Document v1ZJNy0opRvm5eeg9E9ypgap9

To: Dravis, Samantha[dravis.samantha@epa.gov] From: Dennis Hedke Sent: Sun 3/26/2017 12:51:29 AM Subject: Position Dec 2016 Bio.pdf TWallace 8-10-20150001 .odf ERA Clean Climate Plan Based on Faulty Assumptions.pdf Private citizen testimony-Potomac Yard-5-18-2009.doc WOTUS-Hedke-Septl 1-2014.pdf Dear Samantha, I hope you are now getting settled into your new position as Associate Administrator, Office of Policy. No doubt, the challenges ahead are significant. In the recent past, I have been encouraged by numerous people to give serious consideration to attempting to become directly involved in the new EPA administration, and that is the purpose of this communication. As you will see in the attached documents, I am currently engaged as a partner in the firm HedkeSaenger Geoscience, Ltd, a firm I and partner Richard Saenger initiated in November 2007. In addition, I have communicated with various officials in the EPA and the Energy Department in years past. Samples are included. Also, I recently 'retired' from the Kansas House of Representatives. I never planned to be a career politician, but I did want to make my mark, if at all possible, and that did work out. My term began in January 2011, and by my self-imposed term limit, I served my last day January 9, 2017. My last 4 years I was Chairman of the Energy & Environment Committee, and in my 5th year we repealed the Renewable Mandates that were passed by the Kansas legislature in the spring 2009. That legislation was initiated in my Committee. I have just returned from Washington, as a presenter the the 12th International Conference on Climate Change, held March 23-24 at the Grand Hyatt. I spoke the afternoon of March 23, on a panel entitled Climate Politics and Policy. It was well attended, and my co-panelists did a great job. It was my first time attending, and my presentation was well received. My first submittal related to the new EPA was delivered to the Trump-Pence transition team a number of weeks ago, and it included my desire to be considered for the following positions: Office of the Administrator Special Assistant to the Senior Climate Policy Counsel Senior Advisor to the Administrator 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00008121-00001 Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education Associate Administrator Director, Office of Environmental Education Office of Environmental Information Assistant Administrator However, I did have occasion to visit briefly yesterday with David Kreutzer, and after that meeting, I took a closer look at the possible open positions within your Office of Policy, and I would very much like to be considered for a couple of other slots that I believe are likely to be unfilled: Senior Advisor Director, Office of Strategic Environmental Management Director, Office of Regulatory Policy and Management I realize that the various names of positions may be under change ad review, but these are taken form the December 1, 2012 Policy & Supporting Positions 'Manual'. If you find that my background fits with possible policy making in the Pruitt administration, I would love to have the chance to visit further. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 316-737-2600, or at my office, 316-295-4675. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Dennis Hedke 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00008121-00002 Dennis E. Hedke 8100 E. 22nd St. North Building 2200, Suite 3 Wichita, KS 67226 316-295-4675 office | 316-737-2600 cell | 316-201-1999 fax Consulting Geophysicist, Hedke-Saenger Geoscience, Ltd, since November 2007, providing services focused on reducing our client's risk in oil & gas exploration/exploitation, primarily via the design and execution of 3D Seismic programs that image the subsurface and enhance our understanding of potential hydrocarbon reservoirs. Member, Kansas House of Representatives, 2011-2016; self-imposed term limit; appointed to fill vacancy first term, re-elected twice, but felt my calling to national issues overrode my remaining in the state legislature; became Chairman of House Energy & Environment Committee at start of second term; led the effort to repeal renewable energy mandates and succeeded in doing so by turning back 2009 Kansas law during the 2015 Session. As a member of the legislature, I took an active role with the Kansas Corporation Commission and the Kansas Geological Survey to carefully evaluate the possible connection between increased earthquake activity and increased injection volumes of salt water, apparently stemming from horizontal drilling and associated hydraulic fracturing applications. The Commission's Order to significantly reduce injected volumes resulted in mitigating the earthquake activity, while still allowing oil and gas operations to continue, albeit with reduced production volumes. Bachelor of Science, Kansas State University, Geophysics Master of Science, University of Virginia, Materials Science, School of Engineering & Applied Science Current Objective: Although I will officially retire from the Kansas legislature on January 9, 2017, my interest in doing everything possible to entirely reroute, if not dismember the EPA has never been higher than it is now, due to the election of President-elect Trump, and the subsequent appointment of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to become the new Administrator of the EPA. I would consider it a great honor and privilege to become directly involved in the front lines battle to restore America. I can think of no better place than the future EPA, to become engaged in delivering a truthful, credible message to the American public with respect to errant policies that have been propagated over many years, even pre-dating the Obama administration. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00008122-00001 EPA Clean Climate Plan Based on Faulty Assumptions On June 2, 2014 the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new proposed rules designed to cut "carbon pollution" from power plants across the United States. They received millions of comments related to the rule, and the official comment period has now closed as of December 1, 2014. The fundamentally flawed document is fraught with erroneous assumptions related to EPA's modeled expectations to curb C02 emissions from existing point sources, primarily focused on coal-fired power plants. The Proposed Rule has been substantially criticized by multiple national and regional entities, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), NERA Economic Consulting, the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), among many others in regions outside the region servicing Kansas citizens interests. The principal complaint levied against EPA has to do with the now unquestioned lack of reliability in the deliverability ofelectricity to millions of customers that will occur if EPA rules stand as currently written. EPA does not have the technical expertise, according to FERC and all others listed above, to fully understand the negative impacts their 'Plan' will have on these customers. However, even in the face of the reliability question, it needs to be stressed in the boldest possible terms that it is fundamentally flawed in its primary assumption - that C02 is a pollutant that must be controlled and whose global concentration must be materially reversed - or mankind will be doomed from uncontrollable temperature increases, weather extremes, and all sorts of other humanity downsides. The magnitude of the faulty assumptions is now becoming evident from all sorts of empirical evidence. This evidence has been available to EPA from the outset of their planning going back decades, but they have chosen, exclusively for ideological reasons, to deliberately ignore mountains of scientific evidence in their quest to manage global climate. For those who have chosen to buy into the EPA's proposal, you need to understand first and foremost that the gaseous substance known as C02 is no more a pollutant than water vapor, hydrogen, nitrogen, or any of a range of very naturally occurring substances that make up earth's atmosphere. So, when President Obama or Administrator McCarthy refer to carbon pollution, they are actually attempting to make you believe that C02 is the pollutant that must be controlled - carbon pollution. 'Carbon' is an element that can become diamond under proper temperature and pressure conditions; an element that can become coal, a fossil fuel, that upon combustion will release the non-pollutant gaseous C02, a colorless, odorless, tasteless and harmless substance that is essential for all plant and animal growth on the planet. If coal dust is inhaled without controls or limitations, it indeed is a pollutant. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00008123-00001 The commonly held belief, based on faulty assumptions, is that the greenhouse, which contains CO2 among other components, such as the dominating substance water vapor, are contributing to previously unheard global temperatures. Purportedly, these warming conditions are yielding record glacial melting, extreme weather events, droughts, etc. In actual point of fact, global temperatures we are experiencing today are not as warm as have been experienced in many periods within the past 10,000 years, as is demonstrated by the graphic below, obtained by data gathered from ice cores on the island of Greenland. 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 1000 0 Approximate global temperature anomaly (Deg.C) Not only are we currently cooler than temperatures experienced during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, note that the C02 concentration recorded in the ice over this time period clearly demonstrates that CO 2 concentration occurs completely independently of temperature during this time period. In fact, the highest C02 concentration occurred during the 'Little Ice Age', one of the coolest periods experienced during the entire time cycle of this diagram. So, the EPA's contention that it can somehow contain 'carbon pollution' by controlling C02 emissions is a fallacious argument that needs to be turned on it's face. C02 is NOT a pollutant, and the EPA, and all human-induced forces deployed on the planet will utterly 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00008123-00002 fail in any attempt to control CO2 emissions. The EPA must be called to open debate of this issue, and it must happen sooner, rather than later. If they get their way, millions of citizens will be subjected to wholly unnecessary rules and regulations that will instead cripple the American economy and propagate incredible electrical grid instability across all of America. It is time that the EPA recognizes the inherent error in its ways, and completely rescinds any rules related to any attempt to control C02 emissions. Dennis Hedke Chairman, Energy & Environment Committee Kansas House of Representatives District 99 Wichita 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/22 Production ED 001523 00008123-00003