Document 1 Rodriguez, Susan (CONTR) From: Bowling, Michael l. <2dowlingm?firstenergycorp?om> Sent: Monday, March 06, 20.17 6:06 PM To: McCormack, Brian Subject: Chuck Jones/Firstlinergy request Brian - on behalf of Cheek lanes, CEO ofFirstEnergy, I'd like to request a meeting with Secretary Perry regarding urgent matters related to our industry and the coal industry. Michael J. Bowling Senior VP, External Affairs FirstEnergy 330684-6761 office 63) (6) mobile The contained in {his message is intended only for the personal and con?dentizd use of'the reeipient(s) named above. Ifthe reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please {lotify us immediately, and delete the original message. Document 2 Rodri uez, Susan (CONTR) From: Eckard. 3. Sentz Wednesday, March 15, 201.7 2:04 PM To: McCormack, Brian Subject: RE: Jones meeting w/ Perry We owe you. Thanks a mi?ion. Mike J. Michael Eokard Director, Federai Affairs FirstEnergy 801 Pennsyivania Ave., Suite 310 Washington, 0.0. 20004 . 202434-3153 202434-3156 (fax) (13) (6 {can} From: McCormack, Brian Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 201? 10:51 PM To: Eckard,1. Cc: Fetteriy, Brett Subject: RE: Jones meeting w} Perry Looks like we'mins early that would help. He has to skip the 13131 meeting. I had to alert them 9. 311011 time ago. From: Eckard,.l. Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:43:59 PM To: McCormack, Brian Fetterly, Brett Subject: Re: Iones meeting w/ Perry We will be totally ?exible. Anytime you say. Sent my iP'hon? 011 Mar 14, 2017, at 9:1? PM, McCormack, Brian Subject: Re: Jones meeting w/ Perry Mike?s full name is Michael John Dowling. See you in the morning. Thanks. Mike Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2017, at 7:43 PM, Eckard, J. wrote: James Michael Eckard. Also, Michael Bowling will attend. He's our Senior VP, External Affairs. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2017, at 6:06 PM, McConnack, Brian wrote: Mike, What does your ?rst initial stand for? Need to have Brett, copied here, clear you and Chuck in for tomorrow's meeting. The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and con?dential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and con?dential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this . message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and con?dential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that you hate received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. Damment 3 Rodriguez, Susan (CONTR) From: Maddox, Mark Sent: Tuesday, March 28. 2017 2:53 PM To: Fetterly, Brett; Matheney, Doug; Buchan, Samue! Subject: BIOS Attachments: Biography of Robert E. Murray - Short {Updated 2017.01.31).pdf; Mark R. Maddox US. Depa?nwnt of Energy 202.586.7791 maddox@hq.doe.gov Message From: Wheeler, Andrew R. Sent: Thesday, March 28, 2017 2:47 PM o: Maddox, Mark Subject: RE: MEETING WITH SECRETARY PERRY Attached are our bios. Mark, I have a separate request in for a meeting with the Secretary with Energy Fuels, the uranium company. you knaw What the status ofthat request is? Thanks. Andrew R. Wheeler Principal ?035] 312 7424 M+1f 1 F: +1 202 312 7460 Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting 1050 Street NW 3 Suite 400 i Washington, DC 20001, USA Original Message-"? From: Maddox, Mark [mailimMRMaddaxQth?oagW] Sent: Tuasday, March 28, 2017 2:41 PM To: Wheeler, Andrew R. Subject: RE: MEETING WITH SECRETARY PERRY Thanks! Mark R. Maddox U.S. of Energy 202.536.7791 maddex@hq.dee.gov nun-Original Message From: Wheeler, Andrew R. Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:38 PM To: Maddox, Mark Subject: RE: MEETING WITH SECRETARY PERRY Sure, let me get back to yen in a minute. Andrew R. Wheeler Principal andrewmheeler@FaegreBD.eem D: +1 202 312 7424 M: +1035) 202 312 7460 Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting 1050 Street NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20001, USA Message From: Maddox, Mark Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:37 PM To: Wheeler, Andrew R. Subject: MEETING WITH SECRETARY PERRY Andrew, We are leeking forward to seeing you, Bob and Mike. 15 there a chance you can fomard bias for everyone? Thanks, Mark R. Maddox US. Department of Energy 202.586.7791 maddox@hq.doe.gev BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ROBERT E. MURRAY hir. Robert E. Murray is the founder, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Murray Energy Corporation (?Murray Energy") and Subsidiary Companies, a group of privately held coal mining, sales, and transloading companies, which, together, currently produce about seventy-?ve (75) million tons of bituminous coal annually and employ about 6,000 persons in six (6) states and Colombia, South America. These facilities comprise one of the largest groups of underground coal mining and river and ocean shipment operations in the world. Mr. Murray was formerly President and Chief Executive Officer of The North American Coal Corp oration ("North American"). He served North American for thirty- one (31) years at all levels of management. During his sixty (60) year career in the mining industry, Ma Murray has received numerous safety, educational, engineering, leadership, professional, and philanthropic awards. He is a past President of the major worldwide mining, metallurgical, and petroleum engineering institutes and societies. He serves on the Board of Directors of most of our national and state coal trade associations. Mr. Murray is a national leader on matters affecting the coal and minerals industries before Congress, the Administration, and regulatory and other government agencies. He is recognized as a knowledgeable spokesman on: electricity availability, reliability, and a?'or dability; how actions and regulations of the Ob ama Administration destroyed America?s electric power grid, as well as the economy of many regions of our Country; and what the Trump Administration must do to protect coal mining jobs and affordable, reliable electricity in America. Mr. Murray holds a Bachelor of Engineering in Mining Degree from The Ohio State University and has completed the Advanced Management Program at Harvard Business School. He is a licensed Professional Engineer and private pilot, and resides with his wife, Brenda, in Moreland Hills and St. Clairsville, Ohio. Their sons, Rob, Jon, and Ryan are executives in the Company, and Brenda and Bob have eight (8) grandchildren. drink Michael T.W. Carey Vice President of Government Affairs at Murray Energy Corporation Mr. Carey has served as our Vice President Government Affairs since July, 2012. From 1999 to 2012, Mr. Carey was President of The Ohio Coal Association. From 1992 to 1999, he held several staff positions in the Ohio Senate and United States Congress. Mr. Carey currently serves as Chairman of The Ohio Coal Association and represents Murray Energy in the Illinois and Kentucky coal associations. He received his commission in the United States Army from the Marion Military Institute and his BA. from The Ohio State University. Andrew R. Wheeler Principal, Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting Andrew Wheeler is a principal and the team leader of the energy and environment practice group at aegreBD Consulting and Counsel at Faegre Baker Daniels law ?rm. Prior to joining FaegreBD Consulting, Andrew served as the Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for Chairman Jim Inhofe for six years. Prior to his work at the full Senate EPW Committee, Andrew served in a similar capacity for six years for the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, Wetlands and Nuclear Safety for both Senator im Inhofe and Senator George Voinovich. He started his career at the Environmental Protection Agency working on toxic chemical, pollution prevention and right-to- know issues. Andrew completed his law degree at Washington University, his MBA at George Mason University, and his. undergraduate work at Case Western Reserve University. Rodriguez, Susan (CONTR) From: To: Sent: Subject: Your message To: Unknown Document 4 McCormack, Brian Jenkins, Patsy Friday, August 18, 2017 9:05 PM Read: Letter Sent on Behalf of Robert D. Moore, Murray Energy Corporation to The Honorable James Richard "Rick" Perry Subject: Letter Sent on Behalf of Robert D. Moore, Murray Energy Corporation to The Honorable James Richard ?Rick" Perry Sent: 8/18/2617 4:54 PM was read on 8/18/2917 9:65 PM. Document 5 Rodri uez, Susan (CONTR) 2 1 From: Jenkins, Patsy Sent: Friday, August 18, 201? 4:54 PM Subject: Letter Sent on Behalf of Robert D. Moore, Murray Energy Corporation to The Honorable lames Richard "Rick" Perry Attachments: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer.pdf Message From: Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 4:28 PM To: Jenkins, Patsy Sub} ect: Scanned ?om a Xerox Multifunction Printer Please open the attached document. It was scanned and sent to you using a Xerox Multifunction Printer. Attachment File Type: pdf, Multi-Page Printer Location: Device Name: XRX9C934ESC6922 For more information on Xerox products and solutions, please visit MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION ROBERT D. moose PHONE: (740) sac-31cc \jszze National Road SI. Glaitsvlile, Ohio 43950 EKeculive Vice President, Chief Financial FAX: U40) 338-3405 Of?cer and Chief Operating Of?cer rmocre@ccalsource.com August 18, 2017 The Honorable James Richard ?Rick? Perry United States Secretary of Energy United States Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave, SW Washington, 13.0. 20585 Dear Secretary Perry: In furtherance of our conversation with your Chief of Staff Brian McCormack, We urgently request that the United States Department of Energy invoke Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act C?Section 20261:?) in order to prevent the destruction of the hundreds of thousands of lives in West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and elsewhere throughout the United States. Their liVelihoods, pensions, and retirement medical bene?ts are absolutely dependent on the continued operation of coal-?fired electric generation plants and the dozens of coal mines that produce the thermal coal consumed in the electric generation process? Indeed, immediately invoking Section 202(0) is the only alternative that will prevent the aforementioned destruction and protect the reliability and resiliency of our nation?s electric power grid. Speci?cally, the following will be the devastating consequences from further inaction by your oi?ce, and the including the bankruptcies that will occur as a result, in the coal and electric generating industries: 0 The elimination of approximately $4 billion of United Mine Workers? of America retirement medical bene?ts for nearly 16,000 individuals. I The default on nearly $3 billion of unfunded WWA 1974 pension obligations, bargained for by the Federal Government, that are supporting over 155,000 UMWA pension bene?t recipients. . The loss of over 100 million tons per year of domestic thermal coal market. Secretary Rick Perry August 18, 2017 Page 2 The no gativeilnpact to nearly 150,000 direct and indirect jobs, in addition to the previously mentioned retirees and pensioners, supported solely by Murray Energy Corporation?s operations in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois and Utah. a The closure of dosens of thermal coal producing mines and the loss of thousands of jobs. Very frankly, as we discussed with Mr. McCormack, no other viable alternative, including increased thermal coal exports, additional etecutive orders, or the purchase of stranded thermal coal production by federal, state, or local government, will stop the certain collapse of much of the thermal coal industry, other than immediately invoking Section 202(0). The export of thermal coal into the global market is not an option as the thermal coal mines impacted by the imminent closure of coal?fired electric generating lack: 1.) the transportation in?rastructure to access domestic export terminals; 2.) the ability to reach export terminals economically; 3.) the ability to compete with foreign and existing domestic coal exports on a deIiVered basis to global customers; and 4.) suf?cient coal quality to participate in the thermal coal export market. Additional executive orders will not result in the timely action required to deal with this immediate matter as coal markets will evaporate overnight, resulting in the loss of coal sales revenues and cash ?ow required to support each thermal coal mine impacted. From a practical standpoint, coal producers cannot produce coal and stack coal inventory endlessly. Goal producers lack the physical storage space and do not possess access to the unlimited cash that would make such an unrealistic plan even remotely achievable. Lastly, the purchase of stranded thermal coal production by federal, state, or local government is not feasible as thermal coal cannot be stockpiled for multiple years without risk of spontaneous combustion and stockpile degradation. More importantly, there is no bene?t gained by stockpiling thermal coal if there are no thermal coal ?red electric generating plants operating to consume the stockpiled thermal coal inventory. As you are aware, the thermal coal industry is facing the rapid loss of domestic coal markets as announced coal ?red generating plant closures continue to occur unabated. With twenty-four (24) coal ?red electric generating plant closures to come in the next fourteen (14) months, the coal industry will see a precipitous decline in thermal coal demand of over 100 million tons annually. With coal supplies already in excess of coal demand, there will be no option other than the immediate closure of dozens of thermal coal producing mines resulting in the elimination of thousands of jobs and the abovementioned destruction and devastation of the very population that voted President Donald J. Trump into the Oval Of?ce. Secretary Rick Perry August 18, 2017 Page 3 While Murray Energy Corporation (together with affiliates ?Murray Energy?), has been at the forefront of this issue, it is important to note that Section 202(c) is not a "one-company fix.? Indeed, on August 15, 2017, Mr. Glenn Kellow, the President and Chief Executive Of?cer of Peabody Energy, Inc., a large competitor of ours, called for a two (2) year moratorium on coal plant closures. Section 202(c) is the only viable mechanism to accomplish this task and to preserve the reliability of our ation?s electric power grid. Additionally, the President and Chief Executive Of?cer of Alliance Resource Partners, L.P., Mr. Joe Craft, has joined us in raising awareness of this devastating issue and calling for the invocation of Section 202(c). As we have previously communicated, the failure of DOE to invoke Section 202(c) would, among other things, result in the bankruptcy of FirstEner-gy Solutions C?FirstEnergy?), FirstEnergy is just one of the several companies that operate in the PJM Interconnection electric transmission system, which serves all of part of twelve (12) states and the District of Columbia. The PM wholesale electric construct is a fundamentally ?awed market, where the valuable attributes of baseload coal and nuclear generation is taken for granted and not considered in the marketplace. This makes it extremely dif?cult to compete with heavily subsidised renewables. The failure to utilise the protections of Section 202(0) will cause' the bankruptcy of FirstEnergy and certain other electric power producers, whereas invoking Section 202(c) will give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission adequate time to consider long-term market fixes while we preserve to these vital assets. These bankruptcies would have a cascading effect which would decimate the States of Ohio, West Virginia, and all of which voted overwhelmingly for President 'I'rump. As discussed during the call, the consequences to Murray Energy, and those who depend on Murray Energy, will be devastating. Murray Energy has debt payments of. $44.4 million, due September 29, 2017; $59.4 million, due October 17, 2017; and $44.3 million, due December 29, 2017. A bankruptcy ?ling by FirstEnergy, or another of our major customers, would make it impossible for Murray Energy to make these debt payments as these customers would be forced to close their coal fired electric generating ?eets due to their inability to dispatch economically into a power market where they are forced to compete against alternate forms of electric generation that are subsidized by the federal government.? This would result in Murray Energy being in material default of our various credit agreements, an acceleration of our nearly $2.7 billion of secured debt which has priority over the abovementioned nearly $7 billion of WWA pension and retiree medical obligations owed by the Company and a ?ling for bankruptcy protection. Secretary Rick Perry August 18, 2017 Page 4 As a result, our analysis, as re?ected in the enclosed Attachment A, shows that; over 301,000 lives will be decimated; tax revenue and other bene?ts would decrease $523.1 million per year; and the cost of unpaid obligations would total - $11.8 billion. This figure includes approximately $7 billion of the UMWA unfunded pension and. posturetiree medical obligations, as outlined herein. Further, the reliability and resiliency of our electric power grid will be crippled by these coal~ ?red power plant closures. Time is of the essence, and action is needed now. During our conversation with Mr. MoCormaclc, we discussed the rapid timeline for when closures and layoffs will take place. While the precise moment of bankruptcy ?ling cannot be predicted, 'the closure of First Energy?s plants by the end of the third quarter of 2017 will cause immediate layoffs of coal miners in West Virginia, Ohio, and This is all in an area in which President Trump was elected by up to a forty?two percent margin. We believe that some in the Administration do not understand the severe consequences of not invoking Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, for the President, for our communities, and for our Country. Accordingly, we request a meeting with you, as soon as possible, to discuss this urgent matter. We appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION m? Robert D. Moore Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Of?cer, and Chief Operating Officer Enclosure Se eretary Rick Perry August 18, 2017 Page 5 00: President Vice President Secretary Rick Perry Secretary Alexander Acosta Director Gary Cohn General John Kelly Secretary Ryan Zinke Ashley Gunn Wall Stan Gerdes Emily Hoffman Ashley Marquis Zachary Fuentes Kristjen Nielsen Scott Hommel Brian McCormeck Dan Brouilette Mike Gatanzaro Nick Ayers Don MeGahn Ann AllenWelden John MeEntee Rick Dearhorn Attachment A CONFIDENTIAL Murray Energy Corporation Consequences Resulting from the Failure to invoke Section 201(0) of the Federal Power Act August 14, 201?! lithe Department of Energy falls to invoke Section 2020:} of the Federal Power Act to preservethe operation of certain of FirsiEnergy Corporation's coaiviired poWer plants, the consequences to Murray Energy Corporation {together with affiliates "Murray Energy"l, and those who depend on Murray Energy, are currently estimated to be as foiiows: Human Cast Lives Impacted Number of Lives Receiving i'ension Bene?ts through UMWA Funds 153,815 including Surviving Spouses 19,490 ineiuding Retirees of Murray Energy 15,382 lnciuding Orphans Whose Last Employer Does Not Contribute 110,9e2t Number of Lives Receiving Healthcare throng}: Murrey Energy 29,139 2 number of Aciiue Employees at Ali Murray Energy Af?liated Companies 5,393 Number of indirect Lives Relying on Murray Energy 113,546 i?otel lives impacieri [Sum of items marked 1, 2, arid 3} 301,550 Financial Cost Payalzle per Year Total Obligations Total Debt Obligations of Murray Energy 4,008,511,000 Total Unfunded Pension Obligations 2,000,000,000 Total Medical Ubilgaiions 3,953,960,735 Outstanding Surety Bond 5 232,872,755 Reclamation Liability 63?,104,4 23 Coai Severance Tax Obligations 5 87,533; 64 Ohio 831,485 West