U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

22–474 PDF 2017

S. Hrg. 114–531 

IMPACT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS: A CASE 

STUDY OF RECENTLY ISSUED RULES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 13, 2015 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

DAVID N. DREWER, Chief Counsel for Investigations 

KYLE BROSNAN, Counsel 

SCOTT WITTMAN, Communications Specialist and Investigator 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

TROY H. CRIBB, Minority Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

BRIAN F. PAPP, JR., Minority Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BENJAMIN C. GRAZDA, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

WITNESS 

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015 

Delanie M. Breuer, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Wisconsin Department of Justice ..................................................................................................... 4 

Lucas Vebber, Director of Environmental and Energy Policy, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce ................................................................................... 6 

Jim Holte, President, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation ................................. 8 

Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director, Great Lakes Timber Professionals 

Association ............................................................................................................ 10 

Bruce Ramme, Ph.D., Vice President, Environmental, WEC Energy Group ..... 11 

George Meyer, Executive Director, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation ..................... 13 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Breuer, Delanie M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Holte, Jim: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 49 

Meyer, George: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106 

Ramme, Bruce: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Schienebeck, Henry: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96 

Vebber, Lucas: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

APPENDIX 

Statements submitted for the Record from: 

Environment Protection Agency ...................................................................... 110 

Wisconsin Electric Cooperative Assocation .................................................... 117 

(1) 

THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS: A 

CASE STUDY OF RECENTLY ISSUED RULES 

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:02 p.m., in 230 

Laird Rood, Dreyfus University Center, 1015 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. This hearing of the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will come to order. 

I want to welcome everybody here. 

Before we begin, I would like to ask everyone to rise as we welcome the UW-Stevens Point Army ROTC Color Guard to post the 

colors. 

Member of UW-Stevens Point Army ROTC Color Guard. Center 

face. Post colors. Present arms. Order arms. Center face. Forward 

march. 

Senator JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. I would like to thank Cadet Jordan Stuart, 

Cadet Kaitlyn Frieble, Cadet Ryan Dombeck, and Cadet Juan 

Patino for posting the colors. 

I also want to thank everybody for attending this hearing here 

today. 

The title of the hearing is The Impact of Federal Regulations: A 

Case Study of Recently Issued Rules. 

Let me talk a little bit about this committee, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It is really 

two committees from the House combined into one in the Senate. 

You have the Homeland Security part of the committee, and you 

have the Governmental Affairs. 

And the Governmental Affairs part of the committee is a very 

broad jurisdiction of oversight over pretty much the entire Federal 

Government. That is really kind of on that side of the committee 

here today, a broad jurisdictional oversight. 

When I became Chairman, coming from a business background, 

I have done a lot of strategic planning. And one thing I definitely 

realized was very helpful in any business setting was developing a 

mission and vision statement. And so I went to our Former Chair-
2 

man, now our Ranking Member, Senator Tom Carper, of Delaware, 

a person, I think, of real integrity. And I said, let us develop a mission statement for our committee, and so we did. And it is pretty 

simple: To enhance the economic and national security of America. 

And so from my standpoint, this hearing, this jurisdictional hearing, over regulations and the effect on our economy really falls 

under that, enhancing the economic security of this country. 

We are going to be talking about regulations, primarily focusing 

on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which I would like 

to start with a quick question of the members of the panel and the 

audience. Does anybody here know anybody that does not want a 

clean environment? 

I did not think I would see any hands raised. 

It is true. We all want a clean environment, something we all 

value, particularly here in the State of Wisconsin. We have hundreds—I am personally a fisherman. I get my water out of a well. 

It is a goal of all of ours to keep our environment clean. We really 

value that. And that is a good thing. 

Now, the EPA obviously was established on December 2, 1970, 

to maintain a clean environment in America. And if you really 

think back to that—I am old enough. I was actually living in those 

times. On June 22, 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland actually 

set fire. We had some real problems with the environment back in 

the late 1960s, early 1970s. And so the EPA then made a bipartisan effort to address those abuses. We have come a long way. 

I would like to just point out the success of the EPA. It was really targeting five primarily pollutants at the time: 

Carbon monoxide. Again, the establishment of EPA in 1970, carbon monoxide has gone from 204 million tons to 68. That is a 67 

percent drop. 

Nitrogen oxides. From 27 million tons to 12 million tons. That is 

a 54 percent drop. 

Soot. From 12 million tons to 2.6 million tons. That is a 79 percent drop. 

Sulfur dioxide. From 31 million tons to 5 million tons. That is an 

84 percent reduction. 

And volatile organic compounds (VOCs), from 35 million tons to 

17 million tons. That is a 51 percent drop. 

Now, all this occurred as our population went from 203 million 

to about 320 million today. That is about a 56 percent increase. So 

we have done a pretty good job. We have come a long way. And 

again, it is a goal, maintaining a clean environment, cleaning up 

even further, that we all really agree to. 

I think the purpose of this hearing, though, is to talk 

about—and, really, the underlying concept is the law of emission 

returns. We have to evaluate any further action, further reductions. What is the benefit of those reductions in pollution versus 

what is the cost to society? We always have limits in terms of resources. 

An example from my own manufacturing background of the law 

of emission returns is I extruded clear plastic sheet. And sometimes we were called to do jobs that had colors. Now, we would go 

from clear to a color with a very small percent of color concentrate. 

But if we wanted to move toward greater and greater opacity, it 
3 

would require greater and greater amounts of color concentrate to 

the point where you just were not getting much benefit even 

though those colors concentrates were expensive and you were having to put an awful lot in there. And I am sure you can all really 

kind of relate to similar types of examples in your own lives and 

your own background. 

So that is really what we are talking about, just a common sense 

concept of let us take a look at any further regulations as it relates 

to cleaning up our environment. What is the benefit, the dollar 

benefit, the total cost? It is just really a common sense approach. 

I certainly want to use information as much as possible. Now, 

one of the things I found in this debate on the environment and 

regulations is solid information is kind of hard to come by. A lot 

of these things are projecting into the future. We do not have perfect information. It is just hard. As an accountant, I like solid numbers, solid information that everybody can agree on. And that is 

difficult to get. 

But one of the ways I think you can get solid information is to 

put things in perspective. I did not see anything in the testimony—— 

By the way, I appreciate all of your testimony. I read it all. 

I did not see anybody talk about the most recently proposed 

ozone rule. So I would like to talk a little bit about that. To kind 

of put things in perspective, in 1997, the allowed parts per billion 

of the ozone in the atmosphere was 80, 80 parts per billion. And 

so the EPA initiated regulations to drop that to 75 parts per billion, which I think, by and large, we have accomplished that. I cannot really tell you how much that cost. I think it is very difficult 

to figure out exactly how much going from 80 to 75 billion parts 

per—80 to 75 parts per billion of the ozone—what that cost. But 

now the EPA has just issued some new regulations to take that 

from 75 to 70. 

Let me create an analogy of what we are talking about. Because 

that sounds pretty good, going from 80 to 75. That is 5 parts per 

billion. Now it is 75 to 70. That’s a 6.7 percent decrease. But here’s 

what it really is. Assume an Olympic size pool. That’s 660,000 gallons of water. 660,000 gallons. 75 parts per billion is 38 teaspoons. 

Dropping that to 70 parts per billion would drop it to 35 and a half 

teaspoons. And so, again, the question would be, is it worth, in a 

660,000-gallon pool that has 38 teaspoons of pollutant—how much 

are we willing to spend to drop that down to 35 and a half 

teaspoons? Now, it’s all relative. It depends on how nasty that pollutant is. If it’s just sand, it’s probably not worth anything. If it’s 

something incredibly nasty, it might be worth a fair amount. 

Again, I just want to kind of put things in perspective. 

I think I probably said enough in my opening statement. So what 

I would like to do—— 

Do we have a list of the order of witnesses? OK. 

It is a tradition of this committee to swear in the witnesses. So 

if everybody will stand and raise your right hand—— 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before 

this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

All Witnesses. I do. 
4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Breuer appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

Senator Johnson. Please be seated. 

So our first witness will be Delanie Breuer. Ms. Breuer is the Assistant Deputy Attorney General (AG) for the Wisconsin Department of Justice. She has previously worked for the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC), providing counsel on legal and policy 

management relating to utility regulation cases. Ms. Breuer. 

TESTIMONY OF DELANIE M. BREUER,1 ASSISTANT DEPUTY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. BREUER. Good afternoon. Thanks to the University for 

hosting us, and thank you, Senator Johnson, for having this hearing and giving me the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf 

of Attorney General Brad Schimel and the State of Wisconsin. 

The health of Wisconsin’s economy rests on the back of manufacturing, food processing, pulp and paper, and agriculture. Together, 

these industries make up the heart of our State, and all of them 

are in danger due to the EPA’s attempt to control our natural resources. 

Environmental stewardship is important to all of us, but in order 

to leave our future generations better off, we have to find the balance between protecting our environment and protecting our economy. 

