U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–616 PDF 2011

LIGHTS OUT: HOW EPA REGULATIONS THREATEN

AFFORDABLE POWER AND JOB CREATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS,

STIMULUS OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT

SPENDING

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 26, 2011

Serial No. 112–74

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS, STIMULUS OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT

SPENDING

JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chairman

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York, Vice

Chairwoman

CONNIE MACK, Florida

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Ranking

Minority Member

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

JACKIE SPEIER, California

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 26, 2011 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Henry, Janet, deputy general counsel, American Electric Power; Joel

Schwartz, professor of environmental epidemiology, Harvard School of

Public Health; and Mike Carey, president, Ohio Coal Association .......... 28

Carey, Mike ................................................................................................ 47

Henry, Janet .............................................................................................. 28

Schwartz, Joel ............................................................................................ 52

Perciasepe, Robert, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency ............................................................................................................ 6

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Carey, Mike, president, Ohio Coal Association, prepared statement of ...... 49

Henry, Janet, deputy general counsel, American Electric Power, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 30

Jordan, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 4

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, letter dated August 16, 2011 ......................................................... 79

Perciasepe, Robert, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency, prepared statement of .................................................................... 9

Schwartz, Joel, professor of environmental epidemiology, Harvard School

of Public Health, prepared statement of ..................................................... 54

(1)

LIGHTS OUT: HOW EPA REGULATIONS

THREATEN AFFORDABLE POWER AND JOB

CREATION

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS, STIMULUS

OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:20 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Jordan, Buerkle, Labrador, and

Kucinich.

Staff present: Ali Ahmad, communications advisor; Michael R.

Bebeau, assistant clerk; Joseph A. Brazauskas, counsel; Drew

Colliatie, staff assistant; Adam P. Fromm, director of Member services and committee operations; Linda Good, chief clerk; Ryan M.

Hambleton, professional staff member; Christopher Hixon, deputy

chief counsel, oversight; Mark D. Marin, senior professional staff

member; Kristina M. Moore, senior counsel; Michael Whatley, professional staff member; Ronald Allen, minority staff assistant;

Claire Coleman, minority counsel; and Carla Hultberg, minority

chief clerk.

Mr. JORDAN. The Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs will get

rolling here. I will start with an opening statement, and then, obviously, the ranking member will have an opening statement, and

then we will get right to our witness. We want to thank the deputy

for being here today.

Earlier this month, we learned that the unemployment rate rose

to 9.2 percent. Americans are struggling because there just aren’t

enough jobs. As I have said many times before in this subcommittee, one reason explaining the stagnant jobs numbers is the

administration’s stubborn determination to issue multiple onerous

regulations all at once. The cumulative impacts of these regulations

are preventing American job creators from putting people back to

work.

As part of the committee’s ongoing commitment to promote job

creation, today’s hearing continues our examination into Federal

regulations that are holding back economic growth and keeping

employers from getting Americans back employed, back to work.

At the last hearing, this subcommittee focused on EPA’s

permatorium on Appalachian coal and the impact it is having on

2

jobs in that region. Today’s hearing will examine the cumulative effect of a series of EPA regulations that will impact the Nation’s

power supply and will hit particularly hard the areas of the country that rely on coal for energy.

I am especially concerned about my home State of Ohio, which

is the Nation’s fourth largest consumer of coal, and depends on it

to provide power for its manufacturing base. These regulations

have been collectively referred to as EPA’s train wreck. They include changing the standards of Cooling Water Intake Structures,

altering the mercury and air toxic standards for power plants,

known as utility MATS, and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,

also known as the Transport Rule, the new regulations of coal ash,

and finally lowering the national ambient air quality standard for

ozone, among other rules. We have a chart that shows how all this

is coming together in the next few years. We will seek to get at the

impact this is going to have on employers.

The job-killing threat posed by these regulations comes from the

timing and expense of the various mandates. By EPA’s own analysis, these are some of the most expensive rules on record. For example, EPA estimates that the Utility MACT Rule is projected to

cost $10.9 billion in 2016, and the Cooling Water Intake Rule could

cost as much as $4.8 billion a year. NAAQS for ozone is projected

to cost a staggering $1 trillion in costs to manufacturers and, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, lead to 7.3

million jobs lost between 2020 and 2030.

The committee is deeply concerned as EPA developed these regulations, it never took into account the cumulative impact of its actions. The North American Electric Reliability Corp., an organization charged with ensuring the reliability of America’s bulk power

system, warns that the EPA’s regulations will remove as much as

76 gigawatts of electrical capacity by 2018. To put this in perspective, this is enough electricity to power approximately 23 million

homes forever.

Moreover, according to another study, just the Utility MACT and

Clean Air Transport Rules alone will eliminate 1.44 million jobs

from 2013 to 2020 due to the rising costs of energy. In fact, this

same study estimates that nationwide electricity costs will increase

by 11.5 percent. Our State of Ohio and other Midwestern States

will be hit even harder.

EPA should have considered the cumulative impact of these rules

before acting in order to minimize these negative impacts.

Let’s make one thing clear: No one wants dirty air. That is not

what this hearing is about. However, we do need to be smart about

the regulations that we as a country issue. It appears from the lack

of analysis on cumulative regulatory effects conducted by the EPA

that there is a high chance the left hand doesn’t know what the

right one is doing at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The testimony we hear today will help us examine what can be

done better to avoid these regulatory train wreck situations. Our

economy has been in trouble for a long time now. And the least we

can do here in Washington is make sure the government is not

causing the problem. Americans want to get back to work, and we

need to be certain that we are not stopping them. I thank the witVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:18 Dec 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\71616.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
3

nesses for appearing. I look forward to hearing from our all witnesses today.

With that, I will now recognize my good friend and distinguished

Member from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Jordan follows:]

4

5

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank all the witnesses who will be testifying today

about a critical issue facing America, the protection of clean air and

clean water, on which we depend every single day.

Today, we will once again take a look at the role the EPA plays

in supporting these goals. Air toxics from coal-fired power plants

cause or contribute to devastating health problems, ranging from

asthma attacks to premature death from cardiovascular disease,

stroke, and cancer. One air toxic, mercury, damages the developing

brains of fetuses, infants, and small children, robbing them of the

opportunity to fully develop intellectually and physically.

Coal-burning emissions of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides help

fuel our Nation’s asthma problem and can increase heart attacks.

The burning of coal is also a major contributor to the environmental, national security, and economic crisis that is global climate

change. The combustion of coal produces a tremendous amount of

carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to increased

trapping of heat in our atmosphere.

In fact, coal accounts for approximately 20 percent of all our

greenhouse gas emissions. It would be difficult to underestimate

the urgency of shutting down coal power plants immediately for

this reason alone.

These health and environmental consequences from toxic pollution are why the EPA is developing tougher safeguards to protect

Americans. One proposed rule on mercury and air toxics alone

would be estimated to save as many as 17,000 lives every year by

2015, to prevent up to 120,000 cases of childhood asthma.

One of the witnesses here to testify today represents the American Electric Power Co., which is headquartered in Columbus,

Ohio. AEP is also one of our Nation’s biggest polluters. Another one

of Ohio’s polluters, First Energy Corp., which owns the Lakeshore

Plant in Cleveland, near my own district, is identified as the Nation’s sixth most harmful plant for low-income communities and

communities of color.

Thanks in part to AEP and First Energy, the State of Ohio has

more coal-fired generating capacity than any other State in the Nation.

Ohio’s electric sector also has the dubious honor of ranking first

in the amount of toxic air pollution emitted in 2009, emitting more

than 44.5 million tons of harmful chemicals, which accounted for

65 percent of the State’s pollution and 12 percent of toxic pollution

from all U.S. power plants.

Ohio also ranked third among all States in mercury air pollution

from power plants, with about 3,980 pounds emitted in 2009, which

accounted for 76 percent of the State’s mercury air pollution and

6 percent of the U.S. electric sector pollution.

AEP has also lobbied against the Environmental Protection

Agency’s current efforts to regulate power plant pollution and is

pushing legislation to weaken and delay these regulations.

I look forward to hearing from AEP today about how they can

justify the tragic and destructive side effects that coal-fired power

plants wreak upon us, as well as what steps they are taking to

curb emissions of toxic air pollution.