Virginia 32,231,679 Other 4,475,000 ?ea} Estate Tax Obligations 20,007,930 Personal Property Tea in West Virginia 1?,1sa,755 Murray Energy Contributions to UMWA Plans 30,077,303 Medicoi Benefits for Retirees 111,957,010 Medical Bane ill: for Houriy Employees 68,242,927 Medics! Benefits for Salaried Employees 24,4 32,3?3 Federal Redamaiion Tax 7,852,247 Federai Royalties 5,408,535 Black Lung Excise Tax Obligations 62,833,723 . rota! Financial Cost 529,123,309 11,731,543,923 Document 6 Sullivan, Elizabeth From: Maddox, Mark Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 12:57 PM TO: Fisher, Travis;Abbay, Tristan?u chan, SamUei;Dannenfelser, Marty?immons, Daniel Sub3ect: Fw: Scans Attachments: Dacipdf; Dochdf; Dacipdf; Doc4.pdf As or Mark R. Maddox U.S. Department of Energy 202.586.7791 mrma ddoX@hq.doe.gov Original Pram: Sebastian, Harold Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 12:38 PM To: Maddox, Mark Subject: Scans Mark, Piease see attached. Best, Harold MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION 43226 Nation.? nunu ?s Diam??a 01m: 43909 v? ROBERT E. FHONE: 3383199 Chal?nan, President FAX: (740] 1395-0914 ChIOfExewllw Olrtcer WEBSETE: March 23, 2017 The Honorable J. Richard Perry Secretary United State?; Department Of Energy Forreatal Building 1000 Indepe Ave. SW Washington, DC. 20585 Dear Secretary Perry: Enulnsed is an Action Plan for achieving reliable and low cost. electricity in America and to assist in the survival of our Country?s coal industay, which is essun?al to power grid reliability and low cost electricity. are ava?ablo to assist; you in any Way that you request. Sincerely, URRAY ENERGY CORPORATION Robert E. Murray Chairman, President 8; Chic xe cu five Of?cer REMtlIns Enclosures Page 1 of 4 ACTION PIAN FOR RELIABLE AND LOW COST ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA AND TO ASSIST IN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL INDUSTRY SEISPEND 1? ?w POWER LIMITATION GUIDELIEES AND CQAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS (OCR) RULES OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY The compliance deadlines for both regulations must be suspended. The illegal ELG rule needs to be rescinded. The OCR regulation needs to be rewritten delegating the authority to the states in light of the new legislation passed in December. IMPLEMENL EMERGENCY ACTIONS RELATIVE TO THE SECURITY AND RESILIENCY OF THE ELF. (31mg The Department of Energy must issue an emergency directive to how an immediate study done of the and resiliency of our electric power grids. DOE will direct that no power plants having an. available fuel supply of at least fortydive (-15) (lave be closed during the study period, or a minimum of two (2) years. R??md?t? There meet be a withdrawal and suspension of the implementation of the so?called ?endangerment ?nding? for greenhouse ?endangerment ?nding" under the Clean Air Act serves no the foundation for the agency?s Ear reaching regulation of the economy in the form of emission limitations for greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. The high degree of uncertainty in the range of date relied upon by EPA combined with the enormous regulatory costs without concomitant benefits merit revisiting the ?endan germent findi 11g?. According to ?nding, the ?root cause? of recently obeervetl climate change is "likely" the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. EPA relied upon compotor-bnsed-climete-model simulations and a of major ?ndings from scienti?c assessment reports with a signi?cant range of uncertainty related to temperatures over 25 years. The climate model failures are well documented in their inability to emulate real? world climate behavior. Models that are unable to simulate known climate behavior cannot provide reliable projections of future climate behavior. As for the scientific assessments underlying the of ?ndings need by EPA. many were not peer reviewed, and there are Jnnitipie instances where portions of peer reviewed literature germane to the ?endangerment finding" were omitted, ignored or unfairly dismissed. Poge 2 of 4 ACTION PLAN FOR RELIABLE AND LOW COST ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA AND TO ASSIST IN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL IND UST RY (CONTINUED) ELIMINATE THE, THIRTY [Bill PERCENT PRODUCTION :Ij? QREQIT FQR MNQMILIS AND SOLAR PANELS 1N ELEQIERIGHJ Electricity generated by windmills and solar panels coats twenty-six (26) cents per kilowatt hour with a four (4) cent per kilowatt hour: subsidy from the American taxpayers. These energy sources are unreliable and only available if the wind blows or the sun shines. Coal-?red electricity costs only four (4) cents per kilowatt hour. Low cont electricity is a staple ofiit?e, and we meet have o. level vplaying ?eld in electric power generation without the government picking winners and losers by subsidizing wind and solar FROM ILLEGALQMIED QLIMATE The United Nation?s GDP 21 Paris Climate Accord, to which Barrack Obama has already committed one (1) billion dollars of America?s money, is an attempt by the root of the World to obtain funding from our Country? It is an illegal treaty never approved by Congress, and it will have no effect on the envirmlment. MD THE ELECTRIC UTIIJEX. MAXMUMM .AQBEVABLE EEQIJLNWOL 0.91? AND. EEMTLQEE We have won these in the United States Supreme Court, and those rules must be completely overturned. FUND THE DEVELOPMENT 013' CERTAIN CLEAN COAL moHNOL..oe1ee The Federal government must support the development of some Clean Coal Technologies, including: ultra super critical combustion; high ef?ciency, low emission coal firing; combined cycle coal commotion; and otherc. It shoul? not fund so-called carbon capture and sequestration as it does not work, practically or economically. Democrats and some Republicans use 005 so a political cover to meincereiy show that they are proposing something for coal, But, carbon capture and sequestration is a pseudonym for ?no cool". OVERHAUL THE BLOAIIQD AND POLITICALTZED MINE SAFETY AHEJEALTH OF THE one DEPARTMENT ,ng LAECE This Federal agency, over: the past eight (8) ye are, has not been foeileed on the coal miner safety. but on politics, bureaucracy, waste, and violation quotas. While coal mine employment has been out in half, the Federal Mine Safety and Health A?minietretion hoe continued to hire inspectors eVery year. But, the government has nowhere to put them. Murray Energy Corporation received an average of 532 Federal inspectors per month in 2016. ?Hm? ACTION PLAN FOR RELIABLE AND LOW COST ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA AND TO ASSIST IN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL INDUSTRY (CONTINUED) We must send a Company manager with every one of these inspectors, taking an away from our employee safety inspections and safety training. CUT THE STAFF OF THE US. ENVIRONMENTAAL PRQLILECTION QWGENCY IN AT LEAST HALF Tens of thousands of government bureaucrats have issued over 82,000 pages of regulations under Obama, many of them regarding coal mining and utilization. The Obemn EPA, alone, wrote over 25,000 pages of rules, thirty~ eight (38) times the words in our Holy Bible. THE RECENTLY ENACTED All; This regulation particularly punishee states in which coal mining takes place to the benefit; of other wealshier east coast states. 913? LABOR This regulation provides no health bene?t to our coal miners, and threatens the destruction of thousands of ol niiningjohe. OBTAIN RETIREE MEDICAL 01" -m WORKERS OF AMERICA (Uli'iWA) REPRESEJTED. RETLEED For four (4) years. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McGonneil has refused to address this issue. Some say that this is because the UMWA wrongly opposed him in his recent election. This must be taken care of. And the legislation enacted must address not just b11033 recently orphaned through company bankruptcies and mine closures, but. the medical hene?te and pensions that; were promieed to oil retired miners by the Federal government itself. QVERTUBN THE M1313 ?gmm?ig 0F WOMATTM 0F VIOLATIONS RULE This rule is a punitive action of the Mine Safety and Health Administration under its Director for the poet eight; (B) were, the former Safety Director of a. labor union. THE OF 1314mm STATES WHO WILL FOLLOW OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 5ND OUR MYEE We must offeet the liberal appointees who went to rede?ne our Constitution and our Pa 040? ACTION PLAN FOR. RELIABLE AND LOW COST ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA AND TO THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL INDUSTRY (CONTINUED) 0F . THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION MUST BE REPLAC HQ The current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a record of favoring actions of the Obame Administration. That hae eyetemotieully devalued base lead generation as a result of the Obema ?war on coal?. These actions have put the future security and reliability of America's electric power grid at risk. Immediate action needs to be taken to require organized power markets to value fuel security, fuel diversity, and ancillary services th at only base load generating especially coal plants, can provide. MEMBERS OF THE TEHAIESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 0F The Board of Directors of this government agency has followed the mandates of the Ohema Administration, rather than aeeure reliable, low cost: electrioity for the Tennessee Valley Authority's rate payers, whom the}? are mandated to serve in this manner. LE TMEEMMBEBHSIQEIEEN. L110. MEMEIQNS BQMARD. Eliminate the antiemployer bias of the NLRB by appointing membere and stuff, particularly in the General Couneel?e of?ce, who will fairly consider the employer?s position and needs and not automatically accede to the unions or unionized employees in every matter considered. MM - 3t MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION ROBERTE MURRAY 46223 NATIONAL ROAD Reel-dent 8- Chief Executive of?cer Sr. OHIO 43950 PHONE: (740} 33645100 FAX: {740} 6957014 mmunavenemycorpmm March 23, 2017 The Honorable James Richard ?Rick" Perry United States Secretary of Energy United States Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave?. SW Washington, no. 20585 Dear Secretary Perry: We join you in applauding President Donald J. Trump's ?Energy Independence Executive Order? (?Executive Order?), which directs your Adminietration to review, rewrite, and rescind the eo~called Clean Power Plan and several other anti-coal regulations illegally promulgated by the Obema Administration. There is absolutely no doubt that this Executive Order will preserve coal jobs and low cost electricity in the United States. In furtherance of this Emcutive Order, we have developed the enclosed materials for your review and consideration, consisting of: six (8) Executive Orders further rescinding anti-coal regulations of the Obema Administration; and one (I) memorandum outlining the legal rationale for each of these actions, and others. These materials are organized as follows: 1. Exhibit 1 - E?luent Umitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category; Final Rule; Final Rule (the Rule?); 2. Exhibit 2 - Hazardous and Solid Weete Management System; Diepoaal of .Co a1 Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Rule"); 3. Exhibit . Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriam and Necessary To Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal? and Oil-Fired Electric Secretary Rick Perry March 23, 2017 Page 2 Utility Steam Generating Units: Final Supplemental Finding (Utility MAST Rule?); 4. Exhibit 4 - Final Rule on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Standard"); 5. Exhibit 5 .. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2003 Ozone Final Rule Update Rule?); 6. Exhibit Ii - Presidential Executive Order on The Paris UliIIlnte Accord ("Paris Climate Agreement"); 7. Exhibit 7 - A Comprehensive Memorandum which details the legal rationale for each of these executive actions, and others. We respectfully request that you review these materials, and enact them, as you deem appropriate. As you know, for many years now, we at Murrsy?Energy Corporation have been leading the ?ght against the disastrous and illegal anti-coal regulations of the Ohamn Administration, the vast majority of which remain in effect. We have developed expertise in this regard and offer our assistance to you. If there is any other way which we may help. please contact the undersigned directly at bohmurrsy@ooalsouroe.com or 740-338-3299 or Mr. Michael W. Garey, our Vice President - Government Affairs, at momey?ooalsourceeom or 740-338- 3100. Again, we appreciate your leadership in combattmg the ongoing destruction of the United States coal industry, as caused by the previous Administration. We stand prepared to assist you in any way that We can. Sincerely, MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION Robert E. Murray Chairman, President and Chief Executive Of?cer Enclosure Exhibit 1 Presidential Execu?ve Order ELG Rafe Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the Final Rule on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards For the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category Published on November 3, 2015 By the United States Environmental Protection Agency (The Regulations?), 80 Fed. Reg. 67837 (2015) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section Policy," It is in the nations! interest to ensure that the Nation?s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. Sec. Suspension and Review of the Final Rule 011 ELG Regulations. The operation and implementation of the Final Rule on ELG Regulations shall be suspended pending further action of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Administrator) taken pursuant to this executire order. (to) The Administrator and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (Assistant Secretary) shall review the Final Rule 0n ELG Regulations for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and cement a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law. (0) The Administrator, the Assistant Secretary. and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the ?nal rule listed in subsection of this section for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and shall rescind or revise, or pobiish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a result of a rules-taking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. With respect to any litigation before the Federal courts related to the ?nal rule listed in subsection of this section, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shat! notify the Attorney Generai of the pending reviews under subsections and of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inform any court of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such litigation pending the completion of ?trther adn?nistmtive proceedings related to the rule. See. 3. Policy Assessment. In connection with the reviews described in sections 203) and of this order, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall consider whether the ?nal rule referenced in section 2(a) above sets overly stringent ef?uent pollution limitations for the hundreds of existing coat-tired generating facilities in the United States that are neither technically feasible nor economically feasible. Sec. 4. General Provisions. (3) Nothing in this order shall he construed to impair or otherwise affect: the authority granted by law to anexecutive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the mentions of the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (13) This order simii be implemented consistent with applicable tow and subject to the availability of appropriations. - This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or bene?t, substantive or procedural, enforceabie at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its o?icers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE wens HOUSE Exhibit 2 Presidential Executive Order .. CCR Ruiz Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, Economic Growth, and Reducing Regulatory Costs by Reviewing the Final Rule on Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities (the Rule?), Published on April 17, 2015 By the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 80 Fed. Reg. 21302 (2015) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the lows of the United States of Aruerics, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. it is in the national interest to control solid waste pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, reducing unnecessary regulatory costs, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. Sec. 2. Suspension and Review of the Final CCR Rule. The operation and implementation of the ?nai COR Rule shalt he suspended pending further action of the Administrator of the Enviromnental Protection Agency (the ?Administrator? token pursuant to this executive order. The Administrator shall review the ?nal CCR Rule for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law. (0) The Administrator and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shalt review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the CCR Rule for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and shall rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a result of a ruiemoking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. With respect to any litigation before the federal courts rotated to the CCR Ruie, the Administrator shall notify the Attomey General of the pending review under subsections and of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inferm any court of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such litigation pending the completion of further administrative proceedings related to the rule. Sec. 3. Policy Assessment. In connection with the reviews described In sections 2(b] and of this order, the Administrator and heads of all executive departments and agencies shall eoneider whether under the COR Rule the USEPA should be responsible for enforcement of the rule, rather than providing for a private cause of action; and (ii) the states should be authorized to develop and enforce their own plans for disposal of coal combustion residuals for coal-tired electric generating facilities within their borders, rather than the USEPA imposing federal solid waste requirements on the coal-?red electric generation facilities. See. 4. General Provisions. (3) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: the anthority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereon or (ii) the ferretions ofthe Direetor of the Of?ce of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. This order shell be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the aVaiiability of appropriations. This order is not intended to, and does not, Create any right or bene?t, substantive or procedural, enforceable at low or in equity by no;' party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its of?cers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE Exhibit 3 Presldentia! Executive Order - U??l?y MA CT Rafe .Hm Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Economic Growth, and Reducing Regulatory Costs by Reviewing the Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriate and Necessary To Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule (the ?Utility MACT Rule?), Published on April 25, 2016 By the United States Environ mental Protection Agency, 81 Fed. Reg. 24,420 (2016) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation?s air is kept free ft?om excessive pollution, while at the some ?les promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory dimension, reducing unnecessary regulatory costs, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. Sec. 2. Suspension and Review of the Final Utility Rule. The operation and implementation of the Final Utitity MACT Ri?e shall be suspended pending further action of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (the ?Administrator") taken pursuant to this executive order. The Administrator shall review the Utility MACT Rule for consistency with the policy set forlh in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law. The Administrator and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the Utility Rule for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and Shell rescind or reviSe, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as aresult of a mlemaking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. With respect to any litigation before the federal courts related to the Utility MACT Rule, the Administrator shall notify the Attorney General of the pending review under subsections and of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, infoml any court of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate conceming any such iitigation pending the completion of further administratiVe proceedings related to the rule. Sec. 3. Policy Assessment. In connection with the reviews described in sections 263) and of this order, the Admiz?strator and heads of all executive departments and agencies shall consider whether the Utility MACT Rule sets overly-stringent air pollution ?n?tations that are neither technically feasible nor economically feasible for the hundreds of existing coal-fared electric generating facilities in the United States to which the Utility MAST Rule may apply. See. 4. General Provisions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the O?ice of Management and Budget relating to budgetatjr, administrative, or legislative proposals. This order shall he implantcoted consistent with applicable last:' and subject to the availability of appropriations. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or bene?t, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its of?cers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD . TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE [ants] Exhibit 4 Presidential Executive Order - MM 923 Standard Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Economic Growth, and Reducing Regulatory Costs by Reviewing the Final Rule on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (the Standard?), Published on October 26, 2015 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 80 Fed. Reg. 65292 (2015) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority Vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation?s air is kept free from excessive pollution, white at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, reducing unnecessary regulatory costs, and showing due regard for the mice of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. Sec. 2. Suspension and Review of the Final Rule on the NAAQS Standard. The operation and implementation of the Final Rule on the NAAQS Standard shall be suspended pending further action of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (the ?Admh1istrator") taken pursuant to this eneeuttvo order. The Administrator shall review the Final Rule on NAAQS Standard for consistency with the policy Set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with iaw. The Administrator and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the NAAQS Standard for consistency with the policy set forth in section of this order and shall rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuanees, as appropriate and consistent With low and with any changes made as a result of ruiemoicing proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. With respect to any litigation before the fedorat courts rotated to tho NAAQS Standard, the Administrator shall notify the Attorney General of the pending review under subsections and of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inform any court of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such litigation pending the completion of further administrative proceedings related to the rule. Sec. 3. Policy Assessment. In connection with the reviews described in sections 2(b) and of this order, the Administrator and heads ofnll executive depar?nents and agencies shall consider whether the NAAQS Standard sets overly?st11'ngent air pollution limitations that are neither technically feasible nor economically feasible for the hundreds of existing coal-?red electric generating facilities in the United States to which the NAAQS Standard may apply. See. 4. Gonerol Provisions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affeCt: the authorityr granted by law to an eXecutive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the Motions of the Director ofthe Of?ce of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, or legislative proposals. This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any light or bene?t, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE Exhibit 5 Presidential Elma-Mug Order GSA PR Update Ruhr Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Economic Growth, and Reducing Regulatory Costs by Reviewing the Final Rule on Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update (the Update?), Published on October 26, 2016 By the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 81 Fed. Reg. 74504 (2016) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is herebyr ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation?s air is kept free ?om excessive pollution, while at the some time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, reducing mmeccssary regulator}r costs, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. Sec. 2. Suspension and Review of the Final Rule on the CSAPR Update. The operation and implementation of the Final Rule on the CSAPR. Update shall be suspended pending forlher action of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (the ?Administrator'? taken pursuant to this exocutive order; The Administrator shall review the Final Rule on CSAPR Update for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law. The Administrator and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shalt review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the CSAPR Update for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and shall rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a result of a rulcmeking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. With respect to any litigation before the federal courts related to the CSAPR Update, the Administrator shall notify the Attorney General of the pending review under subsections and ofthis section so that the Attorney General may. as he deems appropriate, inform any court of such review and take such racemes as he deems appropriate concerning any such litigation pending the completion of further administrative proceedings related to the rule. Sec. 3. Policy Assessment. In connection with the reviews described in sections 2(h) and of this order, the Administrator and heads of all executive departments and agencies shall consider whether the CSAPR Update sets air pollution limitations that are neither technically feasible nor economically fesslbic for the hundreds of existing coal-?red electric generating facilities in the United States to which the CSAPR Update may apply. See. 4. General Provisions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwiSe affect: the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposais. This order shall he implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This order is not intonded to, and does not, create any right or bene?t, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by my party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its of?cers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE [oars] Exhibit 6 Presideu?nf Executive Order - Paris Climate Agreement Presidential Executive Order on The Paris Climate Accord EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of Amerlca, it is hemby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is in the Nation's interest to pursue policies and initiatives that strengthen the economic and competitive interests of the United States and its citizens on both a. domestic and international stage. Section 2. Suspension of Activity In Furtherence of the Paris Agreement. The United States and its executive agencies and executive of?cials shall immediately me all activities that are implemented, or are being implemented, for the purpose of effecting compliance with that certain Ports ,Agreement, e??ective November 4, 2016 (the ?Paris Climate Accord") to which the United Stones became a party through previous executive notion. The United States? commitments to providing monetary and other economic bene?ts to the parties, committees, agencies, and other of?iiatee, of the Paris Climate Accord (the "Climate Accord Parties"), are hereby so spended indefmitely. The United States will provide funnel notice to the Climate Accord Parties on November 4, 2019 of its intent to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, to be effective, consistent with the Paris Climate Accord?s terms, one year later on November 4, 2020. Section 3. General Provisions. (3) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: the authority granted by low to on executive deportment or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director ofthe Office of Mmtagement and Budget relating to budgetary, administratiVe, or legislative proposals. (13) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or bene?t, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or In equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its of?cers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE Exhibit 7 Memamndum cosmos'rrsr. MEMORANDUM Co mile [or ?Client vile ed Communication 451191119}: Damion Work Product FROM: Robert 8. Murray, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive O?icer of Murray Energy Corporation CC: Coplsn d: DATE: March 23, 2017 SUBJECT: STRATEGY TO PROMOTE RELIABLE AN LOW (30 ST ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA AND TO ASSIST IN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL INDUSTRY For eight years, the Oberon Administration?s hostility toward the American coal industry hindered our economic growth, cost tens of thousands of jobs, and threatened our way of life. Affordable and reliable electricity is essential to our collective prosperity. and decisive action by your administration may be able to undo some of the harm caused by President Obnma and his allies. Below is a holistic strategy to help to bring American Coal back ?rm the precipice of extinction. The Trump Administration has the power to exercise its executive authority and to exert political pressure to e??ecmme critical changes to help to resurrect our embattled industry. Where the President can effect necessary changes by presidential executive orders, we. hsVe provided drafts of such orders. In those instances, where presidential executive orders comet effect the necessary change, we provide alternative recommended strategies to bring change that will enhance the ability of coal??red electric generation to resume its appropriate positirm as a cornerstone of Awerlco?s ability to deliver reliable, affordable electricity to its citizens. We begin by addressing necessary changes in America?s energy policies that can be quickly, and meaningfully, addressed by executive order. CHANGES THAT CAN BE EFFECTED 3X EXECUTIVE ORDER 1. SUSPEND THE COALFIRED POWER PLANT EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDEIJNES (ELG) ANB COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS (COR) RULE OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Summary of Issues and Effects Related to ELG Regulations: 0 On November 3, 20l5, the United States Environmental Protection Agency published its Final Rule on Ef?uent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Poster Generating Point Source Category (the Guidelines"). 80 Fed. Reg. 6733?! (2015). The ELG Guidelines set new, stringent ef?uent limitations for hundreds of existing coal-?red electric generation It is not economically feasible for-oosl-?red generation facilities to meet these new ef?uent limitations. EPA obtained is projected cost data from self-interested vendors who ?low-belied? the cost estimates because the vendors stood to gain enonnous revenues ?om selling e?lucnt control equipment to the regulated coal- ?red generation plants if EPA adopted more stringent limitations. In feet, the actual costs of compliance Would be seven to eight times higher than EPA estimates. The newr e?luent limitations are not technologically feasible. Again. EPA went to selfuinterested vendors for assessments of the technical capabilities of the vendors? products. This technology simply will not work at most coal-?red generation facilities. The ELG Guidelines have been challenged in federal court by certain coal-?red generators. The ELG Guidelines seriously threaten to put coal-?red electric generation out of business. Meeting the new limitations is neither economically nor technologically feasible. - Recommended Action: I President Trump should issue an executive 0rd or suspending the ELG Guidelines and directing EPA to review, and rescind 01' revise, the Guidelines. Summary oflssues And Effects Related To The COR Rule: 0 On April 2015, EPA published its Final Rule on the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities (the Rule?). 80 Fed. Reg. 21302 (2015). The CCR Rule regulates the disposal of coal combustion residuals, or ?coal ash,? produced by coal-?red electric generation facilities. The CCR Rule contains some provisions that sepporters of coal??red electric generation favor. For instance, the Rule does no_t categorize coal nah as a "hazardous waste.? as environmmtal advocates had urged EPA to do. The Rule also permits "osp-and-elose~ln~place" impotmdments that are supported by the Goal industry and opposed by environmentalists, Conversely, the COP. Rule is enforceable only by citizen suits not by regulatory action of the EPA. This puts a ?target on the be oi? coalv-?rEd generators. inviting environmentalists to engage the generators in costly, years-long litigation that is likely to present pro?table operation of the targeted cealu?zed facilities. Moreover, the CCR Rule imposes in?exible federal solid waste requirements on coal-?red generators, instead of allowing the states to regulate the disposal of coal by their local mill-?red generators. EPA should be enforcing this Rule, not private parties motivated by a desire to put the coal industry out of business. Further, the Rule should he changed to allow states to deVelop and apply their own plans for the disposal of coal ash by local coal??red generation facilities. Recommended Action: a President Trump should issue an executive order suspending the CCR little and directing the EPA to review, and rescind or revise, the Rule. II. END THE ELECTRIC UTILITY MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE TECHNOLOGY AND OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD (OZONE NAAQS) Summary of Issues and Effects Related To The Electric Utility Maximum Achievoble Technology Regulations: Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule (the Rule?) established standards for the emission of hazardous air pollutants from coal plants that required the use of Maximum Achieveble Control Technology This, in turn, doomed many coal-?red power plants to closure and presented the construction of new plants. The Supreme Court held that EPA erred in ?nding these standards "appropriate and necessary" because EPA did not consider the cost of complying with the standard. However, the Supreme Court did not vacate the standards, and virtually every utility has new fully complied with the Rule. Following the Supreme Court?s decision, EPA conducted a remand proceeding and determined that, even considering the cost, it was ?approptiate and necessary? to adopt the MATS Rule, and issued the Utility Rule, 31 Fed. Reg. 24,420 (Apr. 25, 2016). The Utility MACT Rule?s standards for cool-powered electricity plant emissions are virtually impossible to achieve, deeming many coal-?red plants to closure and preventing construction of new plants. Between the cost of compliance and the loss of affordable electricity generators, the Rule will signi?cantly increase energy costs and will serve only to tin-(her the Cheese Adminisuation?s goal of destroying coal-?red energy generation in the United States. new ?applopriete and necessary? (Hiding is new on appeal in the DC. Circuit. Brie?ng is sodomy, and oral argument is notyet scheduled. Recommended Action: I President Trump should issue on executive order suspending the MACT Rule and directing EPA to review, and rescind or revise, the Rule. Summary of Issues and Effects Related To The (hone HAAQS The Ozone NAAQS is EPA's standard for safe levels of ground-level ozone. States are required to develop plans to lower ground-level ozone concentrations to the mount speci?ed in the Ozone NAAQS, regardless of the cost of doing so. EPA has set the Ozone NAAQS at a level that is for lower than is necessary to protect public health. The draconian standard requires cool-?red generators to install overly stringent compliance equipment, at very high cost, to meet the standard. The Ozone NAAQS has been ohsilenged by Murray Energy, ten different states, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce end other industry groups, and by certain environmental groups. Brie?ng on the Ozone NAAQS in the D.C. Circuit was recently completed and oral argmnent is scheduled for April 19, 2017. The impact of the Ozone NAAQS on the us. economy is devastating. Not only will it reduce the Gross Domestic Product Imd will cost an untold number of jobs. It also will lead to the premature retirement of many coal-?red plants, and substantially increase the average residential cost of electricity. Recommended Action: President should issue an executive order suspending the Ozone NAAQS and directing EPA to review, and rescind or revise, the Ozone NAAQS. OVERTURN THE RECENTLY ENACTED CROSS-STATE AIR RULE Summary of Issues and Effects Related To The CSAPR: . On August 8, 2011, EPA published the original CSAPR. 76 Fed. Reg. 4820!! (2011). The CSAPR established a new regulatory program to limit the emission of so?called ?ozone pollutants" (measured by the emission of NOX) in 22 identi?ed states in the eastern United States, including Ohio, based on EPA's assessment that such emissions from one state contributed in excessive ozone pollution in "downwind" states. The original required ozone pollutants in ??lpwind? slates (6.3., Ohio) to be reduced so that the ambient air In "downwind? states (cg, and New York) would meet 199? Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Ozone NAAQS). {In October 26. 2016, the USEPA published the ?nal rule for its CSAPR Update. 81 Fed. Reg. 74504. The CSAPR Update adopts even more stringent lirnitotiorm on ozone emissions from Ohio and other sources, requiring that the ambient air in the 22 covered states meet 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The stringent limitations on ozone emissions the CSAPR Update effectively imposed on coal-?red electric generation facilities in Ohio and surrounding states will put those facilities out of business. The CSAPR Update limitations, combined with the Clean Power Plan and similar initiatives, is simply another mechanism adopted by the Oberon Administration to kill coal-?red energy generation in the United States. Recommended Action: President Trump should issue on executive order suspending the CSAPR Update and directing EPA to review, and rescind or revise, the CSAPR Update. IV. REVISE THE ARBITRARY COAL MINE DUST REGULATION OF THE MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMNISTBATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Summary entrance and Effects Related To Coal Mine Bust Regulation: I On May I, 2014, MSHA published its Final Rule on Lowering Mincrs? Expomt?e to Respirabic Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors (the ?Dust Rule"). 