieve CO2 emission reductions.”39 ACCCE agrees that EPA must withdraw the CPP in its entirety rather than severing and implementing a revised CPP based only on the emission reduction levels achievable under Building Block 1. However, we do not agree that Building Block 1 (i.e., on-site efficiency measures) cannot stand on its own as a section 111 standard due to a lack of “meaningful emission reductions,” as claimed by EPA in the CPP. Section 111 is fundamentally different from the other air regulatory provisions, such as those for attaining the NAAQS through state implementation plans under section 110 of the CAA. Unlike these air quality programs, section 111 was not written to achieve specific emission reduction goals or levels that must be achieved by individual sources or from any source category as a whole. Instead, as a technology-based program, section 111 authorizes EPA only to adopt standards of performance that reflect the best system of emission reduction, regardless of the level of emission reductions that are actually achieved individually or collectively by the implementation of the performance standards. Rather, EPA’s legal basis for repealing the CPP in its entirety should be based on a conclusion that Building Blocks 2 and 3 exceed EPA’s statutory authority (as noted Page 8 above), and Building Block 1 is fatally flawed due to major deficiencies in EPA’s technical analysis used in determining the reductions achievable by improving power plant efficiency. As documented in our prior comments on the CPP, as well as the comments of UARG that were incorporated into those comments by reference, there were significant methodological errors in EPA’s Building Block 1 determination that all coal-fueled EGUs can on average achieve a 4% efficiency (heat rate) improvement. In the CPP, EPA assumed that a 4% improvement can be achieved by “best practices to reduce hourly heat rate variability” as a “best-practices opportunity” based on various technical studies.40 However, EPA provided no data showing that an average 4% improvement has been demonstrated to be generally available for all existing coal-fired EGUs covered under the CPP. In addition, many of the coal-fueled units in the United States, particularly those that are still operating after the compliance deadline for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS Rule),41 are likely to have already implemented many of the best practices identified by EPA for improving plant heat rates, thereby limiting the total amount of reductions that could be achieved. Finally, EPA has overlooked the degradation in heat rate that typically results from the application of newly-retrofitted emissions controls to comply with federal and state requirements such as the MATS Rule, intrastate and transport regulations related to NAAQS attainment, and the increase in cycling operations that has been occurring for coal-fueled generation. In other words, heat rate improvements available to coal-fueled power plants are highly unit-specific, will degrade over time, and any analysis that assumes that a 4% improvement is available across-the-board is flawed. Each of these methodological flaws provides a strong technical basis for determining that the CPP Building Block 1 analysis is fatally flawed and therefore cannot be used in setting CO2 performance standards for existing EGUs under section 111(d). As a result, EPA has no choice but to repeal the CPP in its entirety due to the fact Building Blocks 2 and 3 are unlawful and Blocks 1 is technically flawed; and the Agency is foreclosed from using the CPP Building Block 1 analysis to set performance standards under any type of CPP replacement rule that EPA elects to adopt. IV. Policy Reasons Justify Full Repeal of the CPP. The CPP is bad environmental and energy policy. Compelling policy reasons therefore justify a full CPP repeal even if the CPP were determined to be lawful (which it is not for the legal and technical reasons discussed above). ACCCE urges EPA also to exercise its discretionary authority under the CAA to further justify the repeal of the CPP based on policy reasons, the most compelling of which are briefly summarized below. Page 9 Regulation Of Energy Matters Is Beyond EPA’s Expertise. The CPP inappropriately seeks to regulate energy matters that are clearly outside the expertise and experience of EPA. While EPA has authority to establish performance standards for existing EGUs under section 111(d) and, in doing so, is required to consider “energy requirements” in setting those standards, this authority does not empower EPA to regulate electricity or determine the appropriate generation mix in meeting future electricity demand. Rather, these types of energy matters have been traditionally left