Over the last 7 years, the EPA has hammered businesses with 

regulations at a historic pace, but the Waters of the United States 

rule and the Clean Power Plan (CPP), in particular, are the broadest expansion of EPA authority to date. One gives EPA the authority to regulate almost every pond and puddle, and the other allows 

the EPA to manipulate the entire electric grid. The industries important to Wisconsin’s economy might not survive this onslaught. 

The Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS), is an attempt 

by the EPA to control more bodies of water with Federal regulation. Practically speaking, the types of waters now subject to EPA 

regulation include ditches, ponds with no connectivity to navigable 

waters, streams that only flow after heavy rains, and the hundredyear floodplain, which is dry 99 years out of a hundred. 

WOTUS particularly impacts agriculture. The rule adds more red 

tape and barriers to practical land use here in Wisconsin. 

Under General Schimel, Wisconsin has joined the fight against 

this Federal regulatory overreach. Currently the WOTUS rule is 

stayed pending litigation. A reversal of that stay will irreparably 

harm Wisconsin and many other States. Wisconsin will continue to 

support that litigation effort. 

The Clean Power Plan is the centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s intended environmental legacy, but the repercussions of 

this will devastate Wisconsin’s economy for little or no benefit. At 

its core, the Clean Power Plan is a cap-and-trade plan in disguise, 

the same type of program promised by President Obama during his 

campaign and rejected by Congress. 

In simple terms, the CPP is designed to end coal-fired generation. The devastating impact of this cannot be overstated as it applies to Wisconsin manufacturing. Wisconsin is in the crosshairs of 

this rule in a way unlike many other States. We have a manufac-
5 

turing-based economy, and we have low renewable potential we 

currently rely on clean, reliable coal plants. 

Since 2000, we have invested $11.6 billion in reducing carbon in 

the utility sector alone. But still, we are expected to make one of 

the largest reductions of any State under this final rule. 

Currently, Wisconsin and 25 other States are seeking a stay of 

this illegal rule. If we do not get that stay, we have no choice but 

to begin making huge investments for compliance. Much like the 

recently litigated MATS rule, the EPA is happy to just force us to 

make those unnecessary investments, even if the rule is ultimately 

determined to be illegal. 

So the great irony of this rule is the impact. At best, it will be 

minimal. And at worst, it will do exactly the opposite of what the 

EPA claims to want. By its own calculation, the impact of this rule 

over the next several decades is so minimal it is practically insignificant. But if we consider the very real consequences of price 

spikes in electric and gas prices, it is more likely that global emissions will actually increase as a result of the rule. Energy price 

spikes will reduce manufacturers’ margins to a point that they will 

be forced to relocate. And when they relocate, they are not relocating to the neighboring State. They are relocating to a different 

country, a country like China or India or Mexico where cheap, reliable coal energy is plentiful and where the very toxic emissions like 

mercury and SO2 are not controlled at all. Those countries will 

continue increasing their carbon emissions as well as their economies, and our economy will suffer. Those decisions to move overseas are not easily reversed. And if this rule is not stayed while 

it is being litigated, those decisions will be imminent. 

Now, many citizens do not understand the impact of these rules. 

Consumers will pay more for goods and energies, but that may be 

a few years down the line. Jobs will move out of the State and out 

of the country. And ultimately, global pollution could actually increase. The consumers will not blame the EPA. They will blame 

manufacturers, they will blame utilities, and they will blame farmers. 

Now, many Wisconsin companies are making the effort on their 

own to protect the environment. The air and the water in Wisconsin is cleaner than it has ever been, and that was all accomplished without the illegal intervention of the Federal government. 

There has been a lot of rhetoric thrown around about these EPA 

regulations. The impact of the rules on our economy—it is not 

being exaggerated—it will be detrimental and it will be irreversible. These two regulations will result in a regulatory power grab 

by the Federal Government like we have never seen. 

Senator Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Breuer. 

Our next witness is Lucas Vebber. He is the Director of Environmental & Energy Policy at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. 

Mr. Vebber. 
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Vebber appears in the Appendix on page 40. 

TESTIMONY OF LUCAS VEBBER,1 DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL & ENERGY POLICY, WISCONSIN MANUFACTURERS 

& COMMERCE 

Mr. VEBBER. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson, everyone that is here. I 

would like to say thanks to the University for having us as well 

to this beautiful facility. 

As the Chairman said, I am Lucas Vebber. I am the Director of 

Environmental & Energy Policy at Wisconsin Manufacturers & 

Commerce. We are the State’s Chamber of Commerce and manufacturers association. We have about 4,000 members of all sizes 

across every sector of the State’s economy. About one in four private sector employees in the State works for a WMC member company. Our members are very concerned about both of these rules. 

The EPA rules we are here to discuss today are broad, unprecedented expansions of Federal power that will impact a wide variety 

of our members in very negative ways. Cost estimates put these 

rules, especially the Clean Power Plan, amongst the most expensive regulations ever promulgated. They were promulgated without 

a single vote of Congress. In fact, there is actually bipartisan efforts in Congress right now actively trying to stop both rules. 

These rules will fundamentally change the regulatory environment in Wisconsin and throughout the United States. It will certainly have vast consequences for our economy for a generation. It 

is going to cost our State tens of thousands of jobs and weaken our 

economy at a time when we can least afford it. 

My written testimony that I submitted goes into more detail on 

what the rules do. I will use the remainder of my time to just highlight a few of the key points on both the rules. 

The WOTUS rule, is a confusing and unnecessary regulation that 

puts State business and private property owners at risk. One of the 

stated goals by EPA in creating the WOTUS rule was to ensure, 

quote, ‘‘that the waters protected under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) are more precisely defined, more predictably determined, 

and easier for business and industry to understand,’’ unquote. Ironically, the actual rule goes in the opposite direction. It creates uncertainty and confusion every step of the way. The uncertainty created by this and the potential for an increased regulatory burden 

is problematic, not only for manufacturers in our State, but for agricultural producers, private property owners, as well as local and 

State governments. 

Given the other industry-specific experts that are on the panel 

today, I will let them go into specifics about their industries. 

But I think it is important to note also that the WOTUS rule was 

introduced as a bill in 2009, Senate Bill 787. It was called the 

Clean Water Restoration Act. It was introduced because Congress 

felt they needed to pass a law to enact these changes. Congress at 

the time had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a majority 

in the House, and they controlled the White House. The same party 

controlled all three. They could not get that bill passed. So they 

proceeded with rulemaking. And that is why the WOTUS rule is 

here before us today. 
7 

Suffice it to say, for Wisconsin, this rule does not improve environmental regulation. It really subjects our State to more Federal 

control. That will mean more regulatory burdens for businesses as 

well as a greater risk of litigation for our State’s employers and private property owners in the State. 

I would find it hard to believe, as the Chairman said, that there 

is anyone in our State that thinks regulators and EPA could better 

manage our State’s pristine water resources than the Wisconsinites 

at DNR. And that is exactly the risk that’s created by the WOTUS 

rule. 

The Clean Power Plan requires Wisconsin to reduce carbon emissions by 34 percent to 41 percent depending on if our State uses 

a mass-based or a rate-based approach, respectively. In reality, it 

is going to be a higher percentage as the baseline year used, 2012, 

was deliberately chosen due to low natural gas prices that distorted 

the actual use of coal. Governmental emissions that year were significantly lower than other years, the lowest since the mid 1990s, 

in fact. 

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered before we 

know all the specific impacts on our State, but one thing we know 

with absolutely certainty is that this rule will raise the cost of energy. Wisconsin produces just over 60 percent of our State’s total 

energy from coal sources. Coal power has proven to be an affordable, efficient, and reliable energy source for the businesses and 

families of our State. We have made significant investments in coal 

technology over the past several decades, all as Delanie said, while 

at the same time obtaining the cleanest air we have had in decades. And it is only getting cleaner. 

Less coal in our energy generation economy means more use of 

renewable sources. More renewables means a higher cost. Higher 

cost means less competitive industries, fewer jobs. It also means 

less money in the pockets of hardworking Wisconsin families because energy costs are not just something that businesses worry 

about. Families have to worry about them too. 

One study on the draft rule projected the job loss to our State 

at 21,000 jobs for 2030 with a $1.82 billion drop in disposable income. I should note that the final rule actually has a more stringent target for the State of Wisconsin, so we can only expect those 

numbers to be even worse. 

The changes necessitated by the Clean Power Plan will also impact the reliability of the electrical group. Natural gas plants will 

be operated at higher capacities. We will be relying more on renewables. That leaves little wiggle room to ramp up a generation 

should the sun stop shining or the wind stop blowing. Lack of energy reliability is yet another factor that will negatively impact our 

State’s business climate and drive jobs and investment elsewhere 

to countries like Mexico and the South Pacific. 

I should also note that the market is working. We do not need 

costly mandates from the EPA. We need reasonable environmental 

regulations, not unreasonable environmental mandates. Our air is 

getting cleaner. Our State is taking coal plants offline as part of 

the market process. We have about 1,400 megawatts of coal energy 

being taken offline over the next 5 years. Carbon emissions from 

energy production nationwide actually declined 10 percent from 
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Holte appears in the Appendix on page 49. 