79 Fed. Reg. 24814 (2014). The Dust Rule phased in a series of signi?cant and damaging to cool dust regulations beginning in August 2014 and ending in October 2016. These changes most signi?cantly included (1) increasing the tinte period for mine operators to take air samples, (2) requiring miners to use bulky and awkward Continuous Personal Dust Monitors to measure dust concentrations, and (3) reducing the concentration limit of respireble dust to 1.5 milligrams per cubic meter, 3 decrease of 25% from the previous standard. 011 January 25, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Dust Rule despite a wellqeasoned and well-suppo [ted challenge to both the validity of the Rule and to authority to enact it. The Eleventh Circuit ruled only MSHA had a rational basis for enacting the Rule; not was in some way obligated to enact the Rule. For that reason, executive action on the Dust Rule is permitted. The stringent limitations of the Dust Rule will put many coal mines out of business. The limitations for respirable dust cannot be achieved by lungwott shearer or a continuous miner. Further, there is no evidence that the stringent levels set in the Dust Rule actuallyr decrease rates of disease among miners. The cost of work stoppages alone as a result of the Dust Rule, will be approximately $1.6 billion per year. Recommended Action: President Trumra should issue an executiVe order suspending the Dust Rule and directing to review, and rescind or revise, the Role. V. WITHDRAW FROM THE ILLEGAL UNITED NATIONS PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD Summary oi issues and Eileen Related ?32 the l?ar'rs Climate Accord: The ?atis Climate Accord is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change dealing with greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions mitigation, adaptation and ?nance. 'lhe Climate Accord went into effect on November 4, 2016, As of December, 194 members have signed the Accord, 134 of which have formally rati?ed it. . The Climate Accord obligates its signatories to: pursue domestic policies and regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions; provide scienti?c and regulatory evidence to the Climate Accord body of how they plan to achieve their emissions goals; and provide economic support to nations which carmot produce green icehnology at this time. 0 The Climate Accord exploits the American taxpayers by sending their tax dollars to the United Nations to he spent assisting less-developed nations in their efforts to become ?green.? Indeed, the Climate Accord will foist upon American industry and Moorican citizens more expensive green energy technologies, while less- deVeloped nations lag behind and are permitted to use less expensive energy technologies. The Climate Accord undermines American industry by creating an unfair and unbalanced playing ?eld. Recommended Action: The Constitution provides that the president ?stroll have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two?thirds of the Senators present concur? (Article 11, section 2). This is the appropriate Way that the American government and its citizenry become subject to controlling law. The Senate approves or rejects a resolution of rati?cation in order for a treaty to become law. lids getter occurred with the Climate Accord. As a result, and as the Obama administration acknowledged, the Climate Accord is ?solcilyj [an] executiw agreement.? Therefore, it is not a retitled treaty that creates mandatory American law. The Climate Accord states that: ?At any time otter three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written noti?cation to the Depositary.? Withdrawal takes effect one year atten- mitten noti?cation. If the United States were to follow the process laid out in the Accord, notice of withdrawal be given on November 4, 2019, and the withdrawal would be e??eotive on November 4, 2&20. President Trump should issue an executive order to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, andfor to direct the relevant federal agencies that they shall not require ooal-?red electric generators to take antidote comply with the Aeeord. SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT CANNOT BE EFFECTED THROUGE EXECUTE YE VI. FOR GREENHOUSE GASES (GHG) Summary oi?Isaues and Effects Related To ?Endangerment Finding?: EPA has issued a ?awed ?endangerment ?nding" that GHG emissioris, by causing climate change, endanger the public health or welfare. Thar endangerment ?nding is die predicate for regulation of GHG emissions under a number of Clean Air Act programs. EPA Administrator Soot! Pruitt and 14 other states unsuccessfully challenged the ?endangerment ?nding" in the D.C. Circuit. In his con?rmation hearing, Administrator Pruitt stated that pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court?s 2014 endangerment ?nding in the Massachusetts u. EPA ease, EPA has an obligation to take some action to control CO: pollution. Hoorever, in doing so, EPA must follow applicable processes established by Congress. Administrator Pmi? may have unknowledged alittle wiggle room but not much -- for EPA to review the endangerment ?nding when he told Congressional lawmakers that ?Itjhere is nothing I know that would cause a review at this point." But even with the endangerment ?nding, the Administrator beiieves there are limits to authority to regulate C02 emitted by power plants. Recommended Action: 0 The endangennent ?nding is based on ?awed science and should be withdrawn or suspended. However, it is doubtful. based on Administrator Pruitt?s con?rmation hearing testimony, that EPA will withdraw the endangerment ?nding. Nonetheless, the Adndnistrator?s testimony indicates that he does feel that powers are more limited by Congress than the Obama Administration believed. The Adndnistration should direct the EPA and Congress to take appropriate action. VH. ELIMINATE THE THIRTY (30) PERCENT PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT FOR WINDMILLS AND SOLAR PANELS IN ELECTRICITY GENERATION Summary of Issues and Effects Related To WindlSoiar Power Tax Credit: The federal Business Energy investment Tax Credit created a thirty (30) percent production tax credit for investments in wind and solar technologies used to generate electricity. The Consolidated Appropriations Act signed in December 2015 included several amendments to the ITC that are applicable to mind and solar generation technologies. Notably, the expiration date for the tax credits for investments in these technologies was extended, with a gradual step-down of the credits between 2019 and 2022. There simply is no reason for the federal government, through tax credits, to be providing an arti?cial economic advantage to inef?cient and ineffective power generation technologies. Such arti?cial advantages disrupt the appropriate allocation of costs in the competitive electric generation market. Moreover, in the competitive global market, the exorbitant costs associated with this mag-heeded government interference puts US. energy producers at an extreme disadvantage with foreign competitors. As arti?cially-in?ated domestic energy costs are priced into American goods and services, those goods and services cannot compete in the global marketplace. The damage to American commerce is enormous. Recommended Action: 6 The Trump Administration must persuade Congress to end tax credits for investments in wind and solar energy technologies. Eliminating these disruptive tax credits will lower the cost of American goods and services, providing essential price relief for American consumer and enabling American businesses to compete effectively against global competitors. FUND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES Summary of Issues and E?eets Related To Clean Coal Technotogies: Coal is the United States' most abundant fuel source, with enough reserves to poorer the nation for another 280600 years. According to the Department of Energy, one~foorth of the known coal in the world is located in the United States, which has more coal reserves than any other country in the World. There is more minable coal in the United States than there is oil in the rest of the world. The coal industry is a major source of jobs in the United States. Currently, coal is in mined in 26 states. According to statistics compiled by the United States Energy Information Administration, in 2015, the last year for which statistics one available, the coal industry employed approximately 66,000 miners nationwide. Thanks to the Oberon Administration?s ?war on cool." that number was down 12% from juSt the prior year. and down 50% from 1980 levels. The industry pmvidcs another 90,000 jobs in coal temponntion and coal-?red power plant operation, and indirectly supports tens of thousands of additional jobs nationwide. The National Energy Technology Laboratory has found that new coaln?red pone: plants already emit 90% less pollutants than plants built in the 19703.13n1issions- reducing technologies in these new plants include fluidized-bed combustion, integrated gasi?cation combined cycle, ?ue gas desulfurlzation, low nitrogen oxide hunters, selective catalytic reduction, and electrostatic precipitetors. Promising new technologies that may further reduce emissions by as much as 30% include improvements to existing clean coal technologies, and new technologies such including high~e?iciency fuel cells, advance him-ef?ciency combustion, hydrogen production through gast?catlon, and ultra-supercxitical pulverized coal combustion. The Obama Administration?s "war on coal? included not onlyr the pmmulgatlon of unreasonable and unworkable environmental regulations, but also cuts to funding for research and development of clean coal technologies in favor of comiunents to smcalled "green energy? such as wind and solar power. The Obmna Administration even reduced funding for its favored technology of carbon capture and sequestration which has proven both technologically and economically mtfeasible. The Trump Adminlsua?on?s preliminary budget proposal includes a 6% reduction in ?nding for the Department of Energy, including the proposed elimination of the Department?s Advanced Research Projects Agency, through which clean coal technology has been ?mded in the past. The federal government should adequately fund the rescind) and development of clean coal technology that would pennit the United States to take advantage of its abundant supply of this reliable ?lel source and to preserve innumorable Americanjohs. Such funding should focus on technologies that appear both technologically promising and economically feasible?such as high-efficiency fuel cells, advance Huh-ef?ciency combustion, hydrogen production through gasi?cation, and ultra- supercritleal pulverized coal combustion??rather than expensive and unworkable technology?each as (308. Recommended Action: During the caxnpeigu, President Trump signaled support for the development of clean coal technology. President Trump shouid strongly urge Congress to amply fund research and development of clean coal technologies, either through federal grants or tax credits. 1K. OVERHAUL THE BLOATED AND POLITICAUZED MNE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Summary of Ian nos and Etfects Related To MEI-IA Poli?cization: Concurrent with President Trump?s March 201?! Executive Order titled "Comprehensive Plan for Recrganizing the Executive Branch,? a similar approach is needed with regard to the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). While mine worker employment hos decreased dramatically in recent years, budget has not. Indeed, item 2010 to 2015, the number of coal miners in the United States decreased from 89,838 to 65,971 (a nearly 27% decrease). HoWeVer, MSEA did not experience proportional cuts in investigators or its budget during that time frame. Compared to some other industries, coal mining has a signi?cantly lower employee fatality rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2015, the ?mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction? industry sector had an employee fatality rate of 11.4% per 100,000 mil-time workers. Breaking down that rate, the oil and gas extraction industries accounted for 74% of those fetal injuries, thereby making the employee fatality rate for coal mincl?s' dramatically lower than the reported 11.4%. in contrast, the transportation and warehousing industry had an employee fatality rate of 13.0% per 100,000 hill-time Workers, and the agriculture, forestry, ?shing and hunting industry had an employee fatality rate of 22.8% per 100,0 00 full-time workers. Despite this IoWor employee fatality rate, the coal mining industry is more heavily regulated than virtually all other industries. Indeed, the MSHA allows an inspector to temporarily shut down a working mine unilaterally due to a perceived imminent danger to workers, leading to disruption endless of productive time. A new standard requires operators to inspect mines lac-fore Workers start their shi?s. Even the federal courts have recently begun issuing rulings recognizing that MSHA is ovorreaching. For example, The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ?ndings of the MSHA Review Commission, which held that an equipment and pans shop which did not extract coal and did not prepare co oi or any other mineral for use was a "coal or other mine,? and therefore subject to jurisdiction. In 2016, Murray Energy Corporation received an average of 532 MSHA inspectors per month. Recommended Action: The number of MSHA investigators should be made proportional to the nruuber of actual mine workers in the United States. Therefore, a certain number of MSHA hivestigators? positions should be eliminated. The reduced MSHA funds should be allocated to education and training programs that help identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in the country?s mines, along the lines of the Broobvood-Sogo grant program. To the extent that any MSHA regulation is found to he unconstimtionoi, the President should home an Executive Order instructing the Secretary of the Department of Labor to Greece enforcement of the regulation and hold all pending and outstanding enforcement proceedings in oheynnoe untii it can be determined that continued enforcement will not violate mine operators? constitutional rights. There should he a review of all MSHA regulations promulgated since 1996 (the year in which the Congressional Review Act was passed), and determine which regulations failed to meet the reporting to Congress requirement. If a report on a regulation is not submitted to Congress, Congress can pass a resolution to rescind the regulation, essentially and voiding the regulation. Clearer and more limited guidelines and duties should he created for MSHA investigators, and MSHA enforcement and regulations should be structured to have less of a punitive effect on coal companies. in this regard, the MSHA could follow the herd of recent legislation in states like West Virginia and which have taken steps such as requiring that mine operators receive ?compiiance assistance notices? bettrre issuing citations and imposing steep f'mes, pennitting inspectors to issue notices of violations only when they can prove imminent danger of death or serious harm, and utilizing "individuni personal assessments? which target speci?c mine employees .. rather than mine operators or coal companies for violations, ?nes, and revocation of certi?cations or licenses needed to work in the industry. X. CUT THE STAFF OF THE US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN AT LEAST HALF Summary of Issues and E?ecis Related To the Size of EPA Staf?ng: Under the Obame Administration, EPA issued nearly 4,0 00 rogulations, averaging almost 50!} annually, and mounting to over 33,000 new pages in the Federal Register. The almost 15,000 person workforce of EPA has greatly contributed to the unnecessarily large and burdensome number of issued regulations. President Ohanrs allowed and encouraged EPA regulators to stretch the legai limits of the US. Constitution and the Agency's statutorily-granted authority. Under the Gimme Administration, the ermuai compliance costs associated with EPA regulations grew by over $50 billion. These high costs crippled the US. economy by impacting the GDP, killing thousands ofjobs, and increasing the cost of consumer goods. EPA regulations enacted under the Obama Admir'tistratlon also have inhibited the advancement and growth of the coal industry. A host of EPA permit requirements have delayed construction of new coal plants, led to fuel switching, and resulted in withdrawn penuit applications. Many of the EPA regulations promulgated during the Obatne Administration are based on a weak scienti?c foundation and have greatly increased compliance costs for existing coal plants, increased the cost of mining coal. and e?'eclively barred the construction of new coal plants. The consulting group ICF International estimates that 20% of America's coal power plants could be retired as soon as 2020 because of the EPA's air, waste. and water regulations. Recommended Action: We support President Tmmp?s proposed cuts to budget. The President's Budget Blueprint, delivered to Congress on March 16, 20W, proposes to cut budget by 31%. If this proposed budget is approved by Congress, it would have the effect of cutting 3,200 positions, or more than 20%, of the agency?s current workforce of about 15,000. In order to achieve the desired reduction of at least 50% of workforce, President Trump should prop use an even greater cut to the EPA budget. The current proposed budget still moat go through Congressional approval. The White House can ensure congressional approval by working to achieve bipartisan support. x1. OBTAIN LEGISLATION T0 FUND BOTH nurtures: MEDICAL CARE AND PENSIONS FOR ALL OF UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UMWA) .. REPRESENTED, manner) COAL MINERS Summary omsues and E?eets Related to Retiree Medical Care: 4 The Obama Administration and its regulations have dismantled the Coal Industry. Since 2&12, over three dozen coal companies have ?led for bankruptcy, resulting in thousands of lost jobs for American coal miners. Seventy years ago, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) sought to secure better employee bene?ts for coal miners. The then-President, Harry Truman, issued an Executive order directing Secretary of the Interior, Julius Krug, to take possession of all bituminous coal mines and to negotiate ?appropriate changes in the terms and conditions of employmen of miners with the UMWA. which led to the mug-Lewis Agreement. Through the King?Lewis Agreement and subsequent labor agreements between the UMWA and mine operators, funds were established to provrde health and pension bene?ts to coal miners. The health and pension funds support approximately 120,000 former miners and their families nationwide. in 1992 and 2006, Congress intervened to Resist retired miners and to secure their health bene?ts. In 2016, seeing that thousands of miners were at rial-t of losing their bene?ts, Congress provided a four-month extension in health bene?ts for orphaned retired miners and their dependents. This extension ends on April 30, 2017. Rather than revisiting this issue, every ten years, the Congress needs to provide coal miners with a permanent solution to secure their health and pension henelits, which was promised to them decades ago. As a result of extensive regulations, especially those imposed by the previous Administration, there are far fewer mine operators. Accordingly, there is a decline in contributions into the Combined Fund. With an increasing number of miners requiring these bene?ts, the funds are decreasing rapidly. Without Congress? intervention, the Fund will no longer be able to support the bene?ts for the retired coal miners and the miners will he left without health and pension bene?ts, which was promised to them. Recommended Action: Currently, there are two bills pending in the Senate and one bill pending in the House of Representatives relating to providing coal miners with health andfor pension bene?ts. The Administration should support 3. 