to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the states. The Federal Power Act provides FERC with regulatory authority over electric utilities engaged in interstate commerce, including wholesale sales, transmission of electricity, and reliability.42 States, by contrast, have exclusive authority to regulate the intrastate generation and transmission of electricity. The CPP intrudes on this well-established federal-state regime for the regulation of energy by imposing an additional layer of CAA regulation that will have a profound and transformative impact on the electric power sector. Among other things, it would require electricity generators to change their mixes of electricity generation, force the premature closure of coal-fueled plants that generate affordable and reliable electricity, and dictate how much electricity each energy resource may generate. Since the regulation of these types of matters is well beyond EPA’s expertise and experience, it would be inappropriate for EPA to use its CAA authority to intrude upon these matters traditionally left to FERC and the states. Significant Risks Are Posed To The Electric Power Grid. The CPP poses significant risks to ensuring a reliable and resilient supply of electricity for the nation. By its own admission, EPA found that the CPP would result in the premature retirement of additional coal-fired power plants, projecting in its original Regulatory Impact Analysis (“Original RIA”) that the CPP would result in the retirement of an additional 29,000 MW of coal-fired electric generating capacity by 2025.43 DOE, FERC, NERC, and others have already raised concerns about the potential impact of continuing retirements of coalfueled electric generating capacity on the reliability and resilience of the electric grid. 44 The CPP would exacerbate these risks to grid reliability and resilience. EPA also did not even attempt to perform a detailed power flow analysis or to project new transmission additions when estimating the potential impacts of the CPP on the electric power sector. Instead, it simply made projections of the total, region-wide capacity for new renewable energy facilities and shifts from coal- to gas-fueled generation that might be available by 2030.45 Commenters, including entities charged with maintaining the reliability of the nation’s electric grid, raised significant issues regarding the basis for these projections and the likelihood that projected capacity would Page 10 materialize.46 EPA also found that any realistic appraisal of reliability could not be done until after the rule was implemented by the states. Enormous Compliance Costs Are Imposed Without Achieving Meaningful Climate Benefits. The CPP would unnecessarily cost consumers and businesses billions of dollars. For example, the Energy Information Agency recently estimated that the CPP would cost $14.4 billion in 2030.47 In the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Repeal Rule (“Current RIA”), EPA estimated that the cost of the CPP to be as much as $33.3 billion per year by 2030.48 By contrast, EPA has estimated the cost of all power sector regulations through 2010 to be $7 billion per year, with the MATS rule adding $10 billion per year to that total.49 Moreover, the CPP would impose these enormous costs on consumers and businesses without achieving a meaningful effect on climate change. Based on EPA’s own methodology for estimating climate change effects,50 the cumulative CO2 emissions reductions achieved from the power sector under the CPP would only reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 0.2% by 2050. In turn, this miniscule reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentrations would only reduce global temperatures by 1/80th degree Celsius by 2100 and decrease sea level rise by just 0.20 millimeter (the thickness of two sheets of paper) by 2050.51 The evaluation of costs and benefits in the Current RIA further supports EPA’s proposal to repeal the CPP. The RIA demonstrates that the actual costs are much greater than costs initially estimated by EPA, and the Agency’s estimated climate-related benefits are much smaller than its original estimates. Repealing the CPP would avoid $33.3 billion in compliance costs by 2030 (using a 7% discount rate), while only forgoing domestic climate benefits of $0.5 billion.52 ACCCE believes that the repeal of the CPP is justified in light of this cost-benefit analysis that demonstrates substantial compliance costs would be incurred under the CPP while only minimal domestic climate benefits would be lost if the CO2 reductions from CPP were not achieved. Executive Order 13783 Requires EPA To Provide Relief from Undue Regulatory Burdens Imposed On the Energy Sector. Executive Order 13783 directs all federal