2005 to 2013. Yet, the EPA still insists we handcuff American industry at times other countries are actually ramping up coal production, as Delanie said. By some reports, China is bringing on a 

new coal plant every seven to 10 days. 

Thank you, again, for giving me the time to speak today on behalf of our State’s businesses. I look forward to answering any 

questions that you may have. 

Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Vebber. 

Our next witness is Jim Holte. Mr. Holte is the president of the 

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation and also serves on the American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors for the Midwest 

region. He also raises beef cattle and grows corn and soybean on 

a farm in Dunn County. Mr. Holte. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM HOLTE,1 PRESIDENT, WISCONSIN FARM 

BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mr. Holte. I want to thank you, Chairman Johnson, and Members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) final rule to define Waters of the United States under the 

Clean Water Act and, more importantly, the rules’ impact on farmers. 

My name is Jim Holte. I am a farmer in Elk Mound in Dunn 

County in the northwestern part of Wisconsin. I raise beef cattle, 

corn, and soybeans on the same 160 acres that my great grandfather purchased in 1884. Over the years, my farm has expanded 

to more than 800 acres of cropland, woodland, and buffer areas. 

Much of the farm is within the Chippewa River’s floodplain, but 

that is not why I am here. 

This rule is bad for farms everywhere. I am here to tell you, at 

the very best, that this rule lacks clarity when it comes to permit 

requirements and farming exemptions. At worst, it is a blatant 

overreach by the EPA and the Corps. 

The EPA’s actions made a mockery of the notice-and-comment 

procedures within the Federal Government’s rulemaking process in 

three key areas. 

First, during the rulemaking process, the EPA dismissed concerns about the rule as being silly or ludicrous or myths. Statements from agency officials made it clear that they really were not 

listening to objections. 

Second, the EPA engaged in a PR campaign to solicit support for 

the rule. The campaign shared blogs, tweets, and YouTube videos 

about the rules’ reported benefits, but failed, with any meaningful 

information, about the rules’ actual content. 

Third, the EPA allowed its own internal timeline to dictate 

issuance of the proposed rule before the fundamental scientific 

study underlying the proposal was complete. It later dictated 

issuance of the final rule without providing any further public comment. 

This unchecked process culminated in a deeply flawed regulation 

whose true costs were never really considered and will not be 

known for years. 
9 

I have concerns about how this rule will be implemented and 

how the Corps of Engineers struggles currently to keep up with its 

current caseload. 

I would like to share a short story: In 2013, a farmer by the 

name of Joe Bragger from Buffalo County wanted to install a temporary bridge over a very small creek on his farm. His application 

to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was submitted in late December 2013. It took the DNR less than a month 

to review, approve, and issue a permit application and forward it 

to the Corps of Engineers for their consideration. 

More than a year and a half later, the Corps closed out Mr. Bragger’s application without a determination or any notification to Mr. 

Bragger. And it was not until Mr. Bragger requested the assistance 

from a Farm Bureau employee that it came to light that the Corps 

had erroneously closed the application file and failed to notify Mr. 

Bragger of anything. 

The system is not working as it should. If the Corps cannot sort 

out what to do with an application for a permit for one temporary 

bridge over a small creek in Buffalo County, Wisconsin, how on 

earth do the authors expect the Corps to handle the tens of thousands of additional permits that this rule will trigger for agriculture? 

Two years was too long to wait for an answer, nor can farmers 

wait for 2 years to find out if they can do normal activities like till 

their fields, apply fertilizers or pest management products. Crazy 

as it sounds, that is what this rule will require on farms like mine 

and thousands of others. 

As I said, much of my farm falls in a floodplain. Yet, even the 

lowest fields have long-term grassland and wood lot buffers that 

separate them from the Chippewa River. This rule would stop me 

from farming any of those fields that are shown on the second and 

third aerial maps that I provided in my printed testimony. 

But what is most egregious is the 80-acre field shown on the very 

first map in that conclusion, that field sits high and dry at an elevation 80 feet above where my home is at. Yet, it will be regulated 

by this rule because it has some sloping areas where water will run 

during a normal spring rain. It does not seem to matter that this 

water has zero opportunity to impact any waterway. 

In closing, the EPA and the Corps has repeatedly assured in 

speeches and blogs that the new rule will not increase permitting 

obligations for farmers or get in the way of farming. These statements are misleading as the examples for agriculture as interpreted by the EPA and the Corps will not protect farmers from burdensome permit requirements and devastating liability under this 

proposed rule. Bottom line, the Courts are unlikely to give consideration to old speeches and blogs. 

It is impossible to know how many farmers and landowners will 

be subject to agency enforcement or sued by private citizen lawsuits, but what is certain is that the vast number of common, responsible farming and forestry practices that occur today without 

the need for a Federal permit will be highly vulnerable to Clean 

Water Act enforcement under this rule. 

Thank you. 

Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Holte. 
10 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Schienebeck appears in the Appendix on page 96. 

Our next witness is Henry Schienebeck. And Mr. Schienebeck is 

the executive director for the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association (GLTPA). Mr. Schienebeck. 

TESTIMONY OF HENRY SCHIENEBECK,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES TIMBER PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. Schienebeck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify on WOTUS. 

GLTPA believes that WOTUS is a far-reaching, unnecessary rule 

that provides no documented positive implication for water quality. 

However, because of the expanded territory, it will undoubtedly 

add great expense and costs to the operations of farming and forestry. Actually, it is hard to imagine any industry that is not impacted by surface water. 

The forest industry is the second most financially significant industry in Wisconsin after agriculture, and it generates almost 

60,000 direct jobs and over $23 billion in annual activity. Northern 

Wisconsin’s rural communities, in particular, are dependent on forestry for their economic, social, and ecological well-being. Actually, 

it is our culture, it is our way of life. And a lot of our members 

are third, fourth, and fifth generation. 

Due to the naturally wet landscapes of Wisconsin, GLTPA is concerned that WOTUS could irreparably harm Wisconsin’s economy. 

Wisconsin already leads the way in water quality standards associated with forests. In 2013, the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources conducted 75 audits on State and county timber sales. 

Best management practices for water quality were correctly applied 

in 97 percent and 95 percent of the audited sites, respectively. In 

2014, the monitoring team visited 58 Federal and large landholder 

sites and found similar numbers in a positive manner. 

As it stands, WOTUS seeks to improve water quality by greatly 

expanding the EPA’s already broad authority, thereby reducing 

local water regulation and control. How could taking control away 

from people already doing such an exemplary job improve water 

quality? 

EPA may question why GLTPA is concerned about the rule since 

silviculture currently has an exemption under WOTUS. At this 

time, it is unclear whether the EPA would seek to remove the silvicultural exemption. Frankly, we do not trust that the exemption 

will remain in effect for very long. In 2014, the National Resource 

Defense Council filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the exemption, 

claiming forest roads cause sediment-laden runoff into WOTUS. 

Further, EPA itself stated in 2012 that it was looking at regulating 

forest road runoff. 

A silvicultural exemption without clear protection of forest roads 

would mean people could harvest their timber but have no way of 

removing it from the forest without the permission of the Federal 

Government. Since there is no evidence removing the exemption 

will improve water quality, does it make sense to add cost and confusion to an already effective and efficient process? 

Given the outstanding job the forest products industry has done 

in maintaining and even improving water quality, removing this 
11 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Ramme appears in the Appendix on page 99. 

exemption would serve no purpose other than to give the Federal 

Government expanded jurisdiction. This could cost the industry 

time and money without additional benefit to the environment. 

Also, BMP’s if WOTUS were to be implemented in place of the 

State BMPs currently being used by forest managers, the vagueness of the rule would make it very difficult for anyone other than 

a Federal or affiliated employee to make a determination as to 

what qualifies as a wetland. Managers would fear being overruled 

and prosecuted for disturbance of a WOTUS. This would potentially increase cost if a land manager needs to interact with the 

Corps or the EPA on every decision. 

EPA has written that the rule does not protect any types of waters that have not historically been covered by the Clean Water Act 

or add any new requirements for agriculture. This is a very misleading statement. Perhaps the Clean Water Act historically covered wetlands, but it has not covered every drop of water on every 

piece of land. Under the new WOTUS, every piece of property could 

be included in wetland regulation, completely stifling or destroying 

any economic value gained by those resources. 

Perhaps the rule is not explicitly adding any new requirement for 

agriculture or silviculture, but how is expanding the regulated land 

base not requiring more time and money for compliance to expanded EPA and Corps authority? Even though an exemption exists, a farmer must now investigate every potential WOTUS on his 

property. Even then, because of the vagueness of the rule, he may 

face government prosecution for up to 5 years after unknowingly 

having discharged a regulated substance into WOTUS. 

Despite evidence that current State-level water BMPs are working very well, EPA continues to seek expansion of their authority. 