6

While it is consistent with the history of big business to kick and

scream about having to minimize social and environmental harms

they cause, we should not underestimate the entrepreneurial ability of America’s electric sector to invest, retrofit, and construct

clean energy generation while maintaining system reliability.

In fact, when they upgrade our Nation’s electric generation infrastructure to comply with new regulations, their capital investments

will help drive economic growth and create jobs. According to a

study by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, two of the proposed EPA regulations, Clean

Air Transport Rule and the new Mercury and Air Toxic Standards,

could stimulate the creation of 1.4 million jobs over the next 5

years in the pollution controls, engineering, and construction fields.

Congress passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act because the American public demanded it. The American people demanded it because they didn’t like their children to inhale and

drink and die from toxic compounds from which even the most diligent parent can’t protect his or her child. Nothing about this equation has changed.

We must allow the EPA to continue to fulfill its mandate to protect our water and the air. And I look forward to hearing from the

EPA today about how it continues to fulfill its promise.

We can’t get into a position where it is either jobs or a clean environment. We have to insist that we have to have both. And the

approach of the 21st century that is going to be economically viable

and economically successful and that will help grow our economy

is to be able to catch the wave of new technologies that can help

use the resources we have now and do it in such a way that we

protect the quality of the air and the water.

With that, I want to thank the chair, and I yield back.

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman.

Members have 7 days to submit opening statements.

We now welcome our first witness, Mr. Bob Perciasepe.

Great name to say, like saying Sheboygan, or one of those names

you like to say.

Mr. KUCINICH. Like Kucinich.

Mr. JORDAN. Like Kucinich. Exactly.

He is the deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency.

We feel privileged to have you here today, Mr. Perciasepe.

And pursuant to the rules of the committee, all witnesses are

sworn in. So please rise and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. JORDAN. Answer in the affirmative. Let the record show that

the witness has answered in the affirmative.

And the floor is yours, Mr. Administrator. Go ahead.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PERCIASEPE, DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would the gentleman please speak directly into

the mic? That would be helpful.

7

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, sir. I will get a little closer there. I see

what you are talking about. I want to thank you for inviting me

today. And I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.

When you ask whether EPA regulations will cause the lights to

go out, I want to be able to assure you that the answer is no. We

do not have to choose between breathing clean air and running an

air conditioner or turning on the lights at night.

The power plant rules that EPA is developing are necessary to

protect public health and the environment from pollution produced

by these plants, especially the oldest, dirtiest, and least efficient of

them.

We are not the first administration to recognize the need to clean

up power plants and to issue rules to address that need. In fact,

since 1989, when President George H.W. Bush proposed what became the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, power plant cleanup

has been the continuous policy of the U.S. Government under two

Democratic and two Republican Presidents.

While past EPA rules have made progress in reducing the harmful effects of pollution, more remains to be done to ensure that all

Americans have the clean environment to which they are entitled.

EPA’s recent and upcoming actions to control pollution from

power plants will achieve major public health benefits for Americans that are significantly greater than the costs. These pollutionreducing rules are affordable, and they are technologically achievable.

There is tremendous public support for moving forward with

these rules. For instance, since March, we have received over

800,000 comments from across the country in support of regulatory

mercury emission controls from power plants.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule finalized earlier this month

illustrates significant health benefits from reducing power plant

pollution. In a single year, 2014, this rule is projected to produce

benefits valued at over $120 billion to up to $280 billion and to

avoid up to 34,000 premature deaths.

Our analysis and past experience indicate that warnings from

some of dire economic consequences of moving forward with these

important rules are exaggerated at best. A publicly available analysis shows that these rules are affordable. This is corroborated by

other outside groups and by some in industry who recognize that

issuing the rules in the same timeframe helps provide power companies with the certainty they need to make smart and cost-effective investments.

As we did more than two decades ago, we are also hearing claims

that our rules will lead to potential adverse effects on electric reliability. EPA’s analysis projects that the agency’s rules will result

in only a modest level of retirements and that these retirements

are not expected to have adverse impact on electric generation and

resource adequacy.

Our rules will not cause the lights to go out.

These studies are often based on incorrect assumptions about the

requirements of EPA rules and are inconsistent with the actual

proposals that come out. In most cases, the analyses were performed before many of the regulations were even proposed. Simply

8

put, many of these studies are not based on the reality of what the

agency is actually proposing to do.

In closing, I would like to suggest that the subcommittee should

be clear about what is at stake here, as those who have stalled in

cleaning up their pollution for further delays. Delay encourages

companies to keep cash on the sidelines instead of spending it and

putting people to work modernizing their facilities. And most importantly, delay means public health benefits of reducing harmful

pollution are not realized.

Thank you for allowing this opening comment. I look forward to

your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:]

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Deputy.

Let me just start with one of the things that the ranking member

referenced in his opening statement, and I think you alluded to it

as well, was the jobs that can be created when you have to refit

and retool and make changes.

But what do you say—and did you look at this, this idea that

there can also be job loss? As I pointed out in my opening statement, the National Association of Manufacturers, they cite the

number 7.3 million jobs they believe that can be lost between 2020

and 2030. So did EPA look at all at the other side?

Obviously, we know if you have to retool something, there has to

be someone to come in and go to work, putting that structure together in a different way, retrofitting, doing what needs to be done.

Obviously, that is pretty easy to calculate. But did you look at the

other side of the ledger?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. When we look at the cost of rules, we look

at all the different aspects of it under the OMB regulations that

we are required to use. And I might say that American industry

and in particular the American power industry has been becoming

more and more efficient. Over the last 10 years, even without these

rules, the amount of megawatts that are produced continues to go

up.

Mr. JORDAN. Every business has been doing that.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Every business is doing this. Oil refineries,

power plants, the amount of output continues to go up, but the

number of employees continues to go down as they become more

and more efficient over time with more efficient plants. And some

of the transition that takes place when we enact these rules is creating a more efficient fleet of power-generating units.

Mr. JORDAN. But I just want to be clear, did you do what the executive order requires you to do, which is a cumulative impact

study on—I mean, I am reading right here from the executive

order, each agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the least

burden on society, including businesses and individuals, including

businesses of differing sizes. Did you comply with the Executive

order?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. Yes. Excuse me.

When we propose a rule, like let’s say the Mercury and Air

Toxics Rule, we start from the base that includes the rules that

have already been done. And then we want to be able to make sure

we specify what the current rule that we are proposing is actually

going to do for transparency purposes so we can look at how that

builds on the cumulative impact of what has gone before.

Mr. JORDAN. Can you look at the statement then on the screen?

It should be in front of you there on your screen.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Which RIA are we talking about?

Mr. JORDAN. Coal ash. The coal ash rule.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I see at the bottom. I am sorry. That proposal

is out—has been out, and we have put out some additional requests

for information on that. That is quite a ways away from being finalized.

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Let me ask you this. Do you think, though,

that, a more general question, do you think that there is ever a

point where regulation can in fact be a strong impediment to job

17

growth, and actually be—actually cost jobs, actually result in the

reduction of jobs? Do you think that is something that should be

kept clear in mind as we are proposing new regulations?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I think we have to look at the economic

impact of rules under the executive order, as you have pointed out.

And that is what we do. And we also try to do it based on the foundation of what has already gone by.

But EPA also goes beyond that, particularly under the Clean Air

Act. We look at the cumulative benefits and costs of the rule—of

all the rules all together since the Clean Air Act—the amendments

at least of 1990. So let’s say going back 20 years. Under section

812, I think it is, of the Clean Air Act, we do a cumulative benefit

and cost analysis on the entire implementation of the Clean Air

Act. And the cost and benefits so far, since 1990, are about ahead

by about 30 to 1.

Mr. JORDAN. Can you take a look at this statement? Because of

these complexities, as well as the limited time and resources within

the expedited schedule, we are limited in our ability to quantify the

cost and benefits of obtaining separate secondary NAAQS for ozone

for this proposal. So that would seem to indicate to me that you

did not do a full cumulative impact study because you say right in

your statement, cost and benefits. That is what we are looking at.