agencies, including EPA, to suspend, revise, or rescind all existing regulations that are determined to “unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources.” As noted above and documented in both the Original and Current RIA, the CPP would impose massive costs on the economy, including the power sector and consumers, and create major risks to the electricity grid through the premature retirement of an additional 29,000 MW of coal-fueled generating capacity by 2025. These CPP regulatory burdens are exactly the types of undue regulatory burdens from which Executive Order 13783 directs EPA to provide relief for domestic energy resources. Page 11 The CPP Usurps State Regulatory Authority. The CPP is fundamentally inconsistent with the cooperative federalism framework established under the CAA. Notably, section 111(d) gives states the primary responsibility to establish plans for the implementation and enforcement of performance standards for existing sources and limits EPA’s role to establishing “a procedure” for the development and submission of those state plans. Instead of following this cooperative federalism framework, EPA has usurped states’ regulatory role under section 111(d) by establishing binding national performance standards for all existing power plants under the CPP and imposing those binding standards through federal plans in those cases where states have failed to comply with the requirements of the CPP. Furthermore, these national standards are fixed and may not be varied in light of the remaining useful life of any particular plant or other plant-specific factors, as required by section 111(d)(1) of the CAA.53 This usurpation of state authority is another fundamental flaw in the CPP and thereby provides another reason why the CPP should be withdrawn. V. EPA’s Current RIA Provides a Sound Cost-Benefit Evaluation in Support of the Full CPP Repeal. EPA’s analysis of the costs and benefits of the CPP in the Current RIA is greatly improved compared to the approach taken in the Original RIA. EPA notes, importantly, that the new approach in the RIA “underscores the uncertainty associated with any agency action of this magnitude, especially in actions where discretion is afforded to State governments.”54 A thorough evaluation of the new RIA is contained in a report prepared for ACCCE and the Utility Air Regulatory Group by NERA Economic Consulting entitled “Technical Comments on EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Repeal of the Clean Power Plan,” which is attached to our comments. The improvements in the current RIA include the following. The Current RIA includes an improved presentation of co-benefits. First, the current RIA includes a range of assumptions for predicted fine particulate matter (PM2.5) co-benefits resulting from the implementation of the CPP. NERA points out that PM2.5 co-benefits from coincidental reductions in emissions of the PM2.5 precursors SO2 and NOx have been used to justify numerous unrelated air regulations for nearly 20 years. For example, NERA cites a 2011 report in which it found that EPA relied heavily on co-benefit PM2.5 reductions in justifying over two dozen air regulations between 1997 and 2011, including the MATS rule.55 In most of these cases, PM2.5 benefits accounted for nearly all of the monetary benefits in the unrelated air regulations. And EPA’s inclusion of PM2.5 co-benefits in areas in compliance with EPA’s health-protective PM2.5 National Ambient Air Page 12 Quality Standards (NAAQS) provided most of the total benefits in these earlier analyses. This was the case in the Original CPP RIA. The Current RIA greatly improves the treatment of co-benefits. EPA accomplishes this improvement by presenting sensitivity analyses that eliminate or “zero-out” PM2.5 co-benefits at (1) levels below the current PM2.5 NAAQS and (2) at levels below the “lowest measured level” (LML) of the epidemiological studies underlying the PM2.5 risk estimates. These sensitivity cases result in greatly reduced co-benefits. For example, assuming that PM2.5 co-benefits fall to zero below the current NAAQS results in 2030 would forego co-benefits of $1.2 billion to $4.5 billion (in the mass-based implementation assumption), compared to foregone co-benefits of $10.6 billion to $28.1 billion (also for the mass-based case) using the original analysis. These sensitivity analyses should be included because the NAAQS are set at levels designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Therefore, considering only co-benefits in areas with PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS (or in areas with PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the LMLs from epidemiological studies) is a more appropriate and accurate way to quantify and consider any