It is beyond comprehension that WOTUS will have any significant 

gain in water quality while expending billions of dollars of taxpayer 

money that could be put to better use such as reducing the national 

deficit or dependency on foreign energy. 

I am happy to take any questions. Thank you. 

Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Schienebeck. 

Our next witness is Bruce Ramme. Mr. Ramme is the vice president of Environmental at WEC Energy Group. Mr. Ramme. 

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE RAMME, PH.D.,1 VICE PRESIDENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL, WEC ENERGY GROUP 

Mr. RAMME. Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson. And thank you 

for the opportunity to appear here this afternoon. In the capacity 

as vice president of Environmental for the WEC Energy Group, I 

am responsible for environmental compliance strategy and planning, mitigation and risk management, environmental permitting 

of new projects, compliance assurance, and identification of new 

and/or enhanced means of benefiting the environment through 

business practices at our utilities. The WEC Energy Group, headquartered in Milwaukee, has $29 

billion of assets and employs 9,000 people. We are the eighth largest natural gas distribution company in the country and one of the 

15 largest investor-owned utility systems in the United States. We 
12 

provide electric, gas, and steam services to nearly 4.4 million customers in four States—Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota. Two of our six utilities are in Wisconsin, We Energies is in 

Milwaukee and Wisconsin Public Service is in Green Bay. We are 

the largest electric and gas provider in the State, providing half of 

the electricity and nearly 69 percent of the natural gas delivered 

to the residents of Wisconsin. Over half of our generation comes 

from our eight coal plants. All but one of those plants are located 

in Wisconsin. The seven Wisconsin coal plants are capable of producing over 5,000 megawatts of electricity and employ nearly 800 

people. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

And thank you for your leadership on this important issue, for your 

perseverance in pursuing improvements to the Federal permitting 

process and other regulatory reforms, and for working to keep us 

safe here at home. 

I am going to focus my remarks today on the Clean Power Plan 

because of its significant impacts, but I will be happy to also respond to questions about the Waters of the United States. As you 

know, the EPA issued its final greenhouse gas rule for existing 

units in August of this year. We filed comments in response to 

EPA’s proposed rule and also participated in a joint Wisconsin utilities filing. We were pleased that EPA appeared to respond to some 

of our concerns, mainly the interim target, the safety valve, and 

trading, but we remain very concerned about some key issues in 

the EPA final rule, the uncertainty that it brings, the lack of recognition for early action, the 2012 baseline, and the gas dispatch 

building block. Since 2003, we have invested nearly $12 billion to proactively upgrade our systems and significantly improve the environmental 

performance of our generating units. We have been leaders in reducing emissions, and we believe EPA should recognize our initiatives, which include investing more than $1 billion in renewable 

energy, including three large wind farms and a new biomass plant, 

investing more than 1 and a half billion in state-of-the-art emission 

control technologies to new and existing units, adding new generation, repowering an older, less efficient coal plant to a combinedcycle natural gas plant, and converting a coal-fueled cogeneration 

facility to natural gas. We invested in electric and gas distribution 

system upgrades, and invested in energy efficiency for our customers. As a result of these early actions, the new coal-fueled units 

at our Oak Creek and Westonsites and the new natural-gasfueledunits at our Port Washington and Wrightstown sites are 

among the most efficient in the country. 

Over the past 15 years, we have increased our generation capacity by more than 40 percent while reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and particulate matter by more 

than 80 percent. Our CO2 emissions also decreased to a level that 

is below the year 2000. 

EPA retained 2012 as the baseline year to calculate State-specific 

emission rate goals. 2012 is not a representative baseline year. The 

economy was still recovering, and natural gas prices were unusually low. These factors resulted in a significant reduction in the use 

of our coal generation. 
13 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Meyer appears in the Appendix on page 106. 

One of the main components in the EPA rule is a series of building blocks. The second building block calls for operating existing 

gas plants more often. This re-dispatch of existing gas plants is 

technically feasible but will fundamentally change the operation of 

our Nation’s energy markets from the current practice of economic 

dispatch to environmental dispatch. Economic dispatch is based on 

the least cost to our customers. Moving away from economic dispatch to environmental dispatch will increase our customers’ costs. 

In conclusion, EPA’s greenhouse gas rule is complex and farreaching and will significantly change the electric utility industry. 

There is a great deal of uncertainty throughout the rule, but one 

thing is certain. Costs will increase for our customers. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know well, we build things in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin has a large manufacturing base. And many of those industries and companies rely on electricity to help manufacture 

their products. An increase in electricity costs could have an impact 

on their competitiveness, not just in the United States, but abroad 

as well. 

Unfortunately, I do not have current cost estimates to provide to 

the committee at this time. We, along with the other utilities in the 

State, are modeling our systems and have contracted with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to model the Clean Power 

Plan and its impact on Wisconsin’s State utilities and our customers. Preliminary results should be available next year. EPRI is 

a recognized expert in the industry. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify before the committee and for your leadership on this important issue. And I will 

be happy to respond to questions as well. 

Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Ramme. 

Our final witness is Mr. George Meyer. Mr. Meyer is the executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. Mr. Meyer. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE MEYER,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

Mr. MEYER. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. 

Before I give my testimony, the Wildlife Federation would like to 

thank you for your efforts supporting sportsmen on the issue of 

State management over wolves and your bill that was just introduced this week, your prior efforts in supporting the State Wildlife 

Grant Program, and your support for attention to Federal lands. 

We really appreciate that very much. 

On the issues before us today, the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation 

represents over 195 hunting, fishing, trapping groups located 

throughout the State of Wisconsin with a membership of over a 

hundred thousand members. 

My personal experience includes 45 years of environmental regulation in the State of Wisconsin. The sportsmen I represent, both 

in Wildlife Federation and groups like Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants 

Forever, Trout Unlimited, and scores of other sportsmen’s groups 

across the country, are strongly supportive of the Waters of the 

United States rule. 
14 

And it is for very obvious reasons. Those wetlands and small waterways that form the head waters of our streams and lakes in the 

State provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife, which is the 

life blood of our recreational pursuits. 

But it is not just a cost versus recreational standpoint. We are 

big business in the country and in this State. In the United States, 

sportsmen have a total economic impact of $201.4 billion, supporting one and a half million jobs. In the State of Wisconsin, the 

total economic impact of hunting, fishing, and trapping is $7 billion. We are big business. 

The WOTUS rule, Waters of the United States rule, has no impact in the State of Wisconsin. And the very reason for that is the 

first rule was struck down in 2001 by the U.S. Supreme Court. But 

the citizens of Wisconsin were so concerned about losing that protection of their wetlands and waterways, within 90 days, they 

asked the State legislature to adopt the same regulations under 

State law. So within 90 days, a bipartisan legislature and a Republican Governor adopted the Federal regulations which had been 

struck down, which most Federal regulations were stronger than 

the regulations that are being proposed today. So there is no 

change in wetlands regulation in the State of Wisconsin because of 

the Waters of the United States rule. 

There will be Federal jurisdiction and State jurisdiction. But as 

there was in the past, there will be a general permit issued by the 

Federal government to DNR. So anyone that gets a DNR permit 

automatically gets a Federal permit. 

So why are we concerned then as sportsmen for the WOTUS 

rule? Well, we hunt in every State in this country. Right now I 

have members scattered across the hunter duck hunting or doing 

other water-based hunting or fishing. We want to be able to go to 

those other States and enjoy their waterways. Migratory water foul 

go through—from Canada down through our States down in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana. We want there to be good wildlife 

water foul habitat in those States so that there will be large 

enough populations that we will also have water foul in Wisconsin. 

You need good habitat throughout the flyway. 

Let us talk about the Clean Power Rule reductions. One of the 

major concerns raised—and it is a legitimate issue to look at—is 

the cost of applying the CO2 reduction rules. As was stated previously, we have had strong Federal and State regulation of other 

pollutants—sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide. It was because of that Federal and State regulation that we have had those 

dramatic reductions in those health-problem-causing pollutants. 

But we have not had CO2 regulations, which have a major impact 

on climate change and the future of our planet. These are the first 

regulations of those nature in the U.S. Government. And despite 

voluntary efforts—and there has been some good voluntary efforts 

by companies in the State—we are not going to get the kind of reductions we need without regulations. And are not going to be able 

to get countries like China or Russia or India to step up to the 

plate if, in fact, we do not show the leadership in this country to 

reduce carbon reductions. 

An estimate of the costs have been put together in the State by 

the Public Service Commission and the Wisconsin Department of 
15 

Natural Resources that, in fact, the cost would be between 4 billion 

to $13 billion. I can go into the reasons that those are based on 

faulty assumptions during my written testimony. But one thing I 

have learned over 45 years of environmental regulation is that 

those costs are always substantially overestimated when the rule 

goes into effect. And my experience is that the final cost is usually 

between 10 to 20 percent of the estimates. 

And for my tenure as secretary of the DNR, I will give you an 

example. There was a regulation put into place by the United 

States to reduce toxic wastewater discharges into the Great Lakes. 