That is the whole cumulative issue there. You seem to say you are

not complying with it in that statement there.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. So the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard is a standard. It is not self-implementing. What it does

is it sets in motion a planning process that goes on for a number

of years to identify where those areas are in the country that would

not be meeting that standard, and then, what are the implementation mechanisms that are used to implement or to achieve that

standard? Each one of those requires that kind of detailed analysis

once we get to that point. But the standard itself is a science-based

standard based on what——

Mr. JORDAN. And does the EPA have any idea what that standard is going to cost when implemented? That is the point.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We do a regulatory impact analysis that looks

at the best estimate we could make, because all the implementation comes years later. We look at the best——

Mr. JORDAN. And what was your best estimate for this, for the

NAAQS?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Our estimates of benefits and cost went, depending on all the different standards that were proposed by

the——

Mr. JORDAN. Can you give us a number? On one hand, you are

saying you are going to create jobs for retrofitting the facilities, but

we want to know overall if you did an estimate, what was the estimate on what it was going to do to job creation or job loss?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We did the overall cost of the rule. And the

overall cost of the rule, I will have to look it up for you what

the——

Mr. JORDAN. And obviously cost means——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We did the costs and the benefits in our proposal.

18

Mr. JORDAN. But additional costs to business means it is going

to be tougher to create jobs. You would agree with that statement,

wouldn’t you? Particularly if it is a big number, which you can’t

give me.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it depends on what the final standard is,

which we haven’t yet decided on. We haven’t yet promulgated the

final.

Mr. JORDAN. One last question and then I want to yield to our

ranking member. Wouldn’t you agree, though, that all this coming

at once—I mean you think about over the next several years we

have Cooling Water Intake Structures, Utility MACT, the Transport Rule, Coal Combustion Residuals, the ozone, I mean all these

different things, some starting now but some more coming online

soon, don’t you think that’s a real cause for concern and that it is

critical that you be able to provide an estimate and do the full cumulative? I mean, you can obviously see the concern that folks in

this industry and this business, which is so crucial to manufacturing and a host of others, you can obviously see their concern.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yeah. Many of these rules you just mentioned

were actually proposed in the past, and they were sent back to

EPA by the courts. The Air Transport Rule that you mentioned, the

air toxics—Utility Air Toxic Rule, those were proposed in the past

in the last decade, and now they have been coming back and having to be reproposed. Things like the ozone standard you mentioned

get implemented over a long period of time into the future. And

some of them, like the water intake—the water intake rules under

the Clean Water Act or the coal combustion rules under the Resource Conservation Act, those haven’t been finalized yet.

Mr. JORDAN. But the point is it is all coming and it is coming

pretty quickly. Even if they may have been proposed and they are

gradual, they are phasing in and phasing in at different levels or

higher levels, that’s a concern.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I will just respectfully say I probably don’t

agree with that chart that you just had up there.

Mr. JORDAN. I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is fair to say that the utility industry is hysterical with

claims that the new EPA regulations are job killing. In contrast,

as the slide I would like to put up on the screen shows, a report

from the University of Massachusetts entitled New Jobs, Cleaner

Air, says the home States of each member of the Subcommittee on

the Eastern Power Grid would fare very well with respect to jobs

created by the new investment and capital improvements. Our own

State of Ohio will gain as many as 76,240 jobs to build the capacity

to implement the new regulations in the first 5 years. So I would

like to ask Mr. Perciasepe how does the EPA’s own risk assessment

analysis square up with these findings from the University of Massachusetts?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I have to say I haven’t looked at this particular

report.

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. You don’t have to comment on it. Will your

regulations destroy more jobs or create more jobs?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Our analysis shows, particularly on these utility

rules, that it will create jobs.

19

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. We are going to hear from industry representatives in the next panel that claim that compliance with the

new Mercury and Air Toxic Standards and the Transport Rule is

not achievable and not cost-effective. These industry advocates are

making claims of dire economic consequences if we move forward

with these rules. Some of our witnesses today will say that environmental protections will cost too much money, kill too many jobs,

end their competitiveness. This is familiar. Industry always claims

the sky will fall if they have to minimize the health and environmental harms their business practices cause. We heard the same

thing from the auto industry when air bags were required. We

heard the same hysteria when the Clean Air Act rules were passed

in 1990.

Ford Motor Co. said in 1990, we just don’t have the technology

to comply with, ‘‘the tailpipe requirement set forth in the amendments.’’ And yet they started making cars that complied with the

tailpipe requirements in 1993.

Now, Mr. Perciasepe, can you talk about how industry fared after

the 1990 amendments? Are there any lessons to be drawn here

with the new proposed rules? From your perspective, is industry

exaggerating the detrimental impacts of the regulations?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, some of the studies that we have been

able to review have a number of—that they have done that demonstrate these impacts have some significant flaws to them. First

of all, and I mentioned this in my opening comments, they make

assumptions about rules that we haven’t finalized yet. For instance, on the cooling water regulation that we have been talking

about, some of those studies have assumed that every power plant

would have to install a closed loop cooling system or a cooling

tower.

That is not what we proposed, and we still haven’t even finalized

that rule. So these end up causing exaggerated estimates of what

the costs of the rule would be. They don’t differentiate between

plants that are getting old and need to close or for economic and

business reasons, need to be phased out as new generating capacity

comes out versus ones that might be associated with a rule that

EPA is proposing. They also don’t include the flexibilities that are

in the Clean Air Act that when you get—when you actually implement these rules, there are certain flexibilities that are included in

the Clean Air Act that are not considered in these studies. So, by

definition, then, they come up with an exaggerated estimate of

what the impact would be.

Mr. KUCINICH. On July 20, 2011, the Washington Times ran an

op-ed by Steve Milloy, the publisher of junkscience.com titled

‘‘Show Us the Bodies, EPA.’’ The subtitle reads, ‘‘Green agency uses

phony death statistics to justify job killing rules.’’

The op-ed described a TV ad run by the Environmental Defense

Fund, saying, the TV ad for this theme features a young girl in a

hospital bed supposedly having an asthma attack. She’s wearing a

nebulizer face mask and chest compression device that is rhythmically but disturbingly squeezing the child, giving the appearance

that she is in severe respiratory distress, by implication from air

pollution. But like the EPA’s 17,000-lives-saved statistical fabrication, the ad’s a fake.

20

Now, Mr. Perciasepe, I would like to give you a chance to respond to this op-ed. It is apparently aimed at EPA’s proposed air

toxics rule. Are EPA’s estimated benefits from the proposed rule a

statistical fabrication?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. They are based on peer-reviewed science. They

are not a statistical fabrication. And you are not going to see on

somebody’s death certificate, they died of air pollution. They are

going to die of the diseases that air pollution exacerbates and

causes premature impacts. Even healthy people are impacted. But

people who are more vulnerable, like retired folks, are going to be

even more vulnerable to these things, so the impact of the damage

on the lungs and the cardiovascular system.

So I know you have other witnesses that will go into the science

of this in more detail, but these are not fabricated. They are based

on peer-reviewed science, both clinical and epidemiological studies.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Milloy’s op-ed also questioned the public

health impacts of mercury pollution. He wrote, ‘‘but there is no evidence that ambient levels of mercury or mercury emissions from

U.S. power plants have harmed anyone.’’ Now, Mr. Perciasepe, isn’t

there clear evidence showing that mercury impairs the brain development of infants and children?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. There are mercury warnings in every State for

fish contaminated with mercury. Mercury causes damage to developing brains in children and fetuses.

Mr. KUCINICH. So is that a yes?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. So yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. Can you describe why it is important to

control mercury pollution from domestic power plants? Isn’t there

a disproportionate impact on communities near plants that emit

mercury pollution?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The mercury emissions from the power plants

in the United States are the largest remaining source in the United

States of mercury emissions. And they are—they affect the water.

And the mercury bio-accumulates in fish. And then fish get eaten

by humans.

But I want to point out one last thing on this point. The mercury

and toxics rule is not just mercury. It includes acid gases, arsenic,

nickel, cadmium, all these other metals and acid gases that also

have health effects are included, which is why you have to look at

the broad impact of all those different toxics, not just mercury, although mercury is very important.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, yield back.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman.

Mr. Deputy, do you think your rules could result in a higher cost

for energy?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. When we analyzed the cost of our rules, and

let’s just use the air toxics, the Utility MACT as you call it here,

of the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, we do estimate that it will

have an increase in electric rates and an increase in natural gas

rates. Those increases are expected to be in the variability of historic levels of these——

Mr. JORDAN. I just want to be clear. So the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency admits that the rule changes will result in higher electricity costs.