actual or projected co-benefits that may result from PM2.5 emission reductions. The Current RIA improves critical assumptions used to calculate climate-related benefits. The CPP is intended to address climate change, and the direct forgone benefits of its repeal are therefore climate-related benefits. EPA uses the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) to estimate climate benefits in both the Original RIA and the Current RIA. The previous Administration published several sets of SCC estimates (in 2010, 2013 (two sets), and 2015). ACCCE submitted comments in 2014 when proposed SCC estimates were published for public comment.56 The Current RIA alters several critical assumptions used to derive SCC estimates, both in a manner consistent with ACCCE’s 2014 recommendations on the SCC estimates. First, the Current RIA compares only domestic projected climate damages to CPP compliance costs.57 The Original RIA performed its cost-benefit analysis based on global damages, which included not just domestic damages but also all climate damages projected to occur outside the U.S. Under this approach used for the CPP, the Original RIA compared global damages to domestic compliance costs. In 2014, ACCCE and others recommended such a change to the derivation of the SCC to focus only on domestic climate damages in 2014 because (1) OMB guidance requires agencies to assess the effects of potential regulations on the domestic economy, and (2) because, as a policy matter, comparing costs imposed on U.S. consumers to benefits assumed to occur everywhere in the world is an apples-to-oranges comparison that exaggerates and distorts domestic benefits derived from regulatory action and relies Page 13 on U.S. consumers to pay for future worldwide benefits.58 This is a clear overreach of regulatory authority that must be rectified by repealing the CPP. In addition, NERA notes in its report that the economic literature supports the principle that “policies that are likely to produce positive net benefits only when including some or all of non-domestic benefits should be avoided.” And, as presented in the Current RIA’s Table 1-5, the compliance costs of the CPP exceed the domestic climate benefits in every case. In other words, avoiding the domestic compliance costs of the CPP saves billions of dollars more than the forgone domestic climate benefits. For example, in 2030, the projected compliance costs avoided by repealing the CPP are as much as $33.3 billion, while in that year (and for the same discount rate), only $0.5 billion in domestic climate benefits will be forgone. Therefore, on the basis of sound economic analysis alone, the CPP should be withdrawn. Second, the Current RIA properly considers, in addition to the 3% discount rate in the original RIA, a discount rate of 7%. This is consistent with OMB Guidance and was recommended by ACCCE in 2014.59 Using a higher discount rate, as ACCCE pointed out, adds a “model risk” premium to the lower discount rates used in the SCCs derived by the previous Administration. In addition to these changes made in the analysis presented in the RIA, in the attached report NERA recommends several changes in the way both avoided costs and forgone benefits should be presented in any final RIA repealing the CPP. For example, while EPA properly considers sensitivities in which PM2.5 co-benefits are reduced at levels below the NAAQS and LMLs, it does not do so for ozone co-benefits. The result is that almost all of the remaining co-benefits are due to ozone concentrations below the ozone NAAQS. NERA strongly recommends that EPA include ozone co-benefit sensitivities in the same manner it included those for PM2.5 co-benefits. And finally, NERA points out that the costs included in the original RIA and the avoided costs presented in the current RIA are missing important components. For example, the RIA does not include an analysis of the potential impact of natural gas price increases on non-electricity consumers, which NERA’s analysis for ACCCE in 2014 estimated to range from $15 billion to $144 billion. 60 An analysis of these kinds of cost increases should be included in any final RIA. NERA suggests other additional analyses for any final RIA in its report. VI. Conclusion For all of the legal and policy reasons discussed above, ACCCE wholeheartedly supports the repeal of the Clean Power Plan in its entirety. Page 14 Sincerely, Paul Bailey President and Chief Executive Officer Attachment: “Technical Comments on EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Repeal of the Clean Power Plan,” NERA Economic Consulting. See Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Final Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (Oct. 23, 2015) (“CPP Final Rule”). 