It is called the Great Lakes Initiative. Industry estimated that in 

eight Great Lakes States, by regulating the discharges for municipalities and industries into the Great Lakes, it would cost industry 

and municipality $13 billion. And it allocated $2 billion of those 

costs to the Wisconsin industry and municipality. We scratched our 

heads in Wisconsin because we had adopted the same regulations 

8 years earlier, and the true cost in Wisconsin was $200 million. 

I found that to be true in virtually every cost estimate for implementing major environmental regulations over my career. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. 

I would like to point out before we go into questions that we did 

invite the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, to appear here and 

testify, and she declined. Again, I realize she is pretty busy. So we 

did ask if she would send a representative, and she did not, which 

is very unfortunate. 

We held a field hearing like this in Tomah after the tragedies 

within the Tomah Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facility. And 

the VA sent us two really high quality witnesses—it was extremely 

helpful. They heard the powerful testimony. And as a result, the 

VAs actually responded. The VA office inspector general retired 

after deep-sixing about 140 reports. And the doctor who was prescribing opiates—they called him Dr. Candy Man or the Candy 

Man—has been terminated. So it was extremely helpful that the 

agencies actually came to a State to hear directly from people affected by their decisions. 

So it was very disappointing that the EPA would not send a representative. But this is the first step in the process. I mean, this 

will be something we will continue to explore. And if we have to 

go to Washington D.C., I might ask a couple of you to travel. I hope 

you would not mind. But we do have to get the actual agency hearing the stories from Wisconsin as well. 

Mr. Meyer, let me quick start with you. How many years did you 

work with the DNR? 

Mr. MEYER. 32. 

Senator JOHNSON. 32 years. So you have a fair amount of experience with the DNR. 

Mr. MEYER. I do. I am an older guy. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, I was not implying that. I have white 

hair too. 

I really worked very cooperatively with the DNR in my 37 years 

in the plastics business and always appreciated their expertise. I 

did not get the sense that the DNR lacked concern for our environ-
16 

ment. I would say they really were concerned about the environment. Is that true? 

Mr. MEYER. Very true. 

Senator JOHNSON. So why isn’t the DNR in Wisconsin, who is 

very concerned about the environment, as we all are—why isn’t 

their regulation over Wisconsin’s environment adequate? 

Mr. MEYER. I think it is. And I think my testimony on the Waters of the United States rule is that, in fact, the State is covered. 

It has been covered except for 90 days in the year 2001. And, in 

fact, that is why I think the adoption of the WOTUS rule is not 

going to have an impact on forestry and agriculture and the industry in the State of Wisconsin. I do believe in the system that was 

created by the Federal Government when the Federal Government 

adopts a regulation and then delegates authority to the States and 

allows the States to do the regulation. 

And while one of the methods in the Clean Power Rule is to 

allow the State here—it sort of gives the goal of what has to be 

done in terms of reductions but then allows a State to work with 

its utilities to come up with the right combination, as Bruce indicated, of the various components to tailor-make the regulation to 

that State and then let the State enforce those regulations. So it 

is a combination. 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. I would say the Federal Government really did take that attitude, kind of stepping back and letting States 

really run these things. Maybe, that is a pretty good argument. 

But do you understand businesses and organizations are concerned that sometimes the Federal Government, even though they 

say they are not going to get involved, get involved in an awful lot 

and can do some definite overreaching? I mean, do you understand 

the concern of the other people on the panel here? 

Mr. MEYER. I understand the fear. But I found that very few 

times in my tenure with the DNR, and the head of the enforcement 

division before I was secretary—that there were very few times, 

less than a handful—and that covers 20 years in my career where 

there was overfiling by the Federal Government, that they stepped 

in where the State did not want to. And some of the situations 

were dealing with State facilities because they knew the political 

pressure on the DNR did not regulate the Department of Administration. 

Senator JOHNSON. I mean, the concern here is that the Federal 

Government is ramping up its jurisdiction over the States, though. 

They have, in some respects, taken a step back. 

And this is where I really want to go to Ms. Breuer to talk about 

the history of the Federal Government and federalism as it relates 

to environmental control. And, obviously in Article 1, Section 8, we 

have the commerce clause, which does allow the Federal Government to get involved in interstate commerce and regulating it. 

And then in 1824, in Gibbons versus Ogden, in a unanimous Supreme Court decision, they extended the regulation under the commerce clause over navigable waters. And to me, that makes sense. 

Let us say you have a stream in Wisconsin that enters into the 

St. Croix River, then dumps into the Mississippi. If you are polluting that stream, it is not just going to affect Wisconsin. It is 
17 

going to start affecting Minnesota, Iowa, and, all the other States 

downstream. 

It is about navigable water. I do want to quick read the definition of navigable water by the Army Corps of Engineers. ‘‘Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject 

to the ebb and flow of the tide,’’ ocean tide, ‘‘and/or are presently 

used or have been used in the past or may be susceptible for use 

to transport interstate or foreign commerce.’’ That is pretty clear, 

and that makes an awful lot of sense. And that’s really been the 

standard for almost 200 years. And it really has not been under 

dispute. The Federal Government does have—because it is really a 

national treasure, these navigable waters. 

Can you just kind of speak to how this is different when we start 

talking about Waters of the United States? 

Ms. BREUER. Sure. So one of the things that Waters of the 

United States rule does is diminish the certainty with regard to 

what they call neighboring waters or adjacent waters to navigable 

waters. So the common citizen thinks navigable water is one that 

I can paddle a boat down—right? or drive a boat down. And the 

EPA is now saying, well, basically anything that flows into a navigable water is also our jurisdiction, and that includes ponds that 

are within certain distances of navigable waters, even when there 

is absolutely no connectivity. So the DNR in the State cannot regulate someone who builds a pond on their land that has no 

connectivity to a navigable water, but now the EPA has potential 

jurisdiction over those on private land, on public land. It does not 

matter. 

And the neighboring waters, it is really just about where they 

are distance-wise in relation to navigable waters. 

This rule really expands what we think of as navigable waters 

to touch pretty much anything, including the streams that run 

through farms and land that do not even have water running on 

them every day, every year. 

Senator JOHNSON. But again, you were actually using a more expansive definition of navigable waters than the Army Corps. Again, 

the Army Corps is very clear that it has to be affected by the tides. 

Is there any water in Wisconsin that’s affected by the tides other 

than the Great Lakes? 

Ms. BREUER. Maybe the Mississippi. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Or have been used in the past, presently 

used, or susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. I mean, little streams that—— 

Ms. BREUER. Right. 

Senator JOHNSON. Intermittent streams, things that dry up when 

it is not raining, they cannot be—— 

That is actually a very clear definition; correct? Has there been 

an expansion in law beyond that definition? 

Ms. BREUER. No. The expansion has come through the rules, 

which we argue in our lawsuit is illegal and violates the commerce 

laws. And that is one of the main arguments that we put forth in 

the challenge to the Waters of the United States is that this is a 

complete constitutional violation. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Holte, in your testimony, you talked about 

an attempt in 2009. It was the Clean Water Restoration Act. This 
18 

is, again, in the first two years of Obama Administration where 

they had a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. A 

strong—— 

Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Vebber. 

Mr. VEBBER. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. A strong majority in the House. And there is 

a recognition that on the part of Congress and in the party that 

is in control, that in order to change the definition of navigable 

water, they actually had to pass a law. Can you describe a little 

bit more about that? 

Mr. VEBBER. Sure. Absolutely. 

You saw the bill introduced, which would have changed the definition of—it would have changed navigable waters to Waters of the 

United States in Federal law. That bill was introduced because 

members of Congress felt that they needed a law to make that 

change. That law was not passed, despite having what could have 

been a path to passage there with majorities of both Houses and 

control of the White House. 

Senator JOHNSON. How far did it get? 

Mr. VEBBER. I believe it got through the Committee process and 

then never passed on the floor. 

But unfortunately then, shortly 120 thereafter, we saw the administration forward the rule, a rule that was based largely on the 

bill that failed to pass. 

I think you see similar things playing out, unfortunately, in 

other EPA rules. You see the Clean Power Plan, for example, anticipates some type of a cap-and-trade system which has been introduced time and time again in Congress and time and time again 

rejected. 

It is a troubling State of affairs certainly. 

Senator JOHNSON. In the Clean Water Restoration Act, the information I have is, again, they were not trying to redefine navigable 

waters. They were just trying to increase the jurisdiction of the 

Federal Government over different types of waters and wetlands. 

Included in the definition would be including intermittent 

streams. Anybody know what an intermittent stream is? Is there 

a pretty exact definition of that somewhere in law? 

Mr. MEYER. It does not flow all the time. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. So that would be a long ways from navigable water then; correct? You certainly would not be able to use 

an intermittent stream to engage in interstate or internet—or foreign trade and commerce; correct? 

Mr. MEYER. Right.. You would not. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. So that would be a significant expansion 

of the navigable water standard; correct? 

Prairie potholes. Anybody know what a prairie pothole is? Kind 

of a—— 

Mr. MEYER. Great place to duck hunt. 