21

Mr. PERCIASEPE. A very small increase in electric costs. But actually, the electric costs even with this rule——

Mr. JORDAN. Let me be clear. You say there is going to be an increase in cost for energy.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The increase in costs will still—the cost of electricity will be less——

Mr. JORDAN. Is the answer yes or no to increased energy?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. If I could just answer it, to answer your first

question, it will be—the costs of electricity will still be less than

it was in 2009, even with the increase.

Mr. JORDAN. Then if there is going to be increased energy costs,

do you think that can also translate into lost jobs or maybe not as

many jobs being created as otherwise would have been?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I say——

Mr. JORDAN. And we are talking, obviously, we are talking people

who use the energy.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I understand that. And I want to be really

clear, the baseline that people currently pay for electricity is less

than it was several years ago. And this increase will keep it, it still

will be less than it was several years ago. We do not see it having

an impact——

Mr. JORDAN. Maybe you are missing the point. What they are

paying now, are your rules going to make it—I am not worried

about 2009. I am worried about now. We have 9.2 percent unemployment now. So what they are paying now, are the rules you are

proposing going to mean energy costs more? I thought the answer

was yes. Is that what you are saying? So, furthermore, if the answer is yes, which it is, then there could be some other results or

ramifications down the road for job creators and businesses across

the country at a time we have 9.2 percent unemployment.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We do not see the small increase in the price

of electricity from this rule, which is not different than the normal

variation in the prices over the last decade, to have any significant

impact.

Mr. JORDAN. You may not, but my guess is small business owners, my guess is manufacturers probably do. When they are faced

with the tough decision can I keep these families, these individuals

employed who their families are relying on this, and I got to make

decisions, look at my bottom line, look at my fixed costs, look at

everything else, they probably do see it as important. You may see

it as not important and negligible, but they probably do. Let me

ask you another question here.

Mr. Kucinich had the jobs created to retrofit and retool. And you

pointed to that, too. But I guess I want to ask, this is the old basic

economics principle opportunity costs. If you are not spending those

dollars to retrofit and retool your facility, you are probably using

them some other way, maybe to create jobs, maybe to do other

things. So would you agree that while, sure, they are going to have

to—there might be some jobs that are created to retool and refit,

that is money that they could have used somewhere else but for the

fact that you are making them retool and refit.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, first, it creates jobs and permanent jobs,

and second, it creates all those health benefits I just mentioned. It

is hard to get that double benefit from other investments.

22

Mr. JORDAN. But you would also agree with the opportunity

costs. When money is spent one place, it can’t be spent someplace

else.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The cost-benefit ratio of this kind of expenditure is more than 5 to 1, 10 to 1. Small businesses who could in

theory be impacted from small prices increase, this is such a small

increase, that it could be well within their ability to make energyefficiency controls.

Mr. JORDAN. Again, it is always easy for government to say that.

It is much tougher for the individual or the family or the business

owners that actually have to implement it.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. They would actually save money and be able to

invest it in their business.

Mr. JORDAN. So wait a minute. So now you are saying increased

energy costs are actually going to be a savings? How does that

work?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, if they implement certain very simple energy efficiency measures in their own business that most business

people are looking at——

Mr. JORDAN. I am sure they are doing that if it makes sense on

their own. They don’t need the government to tell them that to do

that.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That is right. I am just saying that this is what

normally would happen in the normal business world.

Mr. JORDAN. I didn’t expect to take 5 minutes. I will be happy

to yield back to the ranking member. I am good on time. I can go

to you or I can go to the vice chair of the committee. Okay. I thank

the gentleman. We will now yield to the vice chair of the committee, who is actually going to take over for the chairman. Thank

you.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I apologize for missing the first round of questions. Thank

you for being here today and your willingness to testify. In your

analysis for Utility MACT, you estimated that it could lead to pollution control-related capital investment of $45 billion to $50 billion

and that this could create 35,000 jobs per year by 2015.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I think our estimate is, it is about $10 billion,

I am sorry, in our final rule. And our estimate is $10 billion, and

our estimate is about 31,000 temporary jobs and about 9,000 permanent jobs.

I think I am right on that. I want to make sure.

Total annual cost is $10.9 billion. The annual benefits are about

$59 billion to $140 billion. So it is a 5 to 1 cost-benefit ratio or 13

to 1 cost-benefit ratio. I think I have the job analysis right. I am

sorry. I wanted to make sure I gave the numbers that we had

there.

Ms. BUERKLE [presiding]. Okay. So you are saying——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. This could have been in the proposal. But I am

happy to dig into this here for you, if I can.

Ms. BUERKLE. Well, if you would like to elaborate or explain, because that is the information we had. And you can see the cost per

job——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I see that.

Ms. BUERKLE [continuing]. Is ridiculous.

23

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I would like to be able to provide some information for you on that.

Ms. BUERKLE. Okay. Can you provide that information today, or

would you like to provide it——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I have to—I have to go look at the technical

support document and see where—but what I just gave you are the

numbers in the final proposal, $10.9 million—I am sorry, billion a

year; 31,000 temporary jobs; 9,000 permanent jobs. Benefits of $50

billion to $100 billion, including 7,000 to 17,000 premature deaths

avoided, 11,000 nonfatal heart attacks avoided. I am not going to

read them all. But this is what was the in the final rule. The costbenefit of this is about 5 to 1, or at the high end of the range 13

to 1.

Ms. BUERKLE. So what is your estimate that the cost is per job?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The annual cost of the rule is $10.9 billion, with

ultimately around 9,000 permanent jobs.

Ms. BUERKLE. What does that cost per job?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, the purpose of the rule is to achieve 17—

avoid premature deaths for 17,000 adults, 11,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 5,300 hospital admissions, 6,900 emergency room admissions, 4,500 cases of chronic bronchitis, 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis. Those are the things that we add as the benefit side.

Ms. BUERKLE. I understand all that. But if you are using it as

a justification because it creates jobs, we have to look at the cost

per job and say, does that even make sense?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, we are looking at the benefits of all these

health benefits.

Ms. BUERKLE. I want to get onto just a different topic here.

Recently, the EPA announced that it is going to reconsider the

ozone NAAQS standards established in 2007. Can you explain or

tell me why the EPA decided to review and actually on an expedited schedule? They are not really ready; the 2012 would be the

appropriate time.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The ozone standard was last proposed in 2008.

And it was—there was litigation about it. And the standard that

was proposed was outside the range of the Clean Air Act Scientific

Advisory Committee that was set up by the Clean Air Act. We saw

that as legally vulnerable, and so it was remanded back to EPA by

the court back in that timeframe. We have been working on it ever

since. We have proposed it, but we haven’t yet finalized it. It is in

agency review right now. But we haven’t finalized the reconsideration of the ozone standard.

Ms. BUERKLE. Are you under court order to expedite the review?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. There is a stay on the litigation that eventually

probably will be lifted by the judge. But right now, we are acting

under a stay on the litigation, and with the understanding that we

would propose it by the end of July. We have told the litigants as

early as this week that we are not going to be able to make that

July 29th deadline, and that we are still in the interagency review

process. We are going to do it as soon as possible, but it is still

going to take some time.

Ms. BUERKLE. My concern with that is that the environmentalists, rather than EPA and the appropriate branches of government,

are establishing our environmental policy.

24

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, we were sued by all different litigants.

Ms. BUERKLE. My time has expired.

I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Perciasepe, the House is currently debating H.R. 2584, an

appropriations act that included a rider that blocks the EPA from

implementing its rule to control air toxic emissions, as well as the

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, controlling interstate transportation

of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions from power

plants.

Sir, if this legislation became law, what impact would it have on

EPA’s ability to fulfill its mandateunder the Clean Air Act and implement the air pollution rules covering pollution from power

plants?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, if you make the assumption that those

riders would not allow us to spend funds in the budget on finishing

the work under those rules, it will delay further—it has already

been delayed almost a decade—the health benefits and the certainty that industry has said that they want.