2 Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule, 82 Fed. Reg. 48,035 (October 16, 2017). 3 A list of ACCCE members is provided in Appendix 1. 4 See e.g.,, Perry, Rick, “Secretary of Energy’s Direction …,” Received by Neil Chatterjee, Cheryl LaFleur, and Robert Powelson, September 28, 2017; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, “Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 82 Fed. Reg. 46940 (October 10, 2017); NERC, “Comments of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation in Response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” October 23, 2017; NERC, 2017 Long Term Reliability Assessment. 5 ACCCE, RETIREMENT OF COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS (October 24, 2017). 6 EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, October 23, 2015. 7 MARIANNE MINTZ, CHRIS SARICKS, AND ANANT VYAS, COAL-BY-RAIL: A BUSINESS-AS-USUAL REFERENCE CASE 9 (U.S. Department of Energy Argonne National Laboratory 2015). 8 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, RAILROADS AND COAL 6 (Association of American Railroads 2017). 9 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, RAILROADS AND COAL 7 (Association of American Railroads 2017). 10 See MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMIN., Employment/Production Data Set. 11 See BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Private, NAICS 221112 Fossil fuel electric power generation, All Counties, 2011 and 2017. 12 DOE, Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability (August 2017) at 23. 13 Sam Evans, Economic Impacts of Job Losses in the Coal Mining Industry, 7 KIRES Paper 1 (Feb. 2013). 14 Id. 15 Id. at 2. 16 Id. at 2. 17 82 Fed. Reg. at 48,039. 18 CAA §§ 111(a)(2), (b)(1)(B), (d). However, it should be noted that this interpretation does not require individual sources to implement changes in order to comply with the applicable performance standards. Nor does it impose an obligation on states to submit plans that would require a source to install and operate any particular emission control measure under section 111. Rather, EPA would be issuing an emission guideline that States then use to develop and implement performance standards. Affected sources would then comply with the applicable performance standards by using any method capable of achieving that standard—or, if the source’s emissions already meet that standard, without taking any affirmative steps at all. 19 CAA §111(d)(1) (emphasis added). 20 CAA §111(d)(1) (emphasis added). 1 Page 15 CAA §111(a)(3). One notable example is ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, in which the D.C. Circuit ruled that the CAA “limit[s] the definition of ‘stationary source’ to one facility” and not a “combination of facilities.” 578 F.2d 319, 324, 326 n. 24 (D.C. Cir. 1978). As a result, the court found that EPA has no authority to “change the basic unit to which the [standards] apply from a single building, structure, facility, or installation—the unit prescribed in the statute—to a combination of such units.” 578 F.2d at 327. Notably, the court in ASARCO goes on to state that the objective of section 111 is to require sources “to employ pollution control systems” at the source and that Congress never contemplated setting standards based on reductions that cannot be achieved at the source. 578 F.2d at 327-28. Similarly, the court ruled in National Southwire Aluminum Company v. EPA that section 111 performance standards must “specif[y] the maximum rate at which an individual source may emit pollution.” 838 F.2d 835, 837 n. 3 (6 th Cir. 1988). 23 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (UARG). 24 UARG, 134 S. Ct. at 2444 (2014) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 160 (2000)). The Supreme Court subsequently confirmed the UARG ruling in King v. Burwell, holding that courts are not to presume that Congress would implicitly delegate to agencies “question[s] of deep ‘economic and political significance’” because, if “Congress wished to assign [such] question[s] to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.” King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2489 (2015) (citation omitted). 25 White House Statement (August 5, 2015). 26 Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2089 (2014) (noting “well-established principle that it is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain of Congress’ intent before finding that federal law overrides the usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers”). Notably, the Supreme Court has specifically recognized that “the regulation of utilities is one of the most important functions traditionally associated with the police powers of the States” Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 461 U.S. 375, 377 (1983). 