Document x0LojMgkbb7QV1q3zbzOXqrb

April 26, 2017 The Honorable Donald J. Trump President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. President, We write to express our support for continued participation by the United States in the Paris climate change agreement. Climate change presents U.S. companies with both business risks and business opportunities. U.S. business interests are best served by a stable and practical framework facilitating an effective and balanced global response. We believe the Paris Agreement provides such a framework. Companies based or operating in the United States benefit from U.S. participation in the agreement in many ways: Strengthening competitiveness - By requiring action by all parties, developed and developing countries alike, the agreement ensures a more balanced global effort, reducing the risk of competitive imbalances for U.S. companies. Supporting sound investment - By setting clearer long-term objectives, and by improving transparency, the agreement provides greater clarity on policy direction, enabling better long-term planning and investment. Creating jobs, markets and growth - By committing all countries to action, the agreement expands markets for innovative clean technologies, generating jobs and economic growth. U.S. companies are well positioned to lead, and lack of U.S. participation could put their access to these growing markets at risk. Minimizing costs - By encouraging market-based implementation, the agreement helps companies innovate to achieve environmental objectives at the lowest possible cost. Reducing business risks Bv strengthening global action over time, the agreement will reduce future climate damages, including physical harm to business facilities and operations, declining agricultural productivity and water supplies, and disruption of global supply chains. As businesses concerned with the well-being of our customers, our investors, our communities, and our suppliers, we are strengthening our climate resilience, and we are investing in renewables, efficiency, nuclear, biofuels, carbon capture, sequestration, and other innovative technologies that can help achieve a clean energy transition. For this transition to 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002235-00001 succeed, however, governments must lead as well. We urge that the United States remain a party to the Paris Agreement, work constructively with other nations to implement the agreement, and work to strengthen international support for a broad range of innovative technologies. We believe that as other countries invest in advanced technologies and move forward with the Paris Agreement, the United States can best exercise global leadership and advance U.S. interests by remaining a full partner in this vital global effort. We appreciate the opportunity to share our views and would welcome the opportunity to provide further input as the Administration continues to shape its climate policies. Sincerely, Apple BHP Billiton BP DuPont General Mills Google Intel Microsoft National Grid Novartis Corporation PG&E Rio Tinto Schneider Electric Shell Unilever Walmart 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002235-00002 Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy July 16, 2016 Dear Assistant US Attorney Hallie Hoffman, A few months ago my neighbors and I had a problem with PG&E and one of our other neighbors which led me to do some research on PG&E which led me to the case against PG&E and your name. First I would like to greatly thank you for your service to our nation through the US Department Of Justice and taking up the case against PG&E because I think they have committed the crimes which they are accused; they haven't changed and they are lying to you, the judge and jury. I would have written to you sooner about this, but I was taking care of family issues in India where my wife is from and wife and children are living. I tried to find your email address but could not so I emailed PG&E Attorney Steven Bauer and asked him to pass on the information to you and the judge, but I don't know if he did. A few months ago , my parents, neighbors and I noticed a construction project and heavy truck traffic in front of our home, on a very narrow road adjacent to our property and on our neighbor's property adjacent to ours. The project was related to PG&E Pipeline Repair Projects R-502 Live Oak and R-503 Gridley. I read these projects are taking place because of the aftermath from the PG&E San Bruno Pipeline Explosion. The project located next to our home was located at [ Ex?6 - Personal 1 L.P.ersnnaj Our neighbor!i-._E7. ` jLlXlA-!I is a well-respected member of the community and has worked on the Sutter County General Plan and served on the Grand Jury. He showed me some aerial photos that he took and told me about some suspicious activity which he witnessed adjacent to our property which made us strongly suspect that PG&E was illegally discharging contaminated waste water to our property and ditch so I started doing some research on PG&E and their projects and discovered evidence that PG&E is very dishonest, deceiving, uses unsafe practices and state regulators such as the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board know about it, but don't care and don't do anything about it. I obtained copies of the NOI and NOA for PG&E Repair Project R-502 Live Oak and noticed they were being very dishonest and deceiving to get around regulations. In the NOI and NOA they say that their water from the pipeline repair projects is going to be used for irrigation, dust control and general application but the owner never authorized them to discharge it as general application so it could only be discharged as irrigation water. In their documents they mention many times that the water is basically going to be used as irrigation which is obviously meant to help them get around regulations and zoning ordinances. By stating it is going to be used as irrigation, they are stating it is basically part of a farming operation. We are in a AG Zone which does not allow contaminated waste water projects which PG&E was operating so by stating it was irrigation, it helped them get around local zoning ordinances. [ Ex. 6 - isaid that this type of project is not allowed in an AG Zone and requires Use 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002236-00001 Permits which PG&E did not have. But the big problem which helps prove they are dishonest and deceiving is that they were wanting to discharge during the time of year that farmers don't irrigate and crops are not planted. The field they wanted to discharge to is basically a dirt field which makes no sense to irrigate. The owner calls it a pasture but other local farmers/ranchers would disagree. The photos which myself and neighbors have taken would also contradict but there are cattle in the field which he feeds using other methods. They set up a so called irrigation system which is made up of PVC pipe, but using PVC is not practical and not safe because the cattle will step on it and break it. No one uses a system like they constructed to irrigate that type of field because it makes no sense; and it's not practical. Basically the system was set up as a so called irrigation just so they could say their water was going to be discharged as irrigation water. Part of the irrigation system was an approximately 4 inch PVC