Senator JOHNSON. Duck hunt. OK. 

Wet meadows? 

And then I—actually, a playa lake. That is just a bigger prairie 

pothole, I think, is what that is. 
19 

Again, all these things are intermittent and a long way from navigable for the use of interstate or foreign trade and commerce; correct? 

So, again, the point I am trying to make is this really is an attempt for a dramatic increase in jurisdiction by the Federal Government over waters within States. Again, this is a Federal system 

here that I would agree with, Mr. Meyer, that the DNR really is 

concerned. By the way, so are Wisconsinites. We are really concerned about our environment. We are a bunch of hunters. I am 

a fisherman. We really are concerned about that. 

And I guess that is the question. Is the Federal Government really more concerned about Wisconsin’s environment than we are? 

And is it worth the concern? I think it is a legitimate concern in 

terms of the Federal Government coming in here and creating an 

awful lot of uncertainty in terms of permitting, and exactly how to 

comply. 

Mr. MEYER. I am confident Wisconsin can handle it because of 

our legislation, but what I am not confident is that other States are 

going to be able to do the same thing without some Federal involvement. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. One of the things we have to consider is 

the potential penalties. And who is best able to talk about the fact 

that, I have seen reports that potentially 92 percent of land mass 

of Wisconsin be subject to the Waters of the United States. 

Mr. MEYER. No. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. So I would like to have a discussion 

there. 

Also, potentially, per violation, $37,000 per day could be the potential fines if you do not obtain the necessary permit. 

It looks like Mr. Holte would like to talk to that. 

Mr. HOLTE. Yes. You mentioned about the amount of the land in 

the State that could be subject to control. And that really comes to 

the point that we made about the vagueness of the rule. You could 

easily take this rule and interpret it to say that when I have an 

inch and a half of rain on my sloping ground and the water runs 

in little rivulets off it, that becomes the Waters of the United 

States. 

Senator JOHNSON. That would be like an intermittent stream. 

Mr. HOLTE. I guess it could be. 

But the impact is that, therefore, in that stream, I now need a 

permit in order to do tillage, I need a permit in order to spread fertilizer or manure, I need a permit to apply any crop protection 

products on any ground that has enough slope that water can run 

off it in a two-inch rain. And there comes where our great concern 

in agriculture is where this could—by the simple interpretation of 

the rule where it is vague, it could include, as you say, 80, 90 percent of the ground in Wisconsin. 

We have asked, as an organization, the EPA to take a look at 

five or six different farms across the country and give us interpretations on those areas. They have declined. We still struggle with 

this vagueness. 

And again, as they have gone through the process of creating this 

rule and taking comments and testimony and then, in the end, implemented a stricter rule, in the tip of a pen, they can eliminate 
20 

any exemptions we currently have. And we have no recourse, no 

legislative recourse. This is done without any legislation passing. 

That kind of capitalizes the concerns we have in agriculture—the 

vagueness, the ability to eliminate any exemptions that are there 

very simply and quickly. We think it is a great overreach. 

And if we had some opportunity for the Corps and EPA to come 

and visit with us on farms and show us how it would work, we 

would have a lot more comfort, but we have not been able to do 

that. 

Senator JOHNSON. So why is that not a valid concern about kind 

of a capricious—— 

Mr. HOLTE. Well, unfortunately—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Of those rules? 

Mr. MEYER. I would agree with Jim. I think the EPA and the 

Corps should come and provide those examples. 

But this EPA regulation is actually weaker than the one that 

was in effect up until 2001. 

And I have a lot of experience. I cut my teeth on wetlands regulation and waterway regulation, and it did not include that percentage of Federal regulation of land in the State of Wisconsin. 

But I think you should have the right to be shown exactly how 

it is going to apply on your farm. 

Mr. HOLTE. That comes to the point, George, of our concern 

about the vagueness of the rule and the ease of changing the interpretation and, therefore, vastly change the impact of the rule. 

And as I explained—and there is where—a lot of Wisconsin’s 

farmland slopes. I mean, anywhere from the 2 to 6 and 6 to 12 percent of slopes are very common. And those could easily, by just interpretation, be interpreted to be a Waters of the United States. 

Because when I have a two-inch rain in late April and water runs 

off that ridge in different areas, now that whole hillside is a Waters 

of the United States. And I have to have a permit to do all those 

things I talked about. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Holte, in your testimony, you also talked 

about the exemption of ongoing farming, but you say that your concern was because the exemption was originally enacted in 1977. 

But the only farmland that would be exempted would be something 

that has been in continuous farm use since 1977. 

Mr. HOLTE. Well, that—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you speak to that? That is really—— 

Mr. HOLTE. That gets into some of the details of whether or not 

farmland is continuously operated, if it changes owners or 

change—goes from a parent to a child or, that is one more of the 

vague issues that we have great difficulty with, maybe not as extreme in that particular example, but in the vagueness of where 

exemptions apply and do not and what really does constitute a 

Water of the United States and what is an intermittent stream? Is 

it one that occurred once in the last 8 years on this hillside of 

mine, or is it one that has to occur monthly every year? 

Again, our great discomfort comes with the vagueness and the 

ease of changing of the interpretation of the rule by just a changing 

of the rule with no congressional oversight. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Holte, I believe it is also in your testimony you expressed some concern about the way the EPA actually 
21 

marketed or solicited comments outside the way they normally do. 

I mean, normally the way the comment is supposed to work with 

the Federal agency is they are supposed to issue the rule as kind 

of a neutral arbiter. And then based on that rule proposal, they are 

supposed to solicit pretty much in an unbiased fashion comments 

from the public that would be affected by that; correct? Can you 

say how this was different? 

Mr. HOLTE. Well, that is very accurate. 

From the very beginning of this rule’s forming and composition 

and coming forward, our organization across the whole country has 

been very concerned. And so we took a great deal of activity and 

participation in the process of commenting on it. And it was as if 

our—because we were contrary to where the rule was going, our 

comments were made to seem unimportant. And there’s occasions 

where they even discredited us as being—what was it?—silly or ludicrous or—or carrying on myths. So was it their place to judge our 

character in the submission of the rules, or is it their place to accept all submissions of comments regardless of where they come 

from? And that is the point I had made, Chairman. 

Senator JOHNSON. I had written an oversight letter to Mr. Howard Shelanski, the administrator of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, concerned about that. Because we do actually 

have a law, the Antilobbying Act, makes it a Federal crime to use 

appropriated money to influence, quote, ‘‘in any manner a Member 

of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government to 

favor, adopt, or oppose any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or 

appropriation.’’ The EPA was really utilizing social media to solicit 

comments that were favorable to their ruling. Do you have that 

similar type of concern? 

Mr. HOLTE. I do. In this whole process, I would have to step back 

and say that the EPA, I think, in their minds, has an honorable 

goal. And they saw this as something they needed to do to protect 

resources. But what they failed to do was have understanding of 

what actually happens on the ground. And by this they discredited 

the process of submitting opinions and comments, and they are not 

taking under serious concern those of us that are on the ground 

every day. And that is one of the greatest concerns I had. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Which is, again, why we invited an EPA 

representative to listen to testimony, provide testimony themselves. 

By the way, they have a statement for the record, which we will 

enter. 

But it would have been nice to have them here, and we could 

have bounced some of these ideas off them. Mr. Schienebeck. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Yes? 

Senator JOHNSON. I have done an awful lot—and by the way, you 

have been helpful—I appreciate it—touring the timber land and 

learning an awful lot in the last 5 years. 

Can you compare—this is a little bit off topic, but I think it is 

relevant. Can you compare the permitting process for harvesting 

timber from a county standpoint to a State standpoint to trying to 

harvest timber in a Federal forest? Can you just kind of talk a little bit about that? Because I think it is somewhat relevant to the 

issue we are talking about here, how the ease with which we can 
22 

do this so we can maintain healthy forests. County, State, to Federal Government. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Well, actually, a lot of the permitting for a 

stream crossing would go through the Department of Natural Resources. And we would get into the Corps—— 

For us, a navigable stream is something that we can put a canoe 

in anytime of the year and float a canoe. It does not matter how 

far as long as it can hold a canoe at that point in time. So for—— 

Senator JOHNSON. But that is a far stricter or more stringent 

standard than what the Army Corps lists as a navigable water; correct? So the DNR has a much tighter standard for navigable water 

than what the Army Corps does; correct? 

Mr. MEYER. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Meyer, you agree with that? 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Yes. That is our BMPs for water quality. That 

is what we follow for forestry operations. I mean, that is in our 

manual. 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me quick—because I think it might have 

been when I was on tour with you. I have heard reports—again, 

it is just anecdotal—that the way the DNR determines whether 

they can float a canoe is they will definitely pick a really wet day 

after a really heavy rainstorm with a really light canoe or—and— 

kayak. 

And then they will—if they can float that thing on initial water, 

that is navigable. Is that—— 

Mr. MEYER. We used to like those 80-pound kayakers. 