27 American Bar Association v. FTC, 430 F.3d 457, 471-72 (D.C. Circuit 2005). 28 See 40 C.F.R. Part 60, subparts Cb-OOOO. 29 79 Fed. Reg. 36,880, 36,885 (June 30, 2014) (emphasis added). 30 See CAA § 169(3). 31 40 C.F.R. §52.51(b)(12). 32 See e.g., U.S. EPA, PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases, 24 (March 2011) (indicating that BACT encompasses “all ‘available’ control options ... that have the potential for practical application to the emissions unit”). 33 See CAA §§ 171(3), 173(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. §52.165(a)(1)(xiii). 34 See CAA § 112(d)(2). 35 See CAA §169A(b)(2)(A). 36 See CAA §110(a)(2)(A) (authorizing states to adopt and include in their state implementation plans “economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights”). 37 An entirely new rule is necessary to address the significant legal and technical flaws of the CPP rule if the Agency elects to move forward with a replacement rule that does not mandate generation shifting or other such measures that could force the power sector to re-engineer the electric grid. For the reasons discussed in this section, it is simply not possible for EPA to avoid a repeal of the entire CPP rule by first invalidating generation-shifting measures identified in Building Blocks 2 and 3 as unlawful, and then severing and separately implementing the on-site efficiency improvement measures identified under Building Block 1 of the CPP rule. 38 82 Fed. Reg. at 48,039, fn 5. See also id. at 48,038. 39 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662, 64,758 (October 23, 2015). 40 EPA originally proposed to require a 6% heat rate improvement for coal-fired EGUs nationwide, representing a 4% heat rate improvement due to implementation of best practices and a 2% heat rate improvement from equipment upgrades. In the final CPP rule, EPA abandoned its proposal to rely on heat rate improvements from equipment upgrades. Although EPA calculated different heat rate improvements for each interconnection region, the final rule relied on the CO2 performance rate calculated for the Eastern Interconnection with a 4.3% heat rate improvement when setting the CO2 performance rate for coal-fired EGUs under the Clean Power Plan. 41 See 77 Fed. Reg. 9,304 (Feb. 16, 2012) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 60, 63). 42 See Sections 201-223 of the Federal Power Act. 43 EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, October 23, 2015. 44 See, for example, Perry, Rick, “Secretary of Energy’s Direction …,” Received by Neil Chatterjee, Cheryl LaFleur, and Robert Powelson, September 28, 2017; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, “Grid 21 22 Page 16 Resiliency Pricing Rule,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 82 Fed. Reg. 46940 (October 10, 2017); NERC, “Comments of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation in Response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” October 23, 2017; NERC, 2017 Long Term Reliability Assessment. 45 GHG Mitigation Measures TSD (August 2015). 46 See, e.g., Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Comments at 3, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-22547; Southwest Power Pool, SPP’s Reliability Impact Assessment of the EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan, at 3, 5-6 (Oct. 8, 2014), PSA 01-PSA 08; NERC, Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan, Initial Reliability Review at 19, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-37006. 47 EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Review of the Clean Power Plan: Proposal, (October 2017) (“Current RIA”) at 18. 48 Current RIA at 4. 49 Annual cost of all Clean Air Act rules for the electric power sector promulgated by 2010 from U.S. EPA, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 (2011), Table 3-2. Electric utility direct annual compliance costs were $6.6 billion (2006$) in 2010; this is equivalent to $7.1 billion in 2010$. MATS annual cost from U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, December 2011 ($9.6 billion cost in 2006$ is equivalent to $10 billion in 2010$.) 50 In particular, ACCCE has relied on EPA’s assessment of the climate impacts of the proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles. See U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, August 2012. 51 ACCCE, “Climate Effects” of EPA’s Final Clean Power Plan, August 2015. See also Lomborg, Bjorn, Impact of Current Climate Proposal, Global Policy (2015). 52 Current RIA at 4 and 9. 53 80 Fed. Reg. at 64,870. 54 82 Fed. Reg. at 48,043 note 22. 55 NERA Economic Consulting, An Evaluation of the PM2.5 Health Benefits estimates in Regulatory Impact Analyses for Recent Air Regulations (December 2011). 