Mr. KUCINICH. Can you quantify what those health benefits

were?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I just listed the ones for the—which I think is

already in the record in the answer to the vice chair. I will get here

in a minute from my able assistant the actual numbers for the—

I probably have some of them.

Mr. KUCINICH. While your able assistant is gathering those

numbers——

Mr. PERCIASEPE. From the Cross-State Air Pollution——

Mr. KUCINICH. Right. I would just like to go over those numbers.

Here we go. Number, please.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you. It is 13,000 to 34,000 premature

mortalities; 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks; 19,000 hospital emergency department visits; 19,000 acute bronchitis events; 420,000

upper and lower respiratory symptoms; 400,000 aggravated asthma; and 1.8 million days when people will miss work or school.

Those are the benefits that will be delayed, along with the ones

that——

Mr. KUCINICH. Is that delayed on an annual basis, or is that delayed on a 10-year basis, or what?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Annual. Annual. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Has EPA ever done a quantification of that in

terms of the dollar cost to the economy then if people are sick? You

know, it is expensive.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, the monetized benefits from those

annualized health benefits I just listed, and that was for the CrossState Rule, are $120 billion to $280 billion a year.

Mr. KUCINICH. So what is the monetized cost to public health?

So you are saying that that is the cost of the benefit if you have

the rule and the rule goes into place; people’s health is protected.

And on the other side, if you don’t have the rule, that represents

a loss or a cost that is being absorbed by people in terms of an attack on their health. So in a way—and that is what you are saying,

right?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes.

25

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. So let’s look at it this way. I mean, this is the way I look at it anyway. If these rules don’t go into place, $128

billion, is it, annually?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That is the low end.

Mr. KUCINICH. The low end, $128 billion annually, is the cost in

terms of human health. Or as you said, if it is correct that it is a

benefit. But it is a cost now because the rules aren’t in place. So

these companies are making profits. And here is the point. If you

have environmental conditions that are aggravating human health,

and the EPA is trying to mitigate those conditions with a rule, and

those conditions are not resolved and the industry keeps building

their profit margins while having not to make any investments at

all in cleaning up the environment so there wouldn’t be these untoward health effects, what you actually have is a direct transfer of

wealth in terms of the cost of human health from the mass of people to the utilities.

This, I think, is one of the underlying problems that I have with

the fact that utilities refuse to abide by rules that protect human

health. Because people pay for it. People actually subsidize the

profits of the utilities with the public’s health. So that $128 million—or billion ends up a payment that people make with their

health. And in a sense, it is a transfer of wealth to the utilities.

That is just not fair. It just isn’t. And it is manifestly unjust. I find

it morally offensive. And while I am with my colleagues in being

concerned about jobs, look, how many people and their families

have to spend so much of their time taking care of the illness of

a loved one who may have their illness exacerbated because of air

pollution?

I yield back.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Ranking Member Mr. Kucinich.

I have a couple more questions. And I just want to say something

about what the ranking member just brought up. And I think, you

know, I have spent my whole life in the health—I am a nurse. I

was a health care attorney. So I am very concerned about health,

public health. And I don’t think anyone on either side of the aisle

is saying we don’t need regulations.

But what we need is reasonable regulations, regulations that encourage people to be entrepreneurial, encourage people to take a

risk, not thinking that they will be beat down, and when they do

comply with regulations that, you know, around the next corner,

those regulations are changed, so then they have to retrofit and

they have to recomply.

The cost of compliance, as I talk to small businesses throughout

the district, it is exorbitant. And it really is a deterrent for people

to take the risk and to go into business. So I think all we are talking about here and we are asking the EPA is to be reasonable, to

understand that every one of those new regulations, every one of

those regulations that get put into a book have an effect. They filter down to some poor small business owner whose bottom line and

his profit margin is very slim. And one more change or one more

law to comply with, or one more regulation may be what puts him

over.

And I think that is more—and if we look at it that way, we are

talking about public health, but we are also balancing it with a 9.2

26

unemployment rate in this country. We have to look at this thing

in its entirety. You look like you wanted to comment.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. You know, those are very reasonable words.

And I think we share the desire to make sure these rules are implemented in an appropriate way. We are trying to provide time in

the rules, flexibility with trading, allowance trading. EPA has other

flexibilities if things get tight on a reliability front.

The other side of the coin is also trying to make sure that there

is a clear path. These rules have been lingering for a decade. And

we are in this parallel universe of people saying we need certainty

so we can make investments, but if we create the certainty, then

there is too much that we think we might have to do.

And the truth of the matter is you need know where you—you

need have that path of where to go, but at the same time, we need

to have the flexibilities that are available in the Clean Air Act.

And I think this country can do it. It has been able to do it. GDP

has gone up 205 percent since the Clean Air Act was enacted, while

pollution has gone down almost 60—over 60 percent. These last increments are really going to pay dividends in public health. And we

need to make sure we do use the flexibilities that are in the Clean

Air Act.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

I only have 2 minutes left, so I have one more question here.

The Assistant Secretary of Energy James Wood stated that, number one, electric rates are going to go up. And I would like you to

comment on that. I mean, do you agree with him that electric rates

are going to go up? And I will enter Mr. Wood’s article into the

record, without any objection.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, our regulatory impact analysis that we

have done on let’s just say these two rules indicate that electric

rates will go up from a base that is lower than it was in the last

decade. So the variability in the electric rates are going to be small

compared to the variability of the electric rates we had before these

rules were out there.

That said, when we do—when we did work on some of these

rules, we definitely used the small business panels to help us look

at the impact on small business, how the rule—how small business

could accommodate the rule. So we have looked at those things as

well. But there is a slight increase in the electric rates on an average across the country. And we have identified that in our regulatory impact. We are not hiding that fact. We are trying to put it

in context.

Ms. BUERKLE. I don’t mean to interrupt, but my time is clicking

away here.

I will say your estimate came in the lowest of anyone’s estimate

as to what their electrical rates will do. And again, that goes back

to jobs and job creation and small businesses. I mean, it may be

a few pennies, but it may not be a few pennies. It may be more

than that. And that may be the one single factor that pushes—either deters someone from going into business, the cost of doing

business, or worse yet, it forces them out of business because they

can’t meet their bottom line.

With that, my time has expired.

We are going to do another round of questions.

27

I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Perciasepe, American Electric Power claims

the cost of complying with the regulations affecting power plants

will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent.

According to EPA’s own regulatory impact analysis for the final

Transport Rule, the agency’s economic model suggests an average

national price increase for energy is 0.16 percent, just a fraction of

1 percent.

Under the Toxics Rule, the agency’s economic model suggests the

average national price increase for energy is 0.8 percent. This is a

long way off from 10 to 35 percent. Can you explain the discrepancy between AEP’s figures and your own?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I haven’t studied how they came up with those

estimates.

But I would say that EPA has been historically able to estimate

impacts of our rules, and we are even conservative in our impacts

on how we estimate our impacts on rules. So it could have been

any number of things that they have included in their assumptions

that we would have to look at.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, why don’t you obtain the information and

get back to this subcommittee so that we can make an evaluation

of their claim?

Thank you. I yield back.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

With that, we will all our second panel to the witness table. And

thank you very much for being here today and for offering your testimony and your information to us.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you both, and thank the chairman.

Ms. BUERKLE. Good afternoon.

Thank you for being here. Our second panel consists of Ms. Janet

Henry, who is the deputy general counsel for American Electric

Power; Dr. Joel Schwartz, professor of environmental epidemiology,

Harvard School of Public Health; and Mr. Mike Carey, president of

the Ohio Coal Association.

Good afternoon and welcome to all of you. Pursuant to the rules

of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, if I could ask

you to stand and please raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Ms. BUERKLE. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered

in the affirmative.

Thank you very much.

I would ask that each of our witnesses if you could limit your

opening statements to 5 minutes. I know that the ranking member

has an amendment to offer on the floor, and I would like to give

him the opportunity to lead off the first round of questions before

he has to leave.

So, Ms. Henry, if you would proceed, I would appreciate it.

28

STATEMENTS OF JANET HENRY, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL,

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER; JOEL SCHWARTZ, PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, HARVARD

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH; AND MIKE CAREY, PRESIDENT,

OHIO COAL ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF JANET HENRY

Ms. HENRY. Thank you Vice Chairman Buerkle, Ranking Member Kucinich and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify regarding the impacts of EPA’s

suite of new regulatory requirements for the public utility sector.