We really liked them. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. So obviously—I mean, basically you have 

heard that. So the point being is, the DNR is far more stringent 

in terms of its definition of navigable water here in Wisconsin to 

protect our environment than the Army Corps is under current 

navigable water standards. 

Mr. MEYER. Yes 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Yes. I would agree with that. 

And the difference is—I mean, if you are on county timber lands, 

they do a super fantastic job of managing their lands. They provide 

all the benefits— ecological, environmental, all, social, everything 

that we need. 

The State does a very good job, I would say, in Wisconsin. 

And I also represent a lot of people in Michigan, and Michigan 

does a great job as well. 

And the Federal forests are getting a lot better. 

They are kind of going back to where we were 10 or 15 years ago. 

And I think a lot of that is due, in part, because you have come 

up, Senator Baldwin has been to our forests many times, and we 

have gone out and looked at them. 

And good neighbor authority is going to be a huge help in implementing more of that management. 

The fact of the matter is that we are all really concerned about 

the environment and—all of the forests because they are all multiple-use forests. 

Senator JOHNSON. But again, from that standpoint, good neighbor authority is really moving more toward the type of approval 

process, sort of the one-stop approval process, in our State process 
23 

versus the multiple approval process for harvesting on Federal; correct? That is I really want you just to kind of get into who the 

agency is State versus Federal—and what that approval process is 

in terms of the timber harvesting. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Well, I mean, first of all, if you are going to 

do a timber harvest, you have to have an approved plan. And that 

has to be approved by a certified plan writer. And then you set up 

that management plan. And if you are going right along, we will 

just expedite this whole process. Then you would set that timber 

sale up. 

And it really depends upon the amount of paperwork. Let us say 

if I am doing a private timber sale, my contract might be two, 

three, four pages. If I am doing a county timber sale, the most of 

them that I have done are no more than 8 to 10 pages. If I am 

doing a Federal timber sale, it is going to be a hundred pages 

and—— 

Senator JOHNSON. And it is a multiple-step process; right? So it 

is—— 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. County land and State, you get that approval 

process once, and you can go in and correct? You go through—— 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Well, they all have their own approval process. So they are separated out that way. But once we have that approval, we move forward. 

Senator JOHNSON. But in Federal, you get the approval. And 

then there is another chance, really, for litigation. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Well, not—— 

Senator JOHNSON. That is how it was described to me. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Yes. I mean, once I buy the sale, it is good to 

go. 

But to get to that point, first, when they do their 10 to 15-year 

plan, there is a lot of people that put comments in, so on and so 

forth. But then once the plan is approved, which is probably what 

you are referring to, is when we had our 15-year plan in place. But 

then when they go to put up those sales, then the litigants come 

forward and they want to sue after the plan has already been approved. So then—— 

Senator JOHNSON. That is what I am talking about. In the State, 

you do not have that capability. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Right. We do not have that—necessarily all 

that red tape that we go through. But it is quite common on the 

Federal forest. 

And so we have the plan. They set up—let us just say. That is 

multiple timber sales up there. And litigants come forward and 

wanted to stop the sale. And actually, there has been a couple instances where the sales were actually sold, but they were litigated. 

So the foresters actually had to buy the sale back from the person 

that won the bid because they could not get in there for a 10-year 

period. 

And it starts out, in a particular instance over by Laona, it was 

a 12-year process to get through that whole litigation to bring everybody together. There was, like, endangered species there such 

as ginseng, those type of things. So to get through that whole proc-
24 

ess was a 12-year process. And that is where we see where WOTUS 

could have a huge impact. 

Senator JOHNSON. There is your concern. If the Federal Government gets involved and claims jurisdiction over these things, you 

are concerned, just like in terms of harvesting timber, to produce 

jobs, but also to keep the forests healthy. I mean, that is probably 

the greatest impression I have had as I have taken the tours. 

Those forests that are managed where we actually allow timber 

harvesting are far healthier. There is far more animals in those 

forests as opposed to the old growth ones. I mean, they look kind 

of cool. They are kind of spooky, but they are dying. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Yes. Absolutely. 

And here is one of our major concerns. And I think everybody in 

here that is a landowner would have the same concern. And we 

have a lot of private landowners in Wisconsin. If I want to come 

onto your property, build a road to get in there, do my harvesting, 

and get out, I am going to spend about 1,200 bucks to get across 

the 40. And I am just going to make this simple. Let us say we 

are going to do a mile of road. If I am just going to do a simple 

mile of road, I am going to look at about $4,400. I will get in there, 

do my harvest, get out. And that road will be there for the next—— 

Senator JOHNSON. And it is the property owner that makes the 

decision whether he is going to let you do—— 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. And you can work out a deal in terms of any 

kind of remediation or covering up the road or sodding over it with 

that landowner. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Yes. So let us say that if we are going to look 

at WOTUS, we are going to look at every water pocket that is on 

that road. Now I am going to have to spend probably about $8,000 

because I am going to want to make sure that if you want that 

road to remain on your property for the next entries into your property, if there is any water sitting anywhere that generates any type 

of plant or a cattail or anything like that, now I am going to be 

required to get a permit to use that sale the next time. And if I 

want to make sure there is going to be no water sitting anywhere 

on that road, I am going to be spending about $38,000 to put a 

road in because it is going to be graveled, ditched, crowned. It is 

going to have every feature of basically a spec road. That means 

you, as the landowner, are going to get less money. That means I 

am going to take less money as a producer. But it also means that 

there is going to be zero improvement in water quality because 

none of those ponds or none of those borrow pits that I might have 

created are going to have anything to do with water quality. 

Senator JOHNSON. Because it is not navigable water. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Exactly. 

Senator JOHNSON. And again, now with the State rules, you do 

not have to go through any of that process. You still have the DNR 

jurisdiction in some way, shape, or form. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Yes. And we follow best management practices. 

Senator JOHNSON.: You have that already done. It works in the 

State of Wisconsin. And you really do not need the Federal Government butting in and creating high levels of uncertainty. 
25 

Mr. Meyer, do you understand the concern? 

Mr. MEYER. I do. But there will be—what is happening when 

there has been dual restriction, since 1977, is that the Federal Government has deferred to the State government and stayed out of 

it so . . . 

Senator JOHNSON. But they are not—— 

Mr. MEYER. There was actually a joint application. We filled out 

one application. The State issued the permit. It covered the Federal 

permit. And Henry would not have to build that road any differently than he does right now for the State government. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, what has changed since 1977 until 

today, the standard was navigable water where the Wisconsin DNR 

has a more stringent definition of navigable water than the Army 

Corps. And now that would be changing under this. 

Mr. MEYER. The standard you read was the former standard 

from jurisdiction of the Federal Government, but that changed, and 

the 1972 Clean Water Act was far broader. 

Now, the regulations that got struck down in 2001 took the tip 

off of that broader jurisdiction. But there was far greater jurisdiction between the Federal navigable water standard and that covered by the 1972 Clean Water Act. 

Most of the water in this State is covered by the Clean Water 

Act, not just those subject to time. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Where would I find the current definition 

of navigable water? 

Mr. MEYER. Well, for navigable water, that would be in the Section 10 of the—and I forget what law or regulation, but it goes back 

to the turn of last century. But the Clean Water Act jurisdiction 

is in the 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Well, I will check that out. 

Mr. MEYER. Please. 

Senator JOHNSON. I mean, this is my understanding that this 

was the current. 

Mr. MEYER. It is a complicated variable believe me. 

Senator JOHNSON. I think, everybody’s concern. I am a business 

guy. I like keeping things as simple as possible. 

Mr. Meyer, let us talk a little bit about costs of some of these 

regulations. 

Mr. MEYER. Sure. 

Senator JOHNSON. I mean Mr. Ramme. 

Mr. MEYER. OK. 

Senator JOHNSON. You stated that costs will increase. We just do 

not have the figure at the tip of your fingers. 

President Obama, when he was a candidate, was talking about 

his proposed cap-and-trade policy. And he said, if enacted, because 

of his cap-and-trade proposal, electricity rates would necessarily 

skyrocket. That little chunk, that is an exact quote. Do you agree 

with what Candidate Obama said back then, that, his policy as it 

relates to the power plant, power generation, will cause electricity 

rates to skyrocket? 

Mr. RAMME. I would say already, over the last half of a dozen 

years or so, we have seen so many regulations occurring. 
26 

If we go to this Clean Power Plan that we are talking about and 

the Waters of the United States, I see increased costs coming from 

both. 

And in the case of the Waters of the United States, it just adds 

additional complexity. Now we are running electric or gas lines 

somewhere. We have to go spend the time to figure out, is it a jurisdictional ditch or not? So a lot of this is about ditches, really, in 

there. And Wisconsin already has very protective rules. 

On the Clean Power Plan side, if we look at that, we do not have 

our estimates yet. Whatever number I would give you today I can 

just about guarantee would be wrong. And so I do not want to do 

that. And—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Of course, isn’t that part of the problem is we 

just, in the end, never know? I mean, the costs end up being hidden? Nobody, in the end, really accounts for them in terms of when 

these things were implemented. And 5, 10 years later, now they 

have been—people have spent the money. And you have your costs. 