175 and HR. 179. HoWever, S. 716 should not be supported, as its extension for only health care funding (with no treatment of pension funding) will not lead to the desired outcome. XII. OVERTURN THE MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTMTION: DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PATTERN 0F VIOLATIONS RULE Summary of Issues and Effects re Pattern of Violations Rule: On January 2.3, 2013, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration published its Pattern of Violations regulation Rule"). 78 Fed. Reg. 5073?5074; 30 C.F.R. et seq. The POV Rule greatly expanded the original direction regarding pattern of violations contained in Section 104(o) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 {the ?Act"} and the 1990 Rule regarding pattern of violations ["1990 Rule?) by enlarging the scope of what the MSHA would consider to identify a pattern. . Potential harm to mine operators identi?ed as POV violators is signi?cant. Once the MSHA identi?es a pattern of signi?cant and substantial violations at a mine, the operator receives written notice from the MSHA. 30 C.F.R. Ifthe MSHA ?nds 3&3 violation within 90 days after issuance of the notice, the MSHA will order the withdrawn] of all persons from the affected area (with few exceptions) until the violation is abated. 30 CFR The POV notice only terminates if the MSHA does not issue a withdrawal order within 90 days after issuing the POV notice or (2) when an MSHA inspection of the entire mine ?nds no 8&3 violations. 30 CPR. 104.4131). Under the 1990 Rule, the scope of what the MSHA would consider was limited to 5&8 violations, orders and enforcement measures implemented by the MSHA in response to continued violations, at mine operator?s Iaclc of good faith in correcting a safety issue, accident, injury, or illness mcords that demonstrate a serious safety or health management problem, and mitigating circumatanees. 55 Fed. Reg. 31136. But this scope was greatly expanded under the 2013 revision, which now includes consideration of ?citations for 8&3 violations" and ?citations and withdrawal orders resulting [item no unwarranted failure to comply." 30 CFR 104.2. The POV Rule greatly expands mine operator exposure by allowing the MSHA to consider unproven allegations and non-?nal citations rather than ?nalized orders. Currently, mine operators are not afforded due process in the form of section or hearing before they are deprived of their rights via a withdrawal order. A challenge to the POV Rule is pending in the Southern District of Ohio. Ohio Cool Ass?n v. Perez, 192 F. Supp. 882 (SD. Ohio 2016). Plaintiffs in that case claim that the POV Rule exceeds the statutory autho?ty granted to the MSHA, and that it violates the Due Process Clause because it eliminates the in the 2990 Rule. Recommended Action: The Administration should ask Congress to pass a joint oesolution of disapproval to rescind the POV Rule. Under the Congressional Review Act a Federal agency promulgating a rule or regulation is required to submit a report regarding the new regulation to both the House of Representatives and the Senate (which the Department of Labor did not do here). 5 11.5.0. It? the report is not submitted, Congress can pass a resolution to rescind the regulation, essentially nuilifying and voiding the regulation. 5 U.S.C. 802(1))(1) rule shall not take effect (or continue), if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval of the Once rescinded, the regulation cannot be presented to Congress in substantially the same form. 5 802(b)(2) rule that does not take client (or does not continue) under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same may not be instead"). APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WILL FOLLOW OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND OUR LAWS Summary of Issue Ami Effects of Supreme Court Composition: The Supreme Court of the United States currently has four justices who. instead of following the Constitution and the laws of the United States as they are written, seek to rede?ne our Constitution and create new laws to implement their liberal agenda. Recommended Action: - President Trump should appoint reliably conservative justices if and when vacancies on the Supreme Court arise. The President's nomination of Neil Gorsuch is an excellent ?rst stop. The Administration should continue to identify conservative candidates that President Trump con nominate whenever Vacancies arise. XIV. MEMBERS on THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY comesron (BERG) mos-r on Summary oiissues and E??ecls Related To FERC Membership: FERC members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. FERC is composed of up to ?ve oommissioners who serve ?ve?year terms. Currently, there are only two commissioners: acting choir Cheryl A. LaFleur, an Obama appointee whose term expires on June 30, 2019, and Colette D. Honorable, another Obama oppohtteo whose term expires on June 30, 2017. Recommended Action: - There are up to 3 vacant positions on FERC that may be immediately ?lled by President Trump. The Icons of the two current commissioners expire within the next 2 years, but those positions also may be immediately replaced by President Trump. . XV: MEMBERS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (T VA) BOARD OF DIRECTORS MUST BE REPLACED: Sum mar-y of Issues and Effects 'Roiotcd To TVA Board Reoincemeot: TVA Board Members are appointed by the President and con?rmed by the Senate. Each director serves a title-year term. When their term expires, serving directors may remain on the Board until the end of the then-current Congressional session (typically in December), or until their successor takes office; whinhever occurs ?rst. Recommended Action: All of the current directors? tonne expire during the next three years. President Trump will be able to appoint coa1~?iendly directors during his term. XVII: REPLACE THE MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Summary af?uence and Effects of NLRB Composition: in the past eight years. the Obamo Admir?stration?s National Labor Relations Board (the ?Board?) has engaged in a no-holds-han?cd campaign to bolster private sector union. membership and decimnte management rights. It did so primarily in We Ways: by overturning a collective 4,105 years of precedential case law; and (2) by adopting overreaching regulations to facilitate union organizing. Currently, the Board has three members?Acting Chairman Philip A. Misciman'a, in Republican whose term ends Dec. 26, 2017, and Members Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFen-an, both Democrats whose tonne end Aug. 27, 2018, and Dec. 2019, respectiVely?and toro vacancies. Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act the President can onlyr remove a Board member for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. 29 (1.5.0. 153(a). The General Counsel has ?nal authority to investigate charges and issue complaints. He also supervises all 13on attorneys and all of?cers and employees in the Board? 5 Regional Of?ces. The current General Counsel is Grif?n, In, a Democrat who has been a driving force behind the Ohm Board's agenda. His four-year term ends Nov. 3, 2017. The NLRA is silent on whether the President can remove the General Counsel before the end of his term. 29 U.S.C. 15301). The Board has 1,596 full-time Workers, the Vast majority of whom are proolnioo, classi?ed employees. They work in the Board?s Washington D.C. headquarters and 32 Regional Ollices. Each Regional Of?ce is supervised by a Regional Director appointed by the Board. Bach Subregional Of?ce is headed by an Of?cer in Charge, who is also appointed by the Board. The General Counsel, subject to civil service rules, may demote and discharge nearlyr all Board personnel; however, the demotion or discharge of any Regional Director or Ollicer in Charge must be approved by the Board. 20 ER. 2175. Recommended Action: President Trump should fill the two Board Vacancies widl pro-management members as soon as practical. Within a short period of time, the Trump Administrution?s Board could set a pro management tone that will ?lter down to the Administrative Law Judges, who hear complaints, and to the General Counsel?s Of?ce and the Regional Of?ces. Furthennoro, when the terms of Members Gaston Pearce and McFenan expire, President Trump should appoint two additional pro-management members to the Board. Traditionally, the Board?s membership is a 3 to 2 meiodty in favor of the president's party. However, there is no iaw hesidcnt from nephews to Edi the posts vacated by Gaston Pearce and President Trump should consider replacing General Counsel Griffin before his term ends in November 201?. While no General Counsel has ever been removed, there is persuasive authority that the President has plenary power to remove the General Counsel. Indeed, the Constitution generally empowers the President to keep executive of?cers accomteble by removing them from office, if necessary. Mars v. United States, 272 11.8. 52 (1926). This power is not unlimited, es the Supreme Court has curtailed the President's power in certain circumstances. such so when Congress creates an independent agency rtui by principal of?cers appointed by the President, whom the president may not remove but for good cause. Hunmhrey?s Executor v. United States, 295 (LS. 602 (1935}. Here, the NLRA is silent on this issue of removing the General Counsol, so although it may he argued that the President retains the power to do so, the attempt might lead to pretreated litigation. Once the Board?s vacancies are ?lled and the General Counsel is replaced (at the latest, when his terns ends this November), President Trump should direct the General Counsel to demote or discharge the Regional Directors and the Officers in Charge of Suhregione! Of?ces. Many of them are life?long. pro-union Board employees, and they should be replaced by personnel. President Trump should cut the Board?s current $273 million budget in order to reduce the number of promnion employees at the Board. Because it is dif?mtt to discharge federal employees,'even for cause, the most expedient way to make wholesale changes to the workforce is through a reduction in force due to a shortage of funds. Although the goal would he to hire perconnel, any hi?ug must he delayed for at least years to avoid having to rcbite the laid-off employees, who have ?rst priority in the event that the agency seeks to ?ll a position within two years of their separation. 5 (LEE. ?536.208. Once that time period posses, President Tnunp could increase the Board?s budget and reconstitute the Workforce with management?mhlded employees. 6 MURRAY CORPORATION 46226 Mammal Road 51 Clalravi'le. Ohio #3959 ROBERT E. MURRAY PHONE: (T43) 333.3100 Chairman. President In FAX: (3?40) some: Dhie! Emcullve omcar EMAIL: bobmunayQOoalsourcemm WEBSWE: mmunayanergycorpsom March 23, 20 17 The Honorable E. Scott. Pruitt Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Ave. NW Washington, 13.0. 20460 Deal: Director Pruitt: Enclosed is an Action Plan for achieving reliable and low cost; electricity in America and to assist in the Btu-viva! of our Country?s coal industry, which is essential to power grid reliability and low cost electricity. We are available to you in any way that you request. Sincerely. MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION ?Qua Robert E. Murray Chairman, President Chic Executive Of?cer Enclosures Page I of 4 ACTION PLAN FOR RELIABLE AND LOW COST ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA AND TO ASSIST IN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL INDUSTRY 575145111339." COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT LIMITATION RULES OF THE E13193. The compliance deadlines for both regulations must be suspended. The illegal ELG rule needs to be rescinded. The CCR regulation needs to he rem-itteu delegating the authorit;r to the states in light of the new legislation passed in December. EMERGENCY ACTIONS RELATIEIEHWTO THE SECURITY AND The Department of Energy must issue an emergency directive to have an immediate study done of the security and resiliency of our electric power grids. DOE will direct that no power plants having an available fuel supply of at least forty?ve (45) days he closed during the study period. or a minimum of two (2) years. There must he a withdrawal and suspension of the implementation of the ere-celled ?e finding? for greenhouse gases. ?endangerment ?nding" under the Clean Air Act serves as the foundation for the agency?s for reaching regulation of the economy in the form of emission limitations for greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. The high degree of uncertainty in the range of data relied upon by EPAL combined with the enormous regulatory costs without concomitant bene?ts merit revisiting the "endangerment finding?. According to ?nding, the ?root cause? of recently observed climate change is "likely" the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. EPA relied upon compufer-basedvelimate?model simulations and a of major ?ndings from scienti?c assessment reports with a signi?cant range of uncertainty related to temperatures over 25 years. The climate model failures are well documented in their inability to emulate resl~ world climate behavior, Models that are unable to simulate known climate behavior cannot provide reliable projections of future climate behavior. As for the scienti?c assessments underlying the of ?ndings used by EPA, many were not peer reviewed, and there are multiple instances where portions of peer reviewed literature germane to the ?endangerment ?nding" were omitted, ignored or unfairl dismissed. senses ACTION PLAN FOR RELIABLE AND LOW COST ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA AND TO ASSIST IN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL INDUSTRY (CONTINUED) ELIMINATE THE PERCENT PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT FOR WNDMILIS AN Electricity generated by windmills and solar panels costs twenty-six (26) cents per kilowatt hour with. a four (4) cent per kilowatt hour subsidy from the American taxpayers. These energy sources are unreliable and col},r available if the wind blows or the sun shines, Coal-?red electricity costs only four (4) cents per kilowatt hour. Low cost electricity is a staple of life, and we must have a level playing ?eld in electric power generation without the government picking winners and losers by subsidizing wind and solar power. EITHDILAW FROM THE ILLEGAL..UNITED NATIONS 21 PARIS The United Nation?s 00!? 21 Paris Climate Accord, to which Barack Obama has already committed one (1) billion dollars of America?s money, is an attempt by the rest of the world to obtain funding from our Country. It is an illegal treaty new/er approved by Congress, and it will have no effect on the environment. END. ELIE .. JACHLELAIHJE TECHNOLOGY AND OZONE REGHLATIQES We have Won these issues in the United States Supreme Court, and th ese rules must he completely overturned. Flinn-_ THE mDEYELg?lVll?l?u 915' --..QEHRTAIN CLEQN GOAL The Federal government must support the development of some Clean Coal Technologies, including: ultra super critical cembustiou; high ef?ciency, low emission coal ?ring: combined cycle coal combustion; and others. It should mt fund oomalled carbon capture and sequestration as it does not work, practically or economically. Democrats and some Republicans use CCS as a politics] cover to insincerely show that they are proposing something for coal. But, carbon capture and sequestration is a pseudonym for ?no coal?. OVERHALIL THE AND EQLITIGALIZED MINE SAFETY QEDWEEQLTH OF THE U1 S. DEPARTMEEILQE LAEQE This Federal agency, over the past eight (8) years, has not been focused on the coal miner safety, but on politics, bureaucracy, waste, and violation quotas. While coal mine employment has been cut in half, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration has continued to hire inspectors every year. But, the government has nowhere to put them. Murray Energy Corporation received an average of 532 Federal inspectors ger month in 2016. Re?ne ?Selle ACTION PEAR FOR RELIABLE AND LOW COST ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA AND To ASSIST IN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL INDUSTRY (CONTINUED) We must send a Company manager with every one of these inspectors, taking us away ?'om our employee safety inspections and safety training, CUT THE STAFF JET. THE Ila-.5. AGENCY LEAST HALE Tens of thousands of government bureaucrats have issued over 82,000 pages of regulations under Oberon, many of them regarding coal mining and utilization. The Ohama EPA, alone! wrote over: 25,000 pages of rules, thirty- eight (38) times the Words in our Holy Bible. QERTURN THE RECENTLY POLLUTION RULE This regulation particularly punishes states in which coal mining takes place to the benefit of other Wealthier east coast states. REVISE THE COALWMIHE.DUST REGELATION 0F HEELE 3.3.9351" QERAEEMEQEWQE This regulation provides no health benefit to our coal miners. and threatens the destruction of thousands of coal mining jobs. QETAIEEQLSLAEQE ILCLE CARE AND PENSIONS F93 ALL UNITED MAKE- WORKERS OF AMERICA For four (4) years, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to address this issue. Some say that. this is because the UMWA wrongly opposed him in his recent election. This must be taken care of. And the legislation enacted must address not just those recently orphaned through compan;r bankruptcies and mine closures, but the medical bene?ts and pensions that were promised to all retired miners by the Federal government itself. Qm?g?l? TEE- MINE SAEETY ADMINISTRATLQE. OF LAEQR. PATTERN 0F VIOLATIONS RULE This rule is punitive action of the Mine Safety and Health Administration under its Director for the past eight (8) years, the former Safety Director of a labor union. 41;??ng JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME ORTHEUNLTEL) WHQ, WILL FOLLOW OUR UNITED AND OUR LAWS We must offset the liberal appointees who want to rede?ne our Constitution and our laws. Eggs ti ol? 4 ACTION PLAN FOR RELIABLE AND LOW COST ELECTRICITY IN AND TO ASSIST IN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL INDUSTRY (CONTINUED) MEMBERS #93- THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULAEQEX QQMMISSIOELLUST BE REELACED The current Federal Energy Regulatory Cemmiseion has a record of favoring actions of the Obsme Administration. That. has systematically devalued base lead generation as a result of the Oh sma ?war on as 31". These actions have put the future security and reliability of America?s electric power grid at risk. Immediate action needs to be taken to require organized power markets to value fuel security, fuel diversity, and ancillary services that only base load generating assets, sepeeially coal plants, can provide. MEMBERS (11? THE TENNESSEE VALLEY BOARD 01?) QIRECTORS MUST-BE REPLAQEQ The Board of Directors of this government agency has followed the mandates of the Obama Administration, rather than assure reliable, low post electricity for the Tennessee Valley Authority?s rate payers, whom they are mandated to serve in this manner. mm .TIQHAL.LAB.OR RE. sexless somrme? Eliminate the ant-ismployer bias of the NLRB by appointing members and staff. particularly in the General Counsel?s o?ice, who will fairly consider the employer's position and needs and not automatically accede to the unions or unionized employees in every matter considered. ?iri? ENERGY CORPORATION MW ROBERT E. MURRAY President a. Chief Executive Of?cer March 26, 2017 The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt Administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency Of?ce of the Administrator 1101A Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW. Washington, 13.0. 