AEP is one of the Nation’s largest generators with nearly 38,000

megawatts of generating capacity and serves more than 5 million

retail customers in 11 States. We employ diverse kinds of generating of energy sources, including coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, oil and wind power. But coal is important in our States,

and approximately two-thirds of our generating capacity utilizes

coal to generate electricity.

We believe that the current regulatory track being pursued by

the EPA will have damaging impacts on our Nation’s electricity

system, as well as broader negative employment and economic implications. Together they will require very large capital utility investments on a very short timeframe.

AEP has already achieved substantial SO50 and NO120 reductions

over the past two decades beginning with the acid rain program in

the 1990’s and continuing with the NO120 SIP Call in the Clean Air

Interstate Rule. AEP’s SO50 emissions have been reduced by over

1.1 million tons. That’s about a 73 percent reduction in emissions.

And our NO120 emissions have been reduced by 80 percent over

that same time period.

In just the past 10 years, AEP has invested over $5 billion in

emissions control equipment on our coal units to reduce SO50 and

NO120 . About two-thirds of our fleet is currently equipped with the

most efficient SO50 controls and about three-quarters of the fleet in

the eastern system has the most advanced NO120 controls.

Two projects were completed in the last 18 months at our Amos

power plant, and we are preparing to submit applications for regulatory approvals to install additional controls in Indiana. We expect

this transformation to continue and our emissions to continue to

decline.

We are committed to working with EPA in the development of

future control requirements, but we have concerns about EPA’s

proposals. They include the infeasibility of the compliance deadlines. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will take effect in less

than 6 months, and the reductions in several States required by

2012 represent more than a 30 percent reduction in emissions over

2010 emission levels. Multiple regulatory programs are going to be

taking effect in a very compressed timeframe, resulting in unprecedented capital expenditures, mostly before 2015. There would be

two to three times as much capital spent in the United States to

comply with these new EPA rules by 2020 as has been spent over

the past 20 years.

Abrupt and significant power plant retirements are likely to

occur due to high costs and infeasible compliance deadlines. We exVerDate 17-JUN-2003 14:18 Dec 23, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\71616.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
29

pect that between 50 and 110 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity will retire due to the proposed EPA rules. And with those

retirements come increased risks of unanticipated electric grid reliability problems, particularly during the 2014 to 2016 period.

The greatest capacity reductions are anticipated to occur in the

PJM region, which recently experienced an all-time high peak, and

the SERC region, which is in the southeastern portion of the country.

But both ERCOT and SPP have also expressed concerns about

the localized effects on the electric grid. There will be very high

electricity rate increases, as has been observed by the committee

members, and significant job losses associated with the implementation of these rules.

According to a recent study by NERA, the Cross-State Rule and

the Utility MACT rule will result in over 1.4 million net job losses

in the United States.

There’s a better way. We would like to see more holistic analysis

of EPA’s regulatory programs in an effort to coordinate the implementation of these requirements that can be phased in reasonably

over a slightly more extended period of time and achieve the same

environmental outcomes. That time will reduce the impact on our

customers and the economy. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Henry follows:]

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Ms. Henry.

Mr. Carey.

STATEMENT OF MIKE CAREY

Mr. CAREY. Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Kucinich, members of the committee, good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me

to testify today at this very important hearing.

The effects the EPA’s pending and planned proposals will have

on electricity prices, employers, domestic workers will be devastating. My name is Mike Carey. I am president of the Ohio Coal

Association. We are an association that provides a voice for the

many thousands of citizens working in Ohio’s coal sector. Cheap affordable coal is what powers the manufacturing base and maintains our families across the Midwest and other regions of America.

The companies we represent, both large and small, are proud to

directly employ over 3,000 individuals as well as the 30,000 additional secondary jobs that depend on our sector. These jobs and

hundreds of more or thousands more are at risk directly because

of the decisions under way by the EPA.

In particular, it is my hope that this committee will undertake

a serious review of the work being conducted by the EPA as it relates to the following proposals: The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,

formerly known as the Clean Air Transport Rule; the Air Toxic

Standards for Utilities or Utility MACT; the New Source Performance Standard Changes, the New Ozone Particular Matter Standards; Regulation for Coal Combustion Residuals; and the Power

Plant Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule.

Members of this body have probably heard this grouping of proposals called the EPA Train Wreck. The regulatory wave embodied

in these new mandates and rules above stands to cause great harm

not only to Ohio but to the rest of the American economy. Today

coal is mined in over 27 States across the Nation and is consumed

in over 48 as reliable and affordable power.

I will focus my time today on the two most harmful EPA proposals. The first the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The underlying

assumption of this proposal, Mr. Chairman, is that our customers,

the electric utilities, like American Electric Power, like First Energy and Duke Energy, will simply move to a lower sulfur content

coal. That assumes that companies will even continue to use coal

in the first place. They could fuel switch to natural gas. This ultimately could disrupt the natural gas markets.

This administration proposes to sacrifice these 33,000 primary

and secondary jobs that we create, and that is as simple as it gets.

EPA’s complex rule creates a system of allowances and trading that

is much less flexible than the current regulatory framework. Winners and losers are thus clearly chosen, and Ohio is a loser. The

only option for those producing electricity in our state, as we have

already seen in many cases, is to shut down or potentially shut

down their plants.

The second most harmful proposal in our view is the Utility

MACT Rule. When the proposals are both finalized the national

and regional impacts will be devastating. Ohio alone will lose

53,000 jobs, and electricity prices could certainly spur and hurt the

middle and lower class Americans, which already pay almost 16 to

48

22 percent of their annual after-tax income on energy costs annually.

The future of Midwestern jobs and access to affordable energy

depends on demanding that the EPA examine the cumulative impacts of their regulatory proposals. Oversight for how these flawed

proposals are costly, unworkable and harmful to the U.S. economy

should continue. In the interim, Congress must seek to enact policies that address the flaws in the EPA’s proposals that I have outlined.

EPA’s war on coal will also be harmful to the homeowners across

the country. As the studies have shown, in the Train Wreck will

result in electricity prices that would increase 13 percent in Ohio,

23 percent in Tennessee and 17 percent in Pennsylvania. Now, I

understand that this week the House will take up the spending

measures that will reduce the EPA’s funding by 18 percent. My

concern is that the EPA will simply find a way to shuffle around

the funds, and such a cut will not stop their plans to move forward

with the Train Wreck.

It is the belief of the Ohio Coal Association that Congress must

be bolder, delay these rules immediately. It is critical, and the

House must then act to write legislation that makes these rules

more reasonable. Without a clear direction from Congress in this

fashion, EPA will continue its toward pace of piling on new job

crushing policies. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify,

and I stand ready to answer any questions the committee may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carey follows:]

49

50

51

52

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Carey.

Dr. Schwartz, if you would proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOEL SCHWARTZ

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr. Kucinich.

Certainly the regulations that we have heard about, like the

Transport Rule, will impose significant costs on industry, but they

will also produce significant health benefits, and I would like to

talk a bit about that.

Particulate matter is one of the largest avoidable causes of death

in the United States. To put that in perspective, particulate matter

kills more people each year in the United States than AIDS, breast

cancer and prostate cancer put together. That is a big number. And

the difference is we don’t know how to cure AIDS, breast cancer

and prostate cancer, but we do know how to put scrubbers on coalburning power plants. And so it is important to think about it in

that respect.

And this is not just my opinion, this is a worldwide scientific consensus. In 2005, the World Health Organization said that particulate matter killed 800,000 people a year in the world’s cities alone.

The American Medical Association has endorsed these conclusions,

as has the American Thoracic Society, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association.

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has extensively reviewed EPA’s science assessment for particles over the last several

years and concluded that the association with mortality was causal,

that the risk assessment was sound, except they said that what

EPA cited as their high estimate was actually a mid-range estimate because there were lots of studies that showed bigger effects.

The National Academy of Sciences in the United States has endorsed this conclusion in two separate reports.

In 2005, the European Union proposed the strategy to reduce

particles because their scientific review concluded it killed a lot of

people, and their strategy was to impose an 82 percent reduction

in SO50 emissions, primarily by retrofitting scrubbers on coal-burning power plants.