56 ACCCE, “Re: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (Nov. 2013),” February 26, 2014. (“ACCCE SCC Comments”) 57 Results using global SCC values are contained in Appendix C of the current RIA. 58 ACCCE SCC Comments at 6-7. 59 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, September 17, 2003; ACCCE SCC Comments. 60 NERA Economic Consulting, “Potential Energy Impacts of the EPA Proposed Clean Power Plan,” included in comments submitted by ACCCE to EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Page 17 RETIREMENT OF U.S. COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS 1 Status as of May 1, 2018 All Retirements Since 2010, power plant owners have announced either the retirement or conversion to other fuels of a very large number of coal-fired electric generating units. 2 The table on the following pages summarizes all publicly announced retirements through 2030. The table shows that 628 coal-fired generating units in 43 states ― totaling almost 115,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity ― have retired or announced plans to retire. (This represents the retirement of an additional 4,000 MW and 18 coal-fired generating units since the last ACCCE update in January.) These retirements are approaching 40% of the U.S. coal fleet that operated in 2010. So far, approximately 68,000 MW of coal-fired generating capacity have retired. Between 2018 and 2020, an additional 25,000 MW are expected to retire, bringing total retirements to 93,000 MW by the end of 2020. EPA-Attributed Retirements The table also includes retirements that have been explicitly attributed to EPA regulations and policies. These EPA-caused retirements total 463 units and represent almost 77,000 MW of coal-fired generating capacity. Of the total, 58,000 MW have already retired. ISO/RTO Retirements Over 45,000 MW of coal-fired generating capacity in ISO/RTO regions have retired. An additional almost 17,000 MW in these regions are slated to retire over the period 2018 through 2020, of which 11,600 MW have been attributed to wholesale electricity market conditions. The regions with the most re tirements through are PJM (32,000 MW), MISO (14,400 MW), ERCOT (5,700 MW), and SPP (4,400 MW). These retirements and conversions are based primarily on public announcements by the owners of the coal units. We also use other information sources that are reliable. These retirements and conversions are not based on modeling projections. We do not include small (less than 25 MW) cogeneration units. Since most of these units are retiring, not converting to another fuel, we use the term “retirem ents” in this paper to characterize units that may be either retiring or converting. 2 In 2010, according to EIA, the U.S. coal fleet was comprised of 1,396 electric generating units located at 580 power plants for a total electric generating capacity of approximately 317,000 MW. 1 1 12,131 3 / 6,421 4 59 / 40 Ohio 2. Indiana 6,569 / 6,129 39 / 34 3. Pennsylvania 5,847 / 5,548 34 / 30 4. Texas 5,672 / 1,399 10 / 3 5. Illinois 5,663 / 3,076 21 / 14 6. Alabama 5,166 / 5,166 26 / 26 7. Michigan 4,911 / 4,075 44 / 31 8. Florida 4,752 / 1,568 14 / 7 9. North Carolina 4,615 / 2,783 37 / 20 10. Kentucky 4,168 / 3,743 20 / 18 11. West Virginia 4,040 / 2,740 20 / 18 12. Georgia 3,752 / 3,249 17 / 15 13. Arizona 3,482 / 3,482 8/8 14. Virginia 3,258 / 2,354 29 / 16 15. Wisconsin 2,928 / 1,287 27 / 16 2,689 / 0 8/0 17. Tennessee 2,659 / 2,659 17 /17 18. Oklahoma 2,414 / 2,414 5/5 19. Colorado 2,405 / 1,776 19 / 16 20. Missouri 2,372 / 2,355 24 / 23 21. Minnesota 2,288 / 2,150 17 / 15 2,248 / 154 5/1 22. Montana 23. New Mexico 2,222 / 2,222 7/7 24. Utah 2,072 / 272 7/5 25. Iowa 1,847 / 1,579 33 / 29 26. South Carolina 1,768 / 1,768 14 / 14 1,708 / 475 14 / 3 28. Massachusetts 1,663 / 1,408 8/6 29. Arkansas 27. New York 1,659 / 1,659 2/2 30. New Jersey 1,543 / 268 6/2 31. Washington 1,376 / 0 2/0 32. Nebraska 757 / 637 6/5 33. Mississippi 706 / 706 2/2 34. Oregon 585 / 585 1/1 35. Louisiana 575 / 575 1/1 566 / 0 2/0 550 / 478 7/6 360 / 0 4/0 36. Connecticut 37. Kansas 38. Delaware 4 UNITS RETIRING 1. 16. Nevada 3 MW RETIRING Total coal retirements. Coal retirements attributed to EPA regulations and policies. 2 39. Maryland 250 / 115 3/2 40. North Dakota 189 / 0 1/0 41. California 129 / 0 3/0 42. Wyoming 49 / 49 4/4 43. South Dakota 22 / 22 1/1 114,625 / 77,346 MW 628 / 463 Units 43 / 37 States 3 America's Power? I i . tt has been an exceptionally effective leacier on behalf of man},r long-overdue regulatory reforms. We look forward to continue working with hint to aciuance sensible policies that protect the environment anci help preserve the coal?eet Trump?s Pruitt Test The President needs to show some loyalty to his teasing reformer.