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt: NAHUM ROAD er. emanates, onto 43950 PHONE: (740) 333-3100 FM (no) 6354014 bobmu?angalsourmoom mmunsyenooycerpeom We join you in. applauding President Donald J. Trump?s ?Energy Independence Executive Order? (Executive Order?, which directs his Adu?nistretion to review, rewrite, and xescind various anti-cool regulations illegally promulgated by the Obamo Administration. There is absolutely no doubt that this ExecutiVB Order will preserve coal jobs and low cost electricity in the United States. In furtherance of this Executive Order, we have developed the enclosed materials for you: review and consideration, consisting of: six (6) Executive Orders further rescinding anti-coal regulations of the Ohms Administration; and one (1) memorandum outlining the legal rationale for each of these actions, and others. These materials are organized as follows: 1. Exhibit 1 . Ef?uent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Rule; Final Rule (the "Em Rule?); 2. Exhibit 2 - Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Rule?); 8. Exhibit 3 Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriate and Necessary To Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coat and Oil-Fired Electric Administrator E. Scott Pruitt March 28, 2017 Page 2 Utility Steam Generating Unite; Final Supplemental Finding (?Utility MACT Rule?); 4. Exhibit 4 - Final Rule on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Standard?); 5. Exhibit 5 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone Final Rule Update Rule"); 6. Exhibit 6 - Presidential Executive Order on The (Paris Climate Accord C'Porie Climate Agreement?); Exhibit 7 - A Comprehensive Memorandum which details the legal rationale for each of these executive actions, and others. We xespect?llhr request that you review these materials, and enact them, as you deem appropriate. As you know, for many years now, we at Murray Energy Corporation have been leading the ?ght against the disastrous and illegal anti?coal regulations of the Ohama Administration, the vest ma?ority of which remain in effect. We have developed expertise in this regard and o?er our assistance to you. If there is any other way which we may help. please contact the undersigned directly at hobmunay?coaleomeeoom or 740x338-3299 or Mr. Michael T. W. Garey, our Vice President - Government A?aire, at mcarey@coaleource.com or ?3?40-388- 3100. Again. we appreciate your leadership in combatting the ongoing destruction of the United States coal industry. as caused by the previous Administration. We stand prepared to assist you in any way that we can. Sincerely, MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION Rohert E. Murray Chaiunen, President nd Chief Executive Of?cer Enclosure Exhibit 1 Presideu?rr! Executive Order .. ELG Rule Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the Final Rule on Ef?uent Limitations Guidelines and Standards For the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category Published on November 3, 2015 By the United States Environmental Protection Agency (The Regulations?), 80 Fed. Reg. 67837 (2015) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United Slates of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation's navigable waters are kept free ?ow pollution, while attire some time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty. and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. Sec. 2. Suspension and Review of the Final Rule 011 ELG Regulations. (21) The operation and implementation of the Feral Rule on ELG Regulations shall he pending ?lrliler action of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Administrator) taken pursuant to this executive order. The Administrator and the Assistant Secretary ofthe Army for Civil Works (Assistant Secretary) shall review the Finnl Rule 011 ELG Regulations for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the mile, as appropriate and consiste?t with law. (0.) The Administrator, the Assistant Secretary, our! the heads of all executive departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the ?nal rule listed in subsection of this section for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and shell rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with iaw and with any changes node as a result of a rolemaking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. Willi respect to any litigation before the Federal courts related to the ?nal rule listed in subsection of this section, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall prompliy notify the Attorney General of the pending reviews under subsections and of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appxopriate, inform any court of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such litigation pending the completion of further administrative proceedings related to the rule. See. 3. Policy Assessment. In connection with the reviews described in sections 20)) and of this order, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall consider whether the ?nal rule referenced in section 2(a) above sets oVetly stringent ef?uent pollution limitations for the hundreds of existing coal-?red generating facilities in the United States that are neither technically feasible not economically feasible. Sec. 4. General Provisions. Le] Nothing, in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise effect: (1) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the O?iee oannagement and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (is) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enfoxceehlc at low or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its o?ieers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE House Exhibit 2 Presidential Executive Order CCR Rule Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, Economic Growth, and Reducing Regulatory Costs by Reviewing the Final Rule on Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities (the Rule?), Published on April 1?7, 2015 By the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 80 Fed. Reg. 21302 (2015) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution out! the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to control solid waste pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, reducing unnecessary regulatory costs, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. Sec. 2. Suspension and Review of the Final CCR Role. The operation and implementation ofthe ?nal CCR Role shall be suspended pending fruthar action of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (the ?Adndnistrotor?) taken pursuant to this executive order. The Administrator shall review the ?nal CCR Rule for consistency with the policy set forth in section I of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and censistent with law. (all The Administrator and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the CCR Rule for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 ofthis order and shall rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those lssuanees, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a result ofa mletnaking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. With respect to any litigation before the federal courts related to the (ICE. Rule, the Administrator shall notify the Attomey General of the pending review under subsections and of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inform any court of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such litigation pending the completion of ?trther administrative proceedings related to the rule. Sec. 3. Policy Assessment. In connection with the reviews described In sections 2(b) and of this order, the Administrator and heads of all executive departments and agencies shall consider whether under the COR Rule the USEPA ahoutd be responsible for enforcement of the rule, rather than providing for a private cause of auction; and (ii) the states should be authorized to develop and enforce their own plans for disposal of cool combustion residuals for coal-?red electric generating facilities within their homers, rather than the USEPA imposiogfederal solid wash: requirements on the coal-direct electric generation facilities. Sec. 4. General Provisions. Nothing intbis order shail be construed to impair or otherwise affect: the authority granted by law to on executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (13) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or bene?t, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employwS, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE Exhibit 3 Presiden?a! Executive Order? Utility MCI Rule Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Economic Growth, and Reducing Regulatory Costs by Reviewing the Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriate and Necessary To Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal~ and Oil?Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule (the ?Utility MACT Rule?), Published on April 25, 2016 By the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 81 Fed. Reg. 24,420 (2016) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the autho?ty vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United Stains of Anaeriea, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to ensure thatthe Nation?s airis kept free from excessive pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, reducing unnecessary regulatory costs, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Coustinttion. Sec. 2. Suspension and Review at the Final Utility MACT Rule. The operation and implementation of the Final Utility MACT Rule shall be suspended pending further action of the Administrator of the Environmentai Protection Agenoy (the ?Administrator?) taken pursuant to this executive order. The Administrator shalt review the Utility MACT Rule for consistency with the policy set forth in Section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law. The Administrator and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shat! review ali orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the Utility MACT Rule for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and shall rescind or revise. or publish for notice and comment proposed rides rescinding or revising. those issunnces, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a result ofa ruiernaking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. With respect to any litigation before the federal courts related to the Utility MAST Rule, the Administrator shall until? the Attorney General of the pending review under subsections and of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inform any court ofsuoh review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such litigation pending the completion of further administrative related to the rule. Sec. 3. Policy Assessment. In connection with the reviews described in sections 20)) and of this order, the Administrator and heads of all executive departments and agencies shali consider whether the Utility MACT Rule sets overly-stringent air pollution limitations that are neither technically feasible nor economicaliy feasible for the hundreds of existing coal-?red eieettic generating facilities in the United States to which the Utility Rnie may apply. See. 4. General Provisions. (3) Nothing in this order shail be construed to impair or otherwise affect: the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the ?mctions of the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative or legislative proposals. This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable low and subject to the availability of approp?ations. This order is not intended to, and does not, create an},r right or bene?t, substantiVe or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its of?cers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE Exhibit 4 PrESidenfinl Executive Order NAA QS Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Economic Growth, and Reducing Regulatory Costs by Reviewing the Final Rule on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (the Standard?), Published on October 26, 2015 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 80 Fed. Reg. 65292 (2015) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the taxes ofthc United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. it is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation?s air is kept free item excessive pollution, while at the some time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, reducing lumecessary regulatory costs, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. See. 2. Suspension and Review of the Final Rule on the NAAQS Standard. (or) The operation and implementation of the Final Rule on the NAAQS Standard shall be suspended pending action of the Administrator of the Protection Agency (the ?Administrator?) taken pursuant to this executive order. The Administrator shall review the Final Rule on NAAQS Standard for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law. The Administrator and the heads ofsii executive departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the NAAQS Standard for consistency with the policy set forth in section I ofthis order and shall rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a monk of a rulerualdng proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. With respect to any litigation before the federal courts related to the NAAQS Standard, the Administrator shall until? the Attorney General of the pending review under subsections and of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inform any court of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate coneeming any such litigation pending the completion of further administrative proceedings related to the rule. See. 3. Policy Assessment In connection with the reviews described in sections 20:) and of this order, the Administrator and heads of all executive departments and agencies shall consider whether the NAAQS Standard sets utterly-stringent air pollution limitations that are neither technically feasible not economically feasible for the hundreds of existing coat-?red electric generating in the United States to which the NAAQS Standard may apply. See. 4. General Provisions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: the authority granted by iaw to an eXecutive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary. administrative, or legislative proposals. This order snail be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or bene?t, substantive or procedural, cnforceahie at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its of?cers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE Exhibit 5 Presidentiaf ?ecun?ve Order - CSAPR Update Rule Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Economic Growth, and Reducing Regulatory Costs by Reviewing the Final Rule on Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update (the Update?), Published on October 26, 2016 By the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 81 Fed. Reg. 74504 (2016) EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws ofthe United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interestto ensure that the Nation's air is kept free from excessive pollution, widie at the some time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, reducing unnecessary regulator},r costs, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution. Sec. 2. Suspension and Review of the Final Rule on the CSAPR Update. The operation and ilnplementation of the Final Rule on the CSAPR Update shalt be suspended pending further notion of the Administrator of the Enviromnental Protection Agency (the ?Administrator") taken pursuant to this executive order; . The Administrator shall review the Final Rule on CSAPR. Update for consistency with the policy set forth insectioo 1 of this order and publish for notice and aproposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law. The Administrator and the heads of alt executiVe departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the for consistency with the policy set forthin section 1 of this order and shall rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising. those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a resuit of a rule-making proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection of this section. (0) With respect to any litigation before the federal courts related to the CSAPR Update, the Administrator shall notify the Attorney General of the pending review under subsections and of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inform any court of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such litigation pending the completion of further administrative proceedings related to the rule. See. 3. Policy Assessment. In connection with the reviews described in sections 2(h) and of this order, the Administrator and heads of all executive deparhnenls and agencies shall consider whether the CSAPR. Update sets overly?stringent air pollution limitations are neither technically feasible nor economically feasible for the hundreds of existing coal-?red electric generating facilities in the United States to which the CSAPR Update may imply. Sect 4. General Provisions. (21) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Of?ce of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or bene?t, substantive or pmwdural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its of?cers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHETE HOUSE Exhibit 6 Presidential Erecurive Order - Paris Climate A greemem Presidential Executive Order on The Paris Climate Accord EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States ofAmeriea, it is hereby ordered as follows; Section 1. Policy. It is in the Nation?s interest to pursue policies and initiatives that strengthen the economic and competitive interests of the United States and its citizens on both a domestic and intermtiormi stage. Section 2. Suspension of Activity in Furthersnec of the Paris Agreement. The United States and its executive agencies and executive of?cials shall immediately cease all activities that are implemented, or are being Implemented, for the purpose of e??ecting compliance with that certain Paris Agreemmt, e?'ective November 4, 2016 (the ?Paris Climate Accord") to which the United States became a part}! through previous executive actioa. The United States? commitments to providing monetary and other economic anelits to the parties, committees, agencies, and other af?liates, of the Paris Climate Accord (the ?Climate Accord Parties"), are hereby suspended inde?niteiy. The United States will provide formal notice to the necessary Climate Accord Parties on November 4, 2019 of its intent to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, to be effective, consistent with the Paris Climate Accerd?s terms, one year laiet' on November 4, 2020. Section 3. General Provisions. Nothing is this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the ?ntctions of the Dileetor of the Olliee of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (is) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availabiIity of appropriations. This order is not intended to, and does nol, create any right or bene?t, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments. agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE Exhibit Canmmkensfve Memarrmdum CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM Con?dential Attorney - Client Privileged Communication Aitcrn 0 Idiots kit'rcdu FROM: Rotten E. Manny, Chairman. President, and Chief Executive Of?cer of Murray Energy Corporation CC: Benesch Friedlander Copian 36 Amnoii'LLP DATE: March 23, 2017 SUBJECT: STRATEGY TO PROMOTE AND LOW COST ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA AND TO ASSIST IN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COAL INDUSTRY For eight years, the Obama Administration?s hostility toward the American coal industry idndered our mercuric growth, cost tens of thousands of jobs, and threatened our way of life. A?'ordable and reliable electricity is essential to our collective prosperity. Swili and decisive action by your administration may be able to undo some of the harm caused by President Ohama and his cities. Below is a holistic strategy to heip to bring Am?rican Coal back from the precipice of extinction. The Trump Administration has the power to exercise its executive authority and to and political pressure to effectuate critical changes to help to resurrect our embattled industry. Where the President can effect necessary changes by presidential executive orders, we have provided drafts of such orders. In those instances, where presidential executive orders cermot effect the necessary change, we provide alternative recommended suategies to bring change that will enhance the ability of coal-fired electric generation to resume its appropriate position as a cornerstone of America?s ability to deliver reliable, affordable electricity to its citizens. We begin by addressing necessary changes in Amen'ca?s energy policies that can be quickly, and meaning??iy, addressed by executive order. SFECIFIC CHANGES THAT CAN BE EFFECT ED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER l. SUSPEND THE COALFIRED POWER PLANT EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES (ELG) AND COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS (CCR) RULE OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Summary of Issues and Effects Related to ELG Regulations: I On November 3, 2015. the United States Environmental Protection Agency published its Final Rule on Ef?uent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steers Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (the Guidelines?). 