So this is really a consensus view of the worldwide scientific community. And the reasons they believe that are simple. We have lots

of studies in the scientific literature to support this. We have studies that compare death rates in more polluted towns and less polluted towns, and they are higher in more polluted towns.

We have studies that have looked at changes in particle concentrations in cities and changes in their death rates. And the

more the particle concentrations drop, the more the death rates

drop in those locations. We have studies that have then said, well,

let’s forget about those downward trends and let’s look at just yearto-year fluctuations around the downward trend in particles, and

year-to-year fluctuations in death rates went with those changes in

particles. We have studies that looked at strikes and found that

death rates fell when major industries that were important sources

of air pollution were shut down, and went back up when they were

turned on again.

And then buttressing all of this we have studies from animals

that show that if you expose animals over a period of months to

53

particles compared to filtered air, that they develop much more

atherosclerosis and the atherosclerotic plaques become much less

stable and more likely to rupture, and it has been done in multiple

studies. We have animal studies showing that if you produce ischemia in animals and expose them to particles, the blood flow to the

heart is reduced further compared to one’s breathing filtered air.

We have studies showing that you can produce arrhythmias in animals by exposing them to particles.

So, in addition to all of the human studies, we have a great deal

of toxicology that backs this up. And this is why review committee

after review committee and scientific body and medical body after

medical body have all come to the conclusion that this is really

happening. And the numbers that we are talking about are quite

large. So the mid-range number from EPA’s expert elicitation or

from what Case Act said, says that the Transport Rule will save

34,000 early deaths per year. That is a really big deal. And yes, it

costs money, but actually, the cost per life saved is about $100,000

a life, and that is actually pretty cheap among public health interventions that are available to us.

So I think that these are important issues, but it is important

to realize that there are very important public health benefits that

will result from putting these controls on. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz follows:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Dr. Schwartz.

I am going to yield the ranking member 5 minutes for questions.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentlelady for her indulgence.

I am going to have to leave as soon as I am through with the questions. I am offering an amendment on the floor. I am very grateful

for your kindness.

At a June 1, 2011, meeting with investors when discussing the

risk of closures to plants as a result of EPA rules, the chairman

of AEP Michael Morris told investors the following: As you know,

those are high-cost plants. Throughout almost all of 2009 those

plants probably didn’t run 5 percent of the time because of natural

gas prices. When we shut those down, there will be some cost savings as well, and on balance, we think that is the appropriate way

to go.

That is the sum and substance of what was said. Now, what

CEO Morris is saying is that AEP has already had to shut down

certain coal-burning power plants due to competitive pressure from

lower cost natural gas. These are the same plants that would have

to be retrofitted or shut down to comply with EPA regulations.

Now, Ms. Henry, if AEP is already shutting down these same

plants because they are high cost and are uncompetitive in the

market, how can you come here today and portray EPA’s rules as

infeasible and blame the EPA for forcing a large number of premature power plant requirements?

Ms. HENRY. Thank you, Ranking Member Kucinich.

The plants referred to in the chairman’s remarks and the plants

referred to in the studies that have been conducted as a result of

EPA’s rules are not necessarily the same plants. I think that we

will need to go back and look at the plants that the chairman was

referring to.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying you really don’t know which

plants he is talking about, is that right?

Ms. HENRY. I am not certain of the universe of plants he’s talking about.

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. We would like you to provide that information to this committee.

Ms. HENRY. If I could respond.

Mr. KUCINICH. No. You don’t know the answer, so I am going to

ask my next question.

If the price of natural gas relative to coal stays where it was at

the time your CEO is explaining his decision to close certain plants

and that price stays the same through 2014, isn’t it a fact that AEP

will keep those plants closed through 2014?

Ms. HENRY. If the price of natural gas stays at the current

rates——

Mr. KUCINICH. Right. At the time—right.

Ms. HENRY. As the time the chairman was making——

Mr. KUCINICH. Will those plants stay closed?

Ms. HENRY. The plants were running at low-capacity factors;

they were not closed. And those plants run during times of peak

energy demand and are used to respond to needs for additional

power on days like we experienced this past week. Having those

plants available to respond to those peak demands is critical to the

integrity of the electrical grid.

77

Mr. KUCINICH. So what you are saying is that those plants are

specifically part of meeting peak demands and they are otherwise

totally efficient and not subject to market fluctuations that would

come about as a result of natural gas competition?

Ms. HENRY. Certainly if the price of natural gas were to increase

significantly, their capacity factors might go up because their dispatch might be more economic than the gas plants that run also

at peak periods of time. But I think that the critical point is that

the plants provide both that peak capacity reserve and also

supply——

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, if natural gas costs more. But what if natural gas costs less? Would it likely be that those plants would be

out of capacity because they are not able to compete with natural

gas?

Ms. HENRY. That would depend upon the availability of those

plants and other plants on the system to respond to that peak.

Mr. KUCINICH. Did AEP lay off those workers at the plants that

had to close due to lower-priced natural gas, or did you find other

assignments for them?

Ms. HENRY. Some of the workers were part of a voluntary severance program that we conducted last year in response——

Mr. KUCINICH. So they were voluntarily separated, they weren’t

laid off, is that what you are saying?

Ms. HENRY. That is right.

Mr. KUCINICH. So they lost their jobs?

Ms. HENRY. There will be an additional 600 jobs lost when those

plants are finally closed.

Mr. KUCINICH. Ms. Henry, AEP is the author of a bill entitled

Electric Power Regulatory Coordination Act of 2011, is that correct?

Ms. HENRY. I don’t think there is——

Mr. KUCINICH. You haven’t heard that? Okay. Are you familiar

with a bill by that name?

Ms. HENRY. I am not familiar with a bill by that name.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chair, I am going to ask unanimous consent to put this report by the NACP and other groups in about the

situation in Ohio with respect to coal and electric utilities.

Ms. BUERKLE. Without objection.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you familiar Ms. Henry with a draft, discussion draft circulated that has been dubbed the Electric Power Regulatory Coordination Act of 2011, that would halt implementation

of the Nation’s clean air laws?

Ms. HENRY. I am not familiar with the specific draft that you are

referring to.

Mr. KUCINICH. You never heard of that?

Ms. HENRY. No.

Mr. KUCINICH. You have no knowledge whatsoever of any kind

of discussion draft that relates to a bill by that name?

Ms. HENRY. I know that AEP assisted in the preparation of some

suggested language for legislation that might have had that impact.

Mr. KUCINICH. That is what I am talking about. This bill proposes to wait another 6 years before we limit toxic mercury from

some power plants as well as delaying limits on a host of other

dangerous pollutants, is that not correct?

78

Ms. HENRY. That would be an incorrect characterization.

Mr. KUCINICH. Pardon?

Ms. HENRY. That would be an incorrect characterization of the

language that AEP proposed.

Mr. KUCINICH. Wait. You just told me—are you familiar with this

bill or not? Do you know the bill or don’t you? You are just giving

me a response that it is an incorrect characterization of a bill that

you weren’t really sure about.

Ms. HENRY. I said I am not familiar with whatever——

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. I withdraw my question, Madam Chair.

I am going to submit questions in writing so that Ms. Henry can

become familiar with the questions that we are concerned about.

And also she can familiarize herself with her own understanding

of this draft discussion that I am asking about. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Ms. BUERKLE. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Ms. BUERKLE. Okay. I will yield myself 5 minutes for questions.

First of all, Ms. Henry, I want to give you the opportunity, it

seemed to me you had an answer to the ranking member’s question

that you weren’t allowed to give. If you wanted to—early in his line

of questioning, he was speaking to you.

Ms. HENRY. If I could continue my response, I would appreciate

it. Thank you.

The legislation that AEP was discussing with certain Members

of Congress would have provided for a phased-in program to allow

sufficient time in order for all of the controls that are required by

the various EPA proposals to be phased in over a slightly longer

period of time than is proposed under the Cross-State Air Pollution

Rule and the Utility MACT Rule.

Instead of having all of the requirements become final and effective in 2014, there would have been an extension through 2020 and

a phased-in program with specific levels of control required to be

achieved throughout that time period.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

And this question is for Ms. Henry, as well as Mr. Carey. The

EPA time lines to comply with these regulations, is it realistic or

unrealistic?