pipeline which they constructed within 1 3 feet of the property so if it would have leaked or broken, much of the water would have drained to our property. They also used PVC pipe to connect 12 large metal tanks which is an unsafe method because PVC pipe easily breaks and leaks when connected to metal. They use PVC because it is inexpensive when compared to metal pipe or large rubber hose so they are putting profit over safety. The Water Boards have an Irrigated Lands Program in which they monitor all farmers including Ex. 6I x. 6 - irrigation practices, methods and schedules through documents which all farmers have to submit to the Water Boards so the Water Boards knew that the information which PG&E submitted about their waste water being used as irrigation was deceiving and false. The Water Board knew --- - --- ^Qes not rrjgate t|1js tjme year, using this method and this amount of water. Some documents basically states they wanted to discharge/irrigate 24/7 for weeks or months which totally doesn't make sense, especially for this type of field of this size. I noticed in the NOI and NOA that the discharge and the equipment was supposed to be on parcels APN08-100-026 and 08-100-067 but they staged 12 large tanks and equipment on parcel 08-100-065 which is not mentioned in the NOI and NOA. So they staged most of the project at a location which was not approved. The location which was approved was an open field which would have been much safer and away from homes and other property, but the location they used was next to homes, other property and in a congested truck yard, farm equipment yard, junk yard, food processing waste dump yard and livestock yard which is located on a narrow road with a ditch running to the eastside of the road. It was a very unsafe location for PG&E to stage the project especially with all the large trucks and tanks they had coming in and out of the location. The trucks couldn't make it out of the location without going off the road and almost into the drainage ditch and they could not pass on opposites of the road without going off the road. PG&E poorly planned their projects and anticipated that their Gridley Project would only get 50,000 gallons of water per day but they were getting over 500,000 gallons per day so they started transferring and storing contaminated waste water from the Gridley Project to Krehe Rd before they had approval from the Water Board. It appears they may have only received approval after I filed a complaint but it's hard to tell because the Water Board did a very poor job in monitoring the project and haven't been very honest. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002236-00002 It is very telling that PG&E picked this location and property owner for their Project and it helps prove they are still unsafe. The property owner is i Ex. 6 - iwho has a long history with the Water Boards and illegally discharging waste including at this very location. The site was even on a Hazardous Materials List site and I don't know how it could have been taken off because it was never cleaned up. I know it was never cleaned up because it also contaminated our property and it was never cleaned up. We were very surprised that Water Boards approved this location because they have issued violations to Ex. 6 - for 1legal activities at this location and not submitting monthly monitoring reports for over 4 years for this location. They have even sent out letters to many local farmers and businesses warning them that his practices are not approved by the Water Board so it doesn't make sense they would approve this type of project at this location when contaminated waste water was going to be transferred and stored at this location, i Ex. 6 - i has a very bad reputation in the community because of his bad businesses practices and being dishonest, a crook and con man. I noticed he has a lot of big toys, takes luxury vacations and drives luxury cars but has problems with paying his Federal Income Taxes. Over the years he has had several Federal Tax Liens against him according to public record. In 2004-2005 the Water Board shut down his illegal activities at this location so he moved to Butte County and was charged and successfully prosecuted there for the very same illegal activities. I contacted the Butte County Special DA Hal Thomas who was prosecuting the case and turned over a bunch of materials, photos and videos which he used to get[ Ex. 6 jto plea. He gave me a lot of credit and has written me letters which support my good character and credibility. When I first was confronted by ExTS-' Personal over the PG&E project and them discharging into the ditch, he admitted that there had^een two discharges into the ditch but it appears he talked with PG&E official Rhonda Shiftman or Kathy Rose and changed his story after that. I talked with Rhonda Shiftman and found her to be a very deceiving person especially when she tried to convince me not to oppose the discharge by using the California Drought and basically stating that farmers really needed the water. But later PG&E told investigators that all the water around the tanks and going into the ditch was storm water because there was so much rain. I have observed and photographed this location for over 10 years and storm water doesn't stand/puddle or pond for over 2 weeks as PG&E is claiming. Rick Libby took photos of the yard when a truck was stuck in the mud and PG&E and Water Boards has photos of the location being a muddy wet mess. It was a very unsafe location for contaminated waste water to be stored and transferred especially under these conditions, heavy truck and tanks traffic and PVC pipe being used. I filed a complaint with the Water Board and Department of Water Resources investigated but did a very poor job. If you look at the photos, videos, documents and witnesses statements, PG&E was obviously discharging into the ditch because they couldn't keep up with all the waste water they were getting. But they lied to the investigators and said they were not. The investigator did not even get the manifest to calculate how much contaminated waste water was transferred to the site, stored at the site and then 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002236-00003 transferred out. I don't know if he was lazy or if PG&E couldn't supply the documents or both. The investigator didn't inspect the location where the equipment was staged and where the discharge was coming from until after all the equipment was moved. So basically he let them move all the equipment and clean up the scene before he investigated it. I don't know if any of this information can help you or not, but I feel it helps prove that PG&E hasn't changed. They are still dishonest, deceiving, intentionally avoiding regulation using deceptive methods and practices, lying to regulators and investigators, using unsafe practices, ignoring public safety and putting profits before safety. I have included a USB Drive which has some material which may be helpful if you want to prove this is a pattern with PG&E. I am sorry if it is not all in order but if I can be of any help I would be happy to meet with you and/or your investigators. I believe Rick Libby would also be happy to meet with you and/or investigators. Thank You, William Rogers 5 ex: v - rursoiTar i i____ Rriwacv____ i 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523_00002236-00004