80 Fed. Reg. 67837 (2015). The ELG Guidelines set new. stringent effluent limitations for hundreds of existing coal-fired electric generation facilities. It is not economically feasible for coal?tired generation facilities to meet these new ef?uent limitations. EPA obtained is projected cost data from sei?interested vendors who ?low-bailed" the cost estimates because the vendors stood to gain enormous revenues from. selling effluent control equipment to the regulated coal- ?red generation plants if EPA adopted more stringent limitations. In fact, the actual costs of compliance would be seven to eight times [new than EPA estimates. The new effluent limitations are not technologically feasible. Again, EPA went to solfuinteresled Vendors for assessments of the technical capabilities of the vendors? products. This technology simply will not work at most coal-?red generation facilities. The ELG Guidelines have been challenged in federal court by certain coal~?red generators. The ELG Guidelines seriously tineaton to put coal-?red electric generation out of business. Meeting the new limitations is neither economically nor mobnoiogicaily feasible. Recommended Action: President Trump should issue an erreeutive order suspending the ELG Guidelines and directing EPA to review, and resch or revise, the Guidelines. Summary ofIssues And Effects Related To The CCR Rule: 011 April 17. 2015, EPA published its Final Rule on the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities (the Rule?). 80 Fed. Reg. 21302 (20i5). The COR Rule regulates the disposal of coal combustion rosiduals, or ?coal ash,? produced by coal-fired electric generation facilities. The CCR RoIe contains some provisions that supporters of coal-?red electric generation favor. For instance, the Rule does not, categorize coal ash as a ?hazardous waste.? as environmental advocates had urged EPA to do. The Rule also permits ?cap-and?elose-in-piaee? impoundments that are supported by the coal industry and opponed by environmentalists. Conversaiy, the CCR Rule is enforceable only by citizen suits, not by regulatory action of the EPA. This puts a "target on the back? of coal-?red generators, inviting environmentalists to engage the generators in costly, years-long litigation that is likely to prevent pro?table operation of the targeted coal??red Facilities. Moreover, the COB. Rule imposes inflexible federal solid waste requirements on ooal~fired generators, instead of allowing the states to regulate the disposal of coal ash by their local coal-?red generators. 0 EPA should be enforcing this Rule, not private parties motivated by a desire to put the coal industry out of business. Further, the Rule should be changed to allow states to develop and apply their own plans for the disposal of coal ash by local coal-?red generation facilities. Recommended. de?ant President Tnnup should issue an exeGUIiVe order suspending the (ICE Rule and directing the to review, and resciml or revise, the Rule. 1L END THE ELECTRIC UTILITY MAXIMUM ACIBEVABLE TECIEIOLOGY AND OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD NAAQS) Summary of Issues and Effects Related To The Electric Utility Maximum Achievable Technology Regulations: Mercury and Air Toxins Standards rule (the Rule?) established standards for the emission of hazardous air pollutants from coal plants that required the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology This, in mm, doomed many coal-fired power plants to closure and prevented the of new plants. The Supreme Court held that EPA erred in ?nding these standards ?appropriate and necessary? because EPA did not consider the cost of complying with the standard, HoweVer, the Supreme Court did not vacate the standards, and virtually every utility has new fully complied with the Rule. Following the Supreme Court?s decision, EPA conducted a remand proceeding and determined that, even considering the cost, it was ?appropriate and necessary? to adopt the MATS Rule, and issued the Utility MACT Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 24,420 (Apr. 25, 2016). The Utility MACT Rule's standards for coal- powered electricity plant emissions are virtually impossible to acltieVe, deeming many coal-?red plants to closure and preventing construction of new plants. Between the cost of compliance and the loss of affordable electricity generators, the Rule will signi?cantly increase energy costs and will serve only to ?lrther the Obnma Administration?s goal of destroying coal-?red energy generation in the United States. new ?appropriate and necessary? ?nding is now on appeal in the D.C. Circuit. Brie?ng is underway, and oralargtunent is not yet scheduled. Recommend ed Action: President Trump should Issue an executive order suspending the MACT Rule and directing EPA to review, and rescind or revise, the Rule. Summary oflssucs and Effects Related To The Game NAAQS The Ozone NAAQS is standard for safe levels of ground-level ozone. States are required to detrelop plans to lower ground-level ozone concentrations to the amount speci?ed in the Ozone NAAQS, regardless of the cost of doing 50. EPA has set the Ozone NAAQS at a level that is far lower than is necessary to protect public health. The draconian standard requires coal~?red generators to installu?verly stringent compliance equipment, at very high cost, to meet the stand . The Ozone NAAQS has been challenged by Murray Energy, ten di?erent stoma, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups, and by certain environmental groups. Brie?ng on the Ozone NAAQS in the ELC. Circuit was recently completed and oral argument is scheduled for April 19, 2017. The impact of the Ozone NAAQS on the Us. economy is devastating. Not only will it reduce the Gross Domestic Product and will cost an untold number of jobs. It also will lead to the pranaulre retirement of many coal-?red pewer plants, and substantially increase the avarage residential cost of electricity. Recommended Action: - President Trump should issue an executive order suspending the Game NAAQS and directing EPA to review, and rescind or revise, the Ozone NAAQS. In. ovenronn THE RECENTLY ENACTED am POILUTION RULE (CSAPR) Samurai-3,r of Issues and Effects Related To The CSAPR: . On August 8, 20?, EPA published the original CSAPR. 76 Fed. Reg. 43208 (2011). The CSAPR established a new regulatory program to limit the emission of so?oallcd ?ozone pollutants" (measured by the emission of NOX) in 22 identi?ed states in the eastern United States, including Ohio, based on EPA's assessment that such emissions from one state contributed to excessive ozone pollution in ?downwind? slates. . The original CSAPR required ozone pollutants in ?upwind? states (2.3., Ohio) to be reduced so that the ambient air in ?downudnd? states (cg, and New York) Would meet 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards {Ozone NAAQS). On October 26, 2016, the USEPA published the ?nal rule for its CSAPR Update. til Fed. Reg. 74504. The CSAPR Update adopts even more stringent limitations on ozone emissions from Ohio and other sources, requiring that the ambient air in the 22 covered slates meet 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The stringent limitations on ozone emissions the CSAPR Update effectively imposed on coat-?red electric generation facilities in Ohio and surrounding states will put these facilities out of business. The CSAPR Update limitations, combined with similar initiatives, is aiimpl},r another mechanism adopted by the [theme Administration to kill coal??red energy generation. in the United States. . Recommended Action: President Trump should issue on executive order suspending the CSAPR Update and directing EPA to review, and rescind or revise, the CSAPR Update. REVISE THE ARBITRARY COAL MINE DUST REGIEATION OF THE MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Summary oI?Issnes and Effects Related To Coal Mine Dust Regulation: On May 1, 2014, MSHA published its Finni Rule on Lowering Miners? Exposure to Respirabie Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors (the "Dust Rule"). 79 Fed. Reg. 24814 (2014). The Dust Rule phased in a series of signi?cant and damaging changes to coal dust regulations beginning in August 2014 and ending in October 2016. These changes most signi?cantly included (1) increasing the time period for mine operators to take air samples, (2) requiring miners to use bulky and awkward Continuous Personal Dust Monitors to measure dust concentrations, and (3) reducing the concentration limit of respirnble dust to milligrams per cubic meter, a decrease of 25% from the previous standard. On January 25, 2016, the EleVenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Dust Rule despite a welt-reasoned and well-supported challenge to both the validity of the Role and to authority to enact it. The Eleventh Circuit ruled only MSHA had a rational basis for enacting the Rule; not MSHA was in some way obligated to enact the Rule. For that reason, BXoculch action on the Dust Rule is permitted. The stringent limitations of the Dust Rule will put many coal mines out of business. The limitations for respirable dust cannot be achieved by a languall shearer or a continuous miner. Further, there is no evidence that the stringent levels set in the Dust Rule actually decrease rates of disease among miners. The cost of work stoppages alone as a result of the Dust Rule, will be approximately $1.6 billion per year. Recommended Action: - President Trump should issue an executive order suspending the Dust Rule and directing MSHA to review, and rewind or revise, the Rule. V. FROM THE ILLEGAL UNITED NATIONS PARIS CLMATE ACCORD Summary of Issues and Effects Related To the Paris Climate Accord: The i?aris Climate Accord is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Contention on Climate Change dealing with greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions mitigation, adaptation and ?nance. The Climate Accord went into effect on November 4, 20} 6. As of December, 194 members haVe signed the Aeeord, 134 of which have formally rati?ed it. - The Climate Accord obligates its signatories to: pursee domestic policies and regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions; provide scienti?c and regulatory evidence to the Climate Accord body ofhow they plan to achieve their emissions goals; and provide economic support to nations which cannot produce green technology at this time. . The Climate Accord exploits the American taxpayers by sending their tax deli-are to the United Nations to he spent assisting less-developed nations in their eiforts to become ?green." Indeed, the Climate Accord will foiet upon American industry and American citizens more expensive green energy technologies, while less- developed nations iag behind and are permitted to use less expensive energy technologies. The Climate Award undermines American industry by creating an unfair and unbalanced playing field. Recommended Action: The Constitution provides that the president "shalt have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided twodhirds of the Senators present concur" [Article II, section 2). This is the appropriate way that the American go vemment and its citizenry become subject to controlling law. The Senate approves or rejects a resolution of rati?cation in order for a treaty to become law. This never occurred withthe Climate Accord. As a result, and as the Dbame administration acknowledged, the Climate Accord is ?sole?yj [an] executive agreement.? Therefore, it is not a ratified treaty that creates mandatory Amoricau low. The Climate Accord states that: "At any time after three years from the data on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written noti?cation to the Depositary." Withdrawal takes effect one year after written noti?cation. If the Urdted States were to follow the process laid out in the Accord, notice of withdrawal could be given on November 4, 2019, and the withdrawal would be e?'ectiVe on November 4, 2020. Resident Trump should issue an executive order to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, ondfor to direct the relevant federal agencies that they shall not require coal??red electric generators to take action to comply with the Accord. SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT CAEEOT BE EFFECTED THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDER VI. FOR GREENHOUSE GASES (GHG) Summary oflssues and Effects Related To ?Endangerment Finding?: EPA has issued a flawed "endangerment ?nding" that GHG emissions, by causing climate change, endanger the public health or welfare. That endangennent ?nding is the predicate for regulation of GHG emissions under a number of Clean Air Act programs. EPA Administrator Scott Pmitt and 14 other states unsuccessfully challenged the ?endangerment ?nding? in the DC. Circuit. In his continuation hearing, Administrator Pruitt stated that. pursuant to the ILLS. Sopreme Court?s 2014 endangerment ?nding in the Massachusetts v. EPA case, has an obligation to take some action to control CO: pollution. However, in doing so, EFA must follow applicable processes established by Congress. Admhtistmtor Pruitt may have acknowledged a little wiggle room but not much for EPA to review the endangerment folding when he told Congressional lawmakers that ?Where is nothing 1 know that would cause a review at this point." But even with the endangerment ?nding, the believes there are limits to authority to regulate 002 emitted by power plants. Recommended Action: The endangerment finding is based on ?awed science and should be withdrawn or suspended. HoweVer, it is doubtful, based on Administrator Pruitt?s con? rotation hearing testimony, that EPA will withdraw the endangerment ?nding. Nonetheless, the Administrator?s testimony indicates that he does feel that EPA's powers are more limited by Congress than the Ohoma Administration believed. The Adtninistra?on should direct the EPA and Congress to take appropriate action. VII. ELIMINATE THE THIRTY (30) PERCENT PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT FOR WINDMILLS AND SOLAR PANELS IN ELECTRICITY GENERATION Summary oflssuos and Effects Related To WindISolar Power Tax Credit: The federal Business Energy Investment Tax Credit created a thirty (30) percent production tax credit for investments in wind and solar technologies used to generate electricity. The Consolidated Appropriations Act signed in December 2015 included several amendments to the ITC that are applicable to wind and solar generation technologies. Notably, the expiration date for the tax credits for investments in these technologies was with a gradual stop-down of the credits between 2019 and 2022. ?Ihere simply is no reason for the federal government, through tax credits, to be providing an arti?cial economic advantage to ine?iciont and ineffective power generation technologies. Such arti?cial advantages disrupt the appropriate allocation of costs in the competitive electric generation market. Moreover, in the competitive global market, the exorbitant costs associated with this wrong-headed government interference puts US. energy producers at an extreme disstantage with foreign competitors. As arti?cially-in?ated domestic energy costs are priced into American goods and services, those goods and services cannot compete in the global market place. The damage to American commerce is enormous. Recommended Action: The Total}: Admh?stration must persuade Congress to end tax credits for investments in wind and solar energy technologies. Elindnating these disruptive tax credits will lower the cost of American goods and services, providing essential price relief for American consumer and enabling American businesses to compete effectively against global competitors. FUND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES Summary oflssues and Effects Related To Clean Coal Technologies: Coal is the United States' most abundant fuel source, with enough reserves to power the nation for another 200?300 years. According to the Department of Energy. oceafouriit of the Jolown coal in the world is located in the United States, which has more coal reserves than any other country in the world. There is more rninablc coal in the United States than there is pumpablc oil in the rest of the World. The coal industry is a major source 0ij be in the United States. Currently, coal is in mined in 26 states. According to statistics compiled by the United States Energy Intent-ration Administration, in 2015, the last year for which statistics are available, the coal industry employed approximately 66,800 miners nationwide. Thanks to the Obama Administration?s ?war on cos that number was down 12% from just the prior year, and down 50% ??om 1980 levels. The industry provides another 90,000 jobs in coal transportation and coal-?red power plant operation, and indirectly supports tens of thousands of additional jobs nationwide. The National Energy Technology Laboratory has found that new coal??red power plants already emit 90% less pollutants than plants built in the 19703. Emissions- reducing technologies in these new plants include ?uidizedbcd combustion, integrated gasi?cation combined cycle, ?ue gas desulfurizatlon, low nitrogen oxide burners, selective catalytic reduction, and electrostatic precipitators. Proposing new technologies that may further reduce emissions by as much as 30% include improvements to existing clean coal technologies, and new technologies such including high-e?ieiency fuel cells, advance highml?ciency combustion, hydrogen produotion through gasi?ostioo, and ultra?supercriticsl pulverized coal combustion. The Oberon Administration?s "was on coal? included not only the promulgation of unreasonable and unworkable environmental togulations, but also cuts to funding for research and development of clean coal technologies in favor of commitments to so~celled "green energy" such as wind and solar power. The Obama Administration even reduced funding for its favored technology of carbon capture and sequestration which has proven both technologically and economically unfeosible. The Trump Adn?nistmtion?s preliminary budget proposal includes a 6% reduction in funding for the Department of Energy, including the proposed elimination of the Department?s Advanced Reseamh Prejects Agency, throngh uddch clean coal technologyhas been funded to the past. The federal government should adequately ?nd the research and development of clean coal technology that would permit the United States to take advantage of its abundant supply of this reliable fuel source and to preserve immutable Americanjobs. Such funding should focus on technologies that appear both technologically promising and economically feasible?such as fuel cells, advance high-ef?ciency combustion, hydrogen production through gasl?cation, and ultra- supercritical pulverized cool combustion?