Ms. HENRY. Based on our experience, it is an unrealistic timeframe for the installation of the very sophisticated controls that are

necessary to control the types of coals that are produced in many

of our States, including Ohio. FGD systems, flue gas

desulfurization systems, and SCR systems are required to achieve

the levels that are set forth in the EPA regulations for SO50 and

NO120 and also to achieve the co-benefits of mercury reductions

from those same power plants.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

Ms. HENRY. And those require about 4 and a half to 5 years to

complete.

Ms. BUERKLE. Mr. Carey.

Mr. CAREY. I would agree with—I would agree with her analysis

of how that would affect the power-producing facilities. And what

that actually would do for the coal producers of the State would be

a removal of us from the marketplace because they simply could

not meet the timeframes, as I mentioned, go to a lower sulfur coal

and/or possibly switching to natural gas.

Ms. BUERKLE. Can each of you comment just briefly, because I

want to get to this line of questioning with regards to these compliance timelines, how many jobs can you estimate would be lost?

Ms. HENRY. Based on the comprehensive analysis that was done

by NERA, we estimate that about 1.4 million net job losses would

occur in the United States through the time period 2020 as a result

of these regulations. And the two regulations we are talking about

are the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Utility MACT Rule.

The impacts are probably more severe than that based on the final

rule because NERA did its analysis on the proposed rule and not

the final rule.

Ms. BUERKLE. And if you had more time to comply, would that

affect the number of jobs lost?

89

Ms. HENRY. Yes, it would because we would be able to moderate

the electricity rate increases associated with the installation of the

controls and spread that over a longer period of time.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

And the same two questions to you, Mr. Carey.

Mr. CAREY. According—Madam Chair, according to the NERA

study, it alone, that loss of those jobs just because of those two proposals, would be 53,000 direct jobs in the State, of which many of

those jobs would come from the Appalachian coal fields because of

the direct jobs in the mining industry and the up to 11 spin-off jobs

that occur from one coal mining job, so the numbers would be significant in that region.

Ms. BUERKLE. And again, if there is longer time for compliance,

will that affect the number of jobs lost?

Mr. CAREY. Madam Chair, I think certainly that could affect ultimately the amount of coal that we could continue to put into those

power producing facilities, so yes.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

Now, can either or both of you actually comment on what this

will do to electricity rates? You heard in the previous panel of the

testimony that it will raise slightly, but I would like to hear your

thoughts about what it will do to the electricity rates.

Ms. HENRY. Well, the EPA analysis has been done on an average

basis nationwide and not on an individual company basis. Obviously, those companies that are most dramatically impacted by the

rules bear the highest cost of compliance, and their rates increase

the most.

For the AEP companies, the rate increases we have estimated

range from 10 percent at the lowest end of the range to almost 35

percent in those areas most highly impacted.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

Mr. Carey.

Mr. CAREY. Madam Chair, I think if you look at—in my testimony, I outline what NERA also said, was that if you break it

down by State, the average cost for electric rates for certain States

across the country, in particular, Ohio is at 13 percent; 23 percent

in Tennessee; and 17 percent in Pennsylvania. So you can just go

down the list and all of the States would see there will be regional

variances in the cost of the electricity increase, but definitely all increasing.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

I want to ask one more question of the two of you, and then Dr.

Schwartz, I don’t want you to feel left out here this afternoon.

The EPA is a singular regulatory body and yet we see so many

regulations coming out of it from so many various agencies and departments. I would like for you to comment—and Mr. Carey, I can

start with you, and then Ms. Henry—have you seen any signs that

there is a coordination of or a look at how all of these regulations

affect businesses? I mean one regulation by itself may not be bad,

but cumulatively, they may devastate businesses, and that is why

we are here today, our concern for what this cumulative effect is

doing for jobs and job creation. So if you could comment on that,

I would appreciate it.

90

Mr. CAREY. Certainly, Madam Chair. I don’t think there is any

doubt that we are seeing in the coal fields of not just Ohio, but I

think West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, you are seeing a coordinated attack because the new restrictions on certain

coal permits, the fact that the U.S. EPA is getting involved in a lot

of the processes that normally would have taken place under the

State EPA—or the State permitting program. You are seeing that

Federal, that Federal go into the States, start revoking permits, as

happened in the State of West Virginia. So what you have is systematically, you have the U.S. EPA not allowing for coal to be permitted to get out of the ground and then ultimately trying to take

away the market that the coal could go to. So I guess you could

say that the EPA believes that they can control both the laws of

supply and demand ultimately to the detriment of the entire country.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

Ms. Henry.

Ms. HENRY. The EPA regulations are analyzed in a silo.

Each individual requirement is analyzed only for its individual

cost and benefits, and there is no comprehensive analysis undertaken. That results in a failure to consider the cumulative impacts

at any individual facility, let alone across an industrial sector.

And for an example, the suite of regulations that are currently

before us include not only the air pollution regulations, but also the

cooling tower requirements and the coal combustion residuals rulemaking. Each of those rules has its own costs, and all of them

would be considered by a utility before any investment would be

made to determine whether the long-term viability of the facility is

justified. So it is essential that EPA not only do cumulative analyses within an individual office or division, like the air division, but

that it take a holistic view of all of the regulatory programs that

are coming out of the various offices within EPA.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you very much.

Dr. Schwartz, in your testimony, you talk a lot about the negative health effects of particulate matter. And I want to clarify if

primarily particulate matter is regulated by MACTs? Is that correct?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, there is a MACT for particulate matter, but

then there are also new source performance standards and, you

know, best available control technology and a bunch of other regulations as well.

The transport rule is primarily being put out to help States come

into attainment with the MACTs because we know that particles

don’t actually stop at State borders. And so the Clean Air Interstate Rule that was originally proposed was for the purpose of

doing that. The MACT, I think, is an entirely different thing that

has nothing to do with the ambient air quality standard.

Ms. BUERKLE. Well, the concern is that there was a duplication

in the count of particulate matter, you know, to make the case, you

know.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Oh. So, I mean, I haven’t read every document

that EPA has produced, but certainly when EPA did the regulatory

impact analysis for the ongoing round of revision of the ambient air

quality standards for particles, they said, what if we got particle

91

levels down to some point and what might be the costs and the

benefits of that in their risk assessment.

They didn’t specifically propose rules that would accomplish that,

but they implicitly assumed that one of the rules that was going

to be providing a lot of the help was the transport rule. So if you

looked at the benefits of those two things and added them up, that

would be incorrect. It would also be incorrect if you looked at the

cost of those two things and added it up. The transport rule is one

of the strategies that EPA is proposing to help come into attainment with the current MACTs and with any future MACTs. And

so it should be a sub category under there for both costs and benefits.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

Ms. Henry, I want you to comment if you could on whether it is

fair that the EPA essentially double counted the benefits.

Ms. HENRY. Madam Vice Chair, I think that the primary objection that we have to EPA’s benefits analysis is that for the CrossState Air Pollution Rule, EPA assumed that current requirements

that apply to our facilities under the Clean Air Interstate Rule

don’t exist, so they started from an artificial baseline and overstated the benefits that would be achieved through the Cross-State

Rule.

With respect to the Utility MACT Rule the benefits that are affiliated with reducing the hazardous and toxics air emissions under

that rule amount to negligible benefits compared to the costs. The

costs are, as I think the chairman stated previously, about $10.7

billion per year, and the benefits are around $50 million associated

with reductions in mercury.

EPA claimed it could not quantify any benefits associated with

any other individual hazardous air pollutant, but they did quantify

benefits associated with reductions in particulate matter, and those

are the benefits that they claim are achieved through the reductions of the Utility MACT Rule.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. Mr. Carey would you like to comment

on that.

Well, with that, since there are no other members here for questioning, I would like to thank all three of you for being here this

afternoon for being willing to answer our questions and to testify.

I think the chairman called this committee. Our concern is always that regulations are putting such burdens on businesses in

our country. And given the unemployment rate, we have a responsibility to act responsibly.

And as I mentioned to the previous panel, that no one is saying

we don’t need regulations, but we need reasonable regulations that

don’t put companies out of business, that create barriers to their

success, that you know, we see compliance and then we see new

regulations that require retrofitting. So I thank you all for being

here today.

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