~rother than expensive and unworkable technologywsuch as CCS. Recommended Action: During the campaign, President Trump signaled support for the development of clean coal technology. President Trump should strongly urge Congress to amply fund research and development of clean coal technologies, either through federal grants or tax credits. IX. OVERHAUL THE BLOATED AND POLITICALIZED WE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION OF THE 0.3. DEPARTBIENT OF LABOR Summary of Issues and Ett?cets Related To MSHA Politielzetiou: Concurrent with President Trump?s March 13, 2017 Executive Order titled "Comprehensive Plan for Reorgardzing the Executive Branch,? at similar approach is needed with regard to the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). While mine worker employment has decreased dramatically in recent years, budget has not. Indeed, from 2010 to 2015, the number of coal miners in the United States decreased from 89,338 to 65,97l (a nearly 27% decrease). However, MSHA did not experience proportional outs in investigators or its budget during that time frame. Compared to some other Industries, coal mining has a sigrdlicantiy lower employee fatality rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2015, the ?mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction" industry sector had an employee fatality rate of 11 31% per 100,000 full?time workers. Breaking down that rate, the oil and gas extraction industries accounted for 74% ofthose fatal injuries, thereby making the employee fatality rate for coal miners dramaticaily lower than the reported 11.4%. in contrast, the transportation and warehousing industry had an employee ?ttailty rate of 23.8% per {00,000 hill-time workers, and the agriculture, forestry, ?shing and hunting industry had an employee fatality rate of 22.8% per 100,000 hilt-time workers. Despite this tower employee fatality rate, the coal mining industry is more heattiiy regulated than virtually all other industries. Indeed, the MSHA allows an inspector to temporarily shutdown a working mine unilaterally due to a perceived imminent danger to workers, leading to disruption and loss of productive time. A new standard requires operators to inspect mines before workers start their shifts. Even the federai courts have recently begun issuing rulings recognizing that. MSHA is overrcaching. For example, The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the findings of the MSHA Review Commission, which held that an equipment and parts strep which did not extract coal and did not prepare coat or any other mineral for use was a "coal or other mine," and therefore subject to MSHA?sjurisdiotion. In 2016, Murray Energy Corporation received an ?ange of 532 MEI-IA inspectors per month. Recommended Action: The number of MSHA investigators should he made proportional to the number of actual mine workers in the United States. Therefore, a certain number of MSHA investigators? positions should be eliminated. The reduced MSHA funds should be allocated to education and knitting programs that help identify. avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in the country?s mines, along the lines of the Brushwood?Sago grant program. To the ardent that any MSHA regulation is found to he unconstitutional, the President should issue an Executive Order instructing the Secretary of the Department of Labor to cease enforcement of the regulation and hold all pending and outstanding enforcement proceedings in abeyance until it can be determined that continued enforcement will not violate mine operators? constitutional rights. There should be a review of all msrta regulations promulgated since K996 (the year in which the Congressional Review Act was passed), and determine which regtdations failed to meet the reporting to Congress requirement. If a report on a regulation is not submitted to Congress, Congress can pass a resolution to rescind the regulation, essentially nullifying and voiding the regulation. Clearer and more limited guidelines and duties should be created for MSHA investigators, and MSHA enforcemont and regulations should be structured to have less of a punitive effect on coal companies. In this regard, the MSI-IA could follow the lead of recent legislation in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which have taken steps such as requiring that mine operators receive ?compliance assistance notices" before issuing citations and licensing steep fines, pertaining inspectors to issue notices of violations only when they earn prove imminent danger of death or serious harm, and utilizing "hidividuai personal assessments" winch target speci?c mine employees - rather than mine operators or coat companies for violations, lines, and revocation of certi?cations or licenses needed to Work in the industry. X. CUT THE STAFF OF THE v.3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN AT LEAST HALF Summary of Issues and Effects Related To the Size of Eli?A Staf?ng: Under the Ohama Administration, EPA issued nearly 4,000 regulations, averaging almost 500 annually, and amounting to over 33,000 new pages in the Federal Register. The almost 15,000 person workforce of EPA has greatly contributed to the unnecessarily large and burdensome number of issued regulations. President Ohama allowed and encouraged EPA regulators to stretch the legal limits of the US. Constitution and the Agency?s statutorily-granted authority. Under the Obama Administration, the annual compliance costs associated with EPA regulations grew by over $50 billion. These high costs crippled the US. economy by impacting the GDP. kiliing thousands ofjohs, and increasing the coat of consumer goods. EPA regulations enacted under the Gimme Administration also have inhibited the advancement and 31'th of the coal industry. A host of EPA permit requirements have delayed construction of new coal plants, led to fuel switching, and resulted in. withdrawn permit applications. Many of the EPA regulations promulgated during the Oharna Administration are based on a weak scienti?c foundation and have greatly increased compliance costs for existing coal plants? increased the cost of mining coal, and effectively barred the construction of new coal plants. The consulting group ICF international estimates that 20% of America?s cool power plants could be retired as soon as 2020 because of the air, waste, and water regulations. Recommended Action: We support President Trump?s proposed cuts to budget. The President?s Budget Blueprint, demoted to Congress on March 16, 2017, proposes to cut budget by 31%. If this proposed budget is approved by Congress, it would have the effect of cutting 3,200 positions, or more than 20%, of the agency?s current workforce of about 15,000. In order to achieve the desired reduction of at least 50% of workforce, President Trump should propose an even greater out to the EPA budget. The current proposed budget still must go through Congressional approval. The White House can ensure congressional approval by working to achieve bipartisan support. XI. OBTAIN LEGISLATION T0 FUND BOTH THE MEDICAL CARE AND PENSIONS FOR ALL OF UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UMWA) .. REPRESENTED, RETIRED COAL MINERS Summary of Issues and Effects Related to Retiree Medical Care: The Chan-1a Administration and its regulations haste dismantled the Coal Industry. Since 2012, over three dozen coal companies have filed for baulo?uptcy, resulting in thousands of lostjobs for Mexican coal miners. Seventy years ago, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) sought to secure better employee bene?ts for coal minors. The then~President, Harry Truman, issued an Executive order directing Secretary of the Interior, Julius Kong. to take possession of all bituminous coal mines and to negotiate "appropriate changes in the terms and conditions of employment" of miners with the UMWA, which led to the Krug-Lewis Agreement. Through the Krug-Lewis Agreement and subsequent labor agreements between the UMWA and mine operators. funds were established to provide health and pension bene?ts to coal miners. The health and pension funds support approximately 120,000 former miners and their families nationwide. in 1992 and 2006, Congress intervened to assist retired miners and to secure their health bene?ts. In 20i6, seeing that thousands of miners were at risk of losing their bene?ts, Congress provided a four-month extension in health bene?ts for orphaned retired miners and their dependents. This extension ends on April 30, 2017. Rather than revisiting this issue, every ten years, the Congress needs to provide coal miners with a permanent solution to secure their health and pension bene?ts, ndrich Was promised to them decades ago. As a result of extensive regulations, especially those imposed by the previous Administration, there are far fewer mine operators. Accordingly, there is a decline in contributions into the Combined Fund. With an increasing number of miners requiring these bene?ts, the funds are demeaning rapidly. Without Congress? intervention, the Fund will no longer be able to support the bene?ts for the retired coal miners and the miners will be left without health and pansionhene?ts. which was promised to them. Recommended Action: Currently, there are tWo bills pending in the Senate and one bill pending in the House of Representatives relating to providing coal miners with health audio: pension bene?ts. The Administration should support 8. 175 and HR. 179. However, 3. 716 should not he supported, as its extension for only health care ?mding (with no treatment of pension funding) will not lead to the desired outcome. XII. OVERTURN MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADWNISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PATTERN 0F VIOLATIONS RULE Summary of Issues and Effects re Pattern of Violations Rule: On January 23, 2013, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration published its Pattern of Violations regulation Rule?). 78 Fed. Reg. 5073-50?; 30 (3.11.13. 104, et 584;. The POV Rule greatly expanded the original direction regarding pattern of violations contained in Section 104(e] of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the ?Act?) and the 1990 Rule regarding pattern of violations @1990 Role") by enlarging the scape of what the MSHA Would consider to identify a pattern. Potential harm to mine operators identi?ed as POV violators is signi?cant. Once the MSHA identi?es a pattern of signi?cant and substantial violations at a mine, the operator receives written notice from the MSHA. 30 C.F.R. If the MSHA finds any 5&3 violation within 90 days after issuance of the notice, the MSHA will order the withdrawal of all persons from the affected area (with few exCeptions) until the violation is abated. 30 CFR 104.3fc). The POV notice only terminates (1) if the MSHA does not issue a withdrawal order within 90 days otter issuing the POV notice or (2) when an MSHA inspection of the entire mine ?nds no 8&3 violations. 30 C.F.R. Under the 1990 Folio, the scope of what the MSHA would consider was limited to 5&3 violations, orders and enforcement measures implemented by the MSHA in response to continued violations, a mine operator?s lack of good faith in correcting a safety issue, accident, injury, or illness records that demonstrate a serious safety or health management problem, and mitigating circumstances. 55 Fed. Reg. 31136. But this soope was greatly expanded under the 2013 revision, which now includes consideration of ?citations for 38.58 violations" and ?citations and withdrawal orders resulting from an unwarranted failure to 30 CFR 104.2. The POV Role greatly expands mine operator exposure by allowing the MST-IA to consider unproven allegations and non-final citations rather than ?nalized orders. Currently, mine operators are not a?'orded due process in the form of a notice or hearing before they are deprived of their rights via a withdrawal order. A challenge to the POV Rule is pending in the Southern District of Ohio. Ohio Cool Ass?rr v. Perez, Z92 F. Supp. 882 (SD. Ohio 2016). Plaintiffs in that case claim that the POV Rule exceeds the statutory authority granted to the MSHA, and that it violates the Due Process Clause because it eliminates the safeguards in the 1990 Rule. Recommended Action: The Administration should ask Congress to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to rescind the POV Rule. Under the Congressional Review Act a Federal agency promulgating a rule or regulation is required to submit a report regarding the new regulation to both the House of Representatives and the Senate (which the Department of Labor did not do here). 5 11.3.6. If the report is not submitted, Congress can pass a resolution to rescind the regulation, essentially nullifying and voiding the regulation. 5 USE. 80203)?) rule shall not take effect (or continue), if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval of Ihc rule?). Once rescinded, the regulation cannot be presented to Congress in substantially the some form. 5 11.8.0. rule that does not take ef?eet (or does not continua) under paragraph may not he reissued in substantially the saute form, and a new role that is substantially the same may not be i35ued?). X?l. APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WILL FOLLOW OUR UNITED STATES AND OUR LAWS Summary of Issue And Effects of Supreme Court Composition: - The Supreme Court of the United States currently has four justices who, imtead of following the Constitution and the laws of the United States as they are written, seek to rede?ne our Constitution and create new laws to implement their liberal agenda. Reedmmende? Action: President Trump should appoint reliably conservative justices if and when Vacancies on the Supreme Court arise. The President's nomination of Neil Gorsueh is an excellent ?tst step. The Administration should continue to identify conservative candidates that President Trump can nominate whenever vacancies misc. XIV. wetness OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY commerce: (BERG) MUST BE REPLACED Summary of Issues and Effects Related To BERG Membership: FERC members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. FERC is composed of up to ?ve commissioners who senre ?ve-year terms. Cmently, there are only hm acting chair Cheryl A. LeFleur. on Obnmo appointee whose term expires on June 30, 2019, and Colette D. Honorable-J another Ohama appointee whose term expires on June 30, 2017. Recommended Action: - 'Ihcre are up to 3 vacant positions on FERC that may be immediately ?lled by President Trump. The terms of the two current commissioners expire within the next 2 years, but those positions also may be immediately replaced by President Trump. XV: MEMBERS OF THE TENNESSEE VAILEY AUTHORITY (TVA) BOARD OF DIRECTORS MUST BE REPLACED: Summary of Issues and Effects Related To TVA Board Replacement: TVA Board Members are appointed by the President and con?rmed by the Senate. Each director serves a ?ve-year term. When their term expires, serving directors may remain on the Board until the end of the then-current Congressional session {typically in December), or until their successor takes of?ce, whichever occurs ?rst. Recommended Action: All of the current directors? terms expire during the next three years. President Trunlp will be able to appoint coal-friendly directors during his term. XVII: REPLACE THE summons on THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS concoctions") Summary of Issues and Effects Composition: In the past eight years, the Obams Administration?s National Labor Relations Board (the "Board") has engaged in a no-holds?barred campaign to bolster private sector moon mechanic and decimote mmguoeot rights. it did so grit-north; in. two ways: (1) by (mounting a. collective 4,105 years of precedentiol case law; and (2) by adopting overrosching re golations to facilitate union organizing. Cmrently, the Board has three members?Acting Chairman Philip A. Miscimarro, a Republican whose term ends Dec. 26, 201?, and Members Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren both Demo crate whose terms end Aug. 27, 2018, and Dec. 16, 2019, respectively?and two vacancies. Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act the President can only remow; a Board member for neglect ofduty or malfeasance in of?ce. 29 U.S.C. 153(a). The General Counsel has ?nal authority to investigate charges and issue complaints. He also supervises 311 Board attorneys and all of?cers and employees in the Board?s Regional Of?ces. The current General Comical is Richard Grif?n, IL, a Democrat who has been a driving force behind the Oberon Board?s agenda. His fouruyeor term ends Nov. 3, 2017. The NLRA is silent on whether the President can remove the General Counsel before the end of his term. 29 [1.5.0 153(d). The Board has 1,596 full-time workers, the vast majority of whom are pro-union, classi?ed employees. They work in the Board?s Washington D.C. headquarters and 32 Regional Gf?ccs. Each Regional Of?ce is supervised by a Regional Director appointed by the Board. Each Subregionol Of?ce is headed by an Of?cer in Charge, who is also appointed by the Board. The General Counsel, subject to civil service rules, may demote and discharge nearly all Board personnel; however. the demotion or discharge of any Regional Director or Of?cer in Charge must be approVed by the Board. 20 FR. 2175. Recomm ended Action: President Trump should fill the two Board vacancies with pro-monogcment members as soon as practical. Within a short period of time, the Trump Administration?s Board could set a prowmanogement tune that will ?lter down to the Administrative Law Judges, who hear complaints. and to the Genera! Counsel?s Of?ce and the Regional Offices. Furthennore, when the terms of Members Gaston Pearce and expire, President Turnip should appoint .. I. :iftl?ll?l'iil?iti ill} . t. Tel-.1} -.C TIM: tWo additional pro-management members to the Board. the Board?s membership is a 3 to 2 majority in favor of the president's party. However, there is no law preventing President Trump from appointing Republicans to ?ll the posts vacated by Gaston Pearce and MeFermn. President Trnmo should consider replacing General Counsel Gti??in before his tenn ends in November 2017. While no General Counsel has ever been removed, there is persuasive authority that the President has plenary power to [emcee the General CounseL Indeed, the Constitution generally empoweoi the President. to keep executive o?cers accountable by removing them from of?ce, if necessary. Wars V. United ?elds, 272 US. 52 (1926). This power is not unlimited, as the Supreme Court has curtailed the President?s power in eel-Min circumstances, such as when Congress etestee an independent agency run by principal of?cers appointed by the whom the president may not remove but for good cause. Executor v. United States, 295 US. 602 (1935}. Here, the NLRA is silent on this issue afremo :2ng the General Counsel, so although it may be etgeed that. mkesident retains the ponies to do amine attempt might lead. to protected litigation. Once the Board?s vacancies are ?lled and the General Counsel in tepid-zed (at the latest, when his term ends this November). President Trump should direct the General Counsel to demote or discharge the Regional Directors and the Ol?cers in Charge of Sobregional Offices. Many of them are life-long, pro-union Board employees, and they should be replaced by pro-management personnel. President 'Ihlmp should cut the Board?s content $273 million budget in order to teduce the number ofpro-unicn employees at the Board. Because it is dif?cult to discharge federal employees, even for cause, the most expedient way to make wholesale changes to the workforce is through a reduction in force doe to a - shortage of mods. Although the goal would be to hire management-Minded pessonnel, any hiring must be delayed for at least two years to avoid having to rehire the laid-off employees. who have ?rst priority in the eventthat the agency seeks to ?ll a position within two years of their separation. 5 GER. $36,203, Once that time period passes, President Trump could increase the Board?s budget and reconstitute the workforce with management-minded employees.