And you go to the Commission and submit your rates, and you 

get—because you can justify the costs, rates go up. And who ends 

up paying for that? 

Mr. RAMME. All of our customers. And I said in my testimony 

there that the cost will increase. I am confident of that. It is just 

by how much in this case. 

And I think these are very complex rules. And, we have been 

analyzing them. We have commented on the proposals and when 

they came out. And we keep learning things, as we go through 

these rules. 

The other thing that goes on, I think George mentioned, that a 

lot of times the estimates tend to come in lower than originally projected. And that may be true in some cases because there is a lot 

of uncertainty that comes with the rule. 

And, you are looking at how are we going to do it? Once this becomes a regulation or rule, we have to rise to the occasion and find 

a way to meet those requirements. And, sometimes we are very 

good at that. And in this case, I think this is more challenging than 

usual. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, in my background memo, one of the 

things the staff listed for me a number of different standards. And 

these actually come from the Department of Energy. Things like refrigerator efficiency standards and water heaters. For example, in 

2011, the refrigerator efficiency standard increased the price of a 

refrigerator by $83. In 2010, the water efficiency standard increased the cost of a water heater by $464. A fluorescent lamp, $12. 

Another one for a fluorescent lamp is $3. Electric motor efficiency 

standard, $313. A walk-in cooler—now, probably not a whole lot of 

people buy walk-in coolers—but, $1,086. You just total the whole 

thing up, just from 2009 to 2014, some of these efficiency standards, if you were unlucky enough or lucky enough to be able to afford to buy all these products, that is about $2,400 of increased cost 

on the product that is pretty hidden. 

And isn’t that part of the problem that you in the end, we just 

all end up paying—— 

I would ask the question—because I have seen different studies. 

And one of the reasons I do not throw out the numbers is because, 
27 

I see a wide variation of it. But does anybody have a study or a 

quote or figure in terms of estimates of how much it costs per Wisconsin family some of these regulations on energy? Anybody want 

to step up to the plate on that one? 

Ms. BREUER. I can speak to it a little bit. It is more of a percentage than an actual number. I was very intimately involved in the 

modeling that Mr. Meyer does not like that the PSC did. So I was 

very close to this in my last position at the Public Service Commission. And it is more of a percentage. And it is double digits, 10 to 

25 percent. 

The reason there is such a range in the cost estimates, the 4 to 

13 billion, is because of the different compliance options and the 

different ways that different plants are treated. 

One way to come into compliance with this plan is to build all 

new natural-gas-fired plants. Take a bulldozer to the rest of your 

old fleet even though you are still paying for that. Because those 

new plants are under a different standard. They are not under the 

111(D). They are under the 111(B). And so they do not really count 

under 111(D). That is not a practical solution, but it is the lowest 

cost option. 

And the better way to do it is to keep some of your coal online 

for reserve, but then you are going to have to buy credits from 

somewhere else. And that is a more expensive option. 

So it is more about a percentage increase than an actual number. 

Because right now the large energy users that Lucas represents 

carries so much of the burden of the infrastructure costs that if 

they start going away, then all of the residential bills will go up 

even more because they will have to pay for what industry was previously paying for. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Ramme, you talked about investing 13, $14 billion already. Do you have a calculation in terms of what 

that—obviously you invested that money. That goes into your rates. 

Do you know how much those investments have increased the families’ of energy costs? 

Mr. RAMME. It was, I think, $12 billion that I cited there. And, 

I would have to go back and look at the revenues over that period 

of time. Sorry. I don’t know that. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. RAMME. I can get back to you with that. 

Senator JOHNSON. But again, those are costs. And those do get 

allocated into rates; correct? 

Mr. RAMME. They are very real as far as that goes so . . . 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Ms. Breuer, I did really want to talk—because you did not cite in your testimony the actual decision, but 

the Chevron decision. You were talking about how the agencies, 

particularly over time, have really become, I would say, a little 

more vague in their regulations because of that Chevron decision 

by the Supreme Court that basically says that the agencies themselves will be responsible and, really, be looked upon for guidance 

in terms of, what the law actually says. 

Now, I want to just quickly quote some examples of what we are 

doing here in Congress in terms of writing frameworks for laws 

rather than the actual laws. But both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. 

And I always get them mixed up. But I think Dodd-Frank was 
28 

350,000 words. Obamacare was 380,000 words when passed. The 

last time I looked, about a year ago, Dodd-Frank was up to 15 million words, and Obamacare was over 12 million words. An enormous amount of law being written by the agencies. 

And then the Supreme Court relies on the agencies in terms of 

how to interpret it; correct? Can you just kind of speak to that? Because you did allude to that in your testimony. 

Ms. BREUER. Yes, absolutely. 

It is sort of a fill-in-the-blank game. The regulations, the laws, 

and then subsequently the rules are written intentionally vague, in 

my opinion, so that, later on, the agency can mold that law to do 

what they want it to do. 

So one example is the Clean Power Plan. They are using Section 

111 of the Clean Air Act that has so rarely been used that nobody 

really knows what it means. And they are relying on Chevron deference to be able to interpret that law to mean what they want it 

to mean. 

And that is exactly the concern with the Clean Water Act and 

the Waters of the United States rule as well. If they leave it vague, 

if they do not add clarity, then maybe not next year, maybe not the 

following year, but in 5 years, they are going to say, well, we really 

want more control over the farms and the hillside of Wisconsin, so 

this is what we really meant to say back then. 

And even more concerning is the holes that they leave in those 

regulations, leave the folks subject to those regulations open for citizen lawsuits. And any ambiguity in these regulations just encourages citizen lawsuits from Sierra Club or others which costs a lot 

of money to defend and bring no value to the farmers and the timber workers of Wisconsin. 

Senator JOHNSON. Can anybody here on the panel speak the 

process of sue and settlement? 

Ms. BREUER. I can speak a little as well. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Sure. 

Ms. BREUER. We see this in the utility industry on occasion 

where an environmental group or an NGO will bring a case against 

the EPA, trying to force the EPA to move in a certain direction. 

And then that group and the EPA will settle even though, relatively speaking, they Are on the same side. So they will settle. 

And then, the folks on the other side of the issue are not really 

brought into those discussions. 

And we have seen it with some of the past national ambient air 

quality standards. The utilities have to negotiate consent decrees 

with the EPA, and the State regulators have no say in that. So the 

utilities and the EPA agree to spend a certain amount of money on 

upgrading, your fire-power heater, your wood heater, or what have 

you. And then they bring it to the Public Service Commission of the 

State. And the Public Service Commission—the State regulators 

have no choice but to allow the utilities to do it and to charge it 

back to their customers. So it is an agreement between basically 

the environmentalists and the EPA. But they are using rate payer 

and taxpayer dollars to pay off that settlement. And it is frustrating, and it is a broken process. 

Senator JOHNSON. And it pretty well renders Congress pretty 

much useless—— 
29 

Ms. BREUER. That’s right. 

Senator JOHNSON. And which means the people. 

Ms. BREUER. And State regulators as well. 

Senator JOHNSON. I think final line of questioning, I would like 

to talk to Mr. Ramme about the 2012 baseline. 

And I think, Mr. Meyer, you might have a different opinion on 

that. 

So can you just kind of talk a little bit about the way the EPA 

set those rules and why the 2012 baseline, which is really penalizing in terms of Wisconsin? 

Mr. RAMME. Well, if we look back at 2012, it was a year where 

the economy was not doing very well. And it was also a year that 

natural gas prices were unusually low. So that combination resulted in the natural gas generation facilities running much more 

than they ever had. 

Senator JOHNSON. Which would have lower CO2 emissions. 

Mr. RAMME. Right. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. RAMME. And, of course, if those facilities are running and the 

economy is not going great, the coal facilities are not running as 

much. And so the CO2 emissions were much lower that year. 

But again, when you look at the cost of natural gas, it is not representative. And the CO2 emissions are not representative. And 

the coal plants running were not representative. It is very, advantageous to take a baseline year of 2012 and then look at reductions 

out in 2030 and—as you do that because you already have a head 

start there. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, advantageous to who? 

Mr. RAMME. To the regulator. 

Senator JOHNSON. EPA? 

Mr. RAMME. And so that is why that really isn’t, we feel—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Meyer, you had a slightly different 

thought on that. 

Mr. MEYER. I do. But I will preface it by saying I am not an expert in this, and Mr. Ramme knows quite a bit. 

I made two points. One is, yes, if you had used 2005, a maybe 

advantageous base, but you have had to make more major reductions. And the estimate is half the companies of the utilities in the 

Nation would be complaining more than they are now, including 

some in the State of Wisconsin. 

I mean, while I was not involved in studying the baseline year 

for this, you can never pick a perfect baseline year. By definition, 

it is arbitrary and depends where you are as an individual company or a State. You may have a State that is in a slump, be treated differently, and some States roaring. So there is never a perfect 

number. 

In 2005 this would have resulted in, we believe, more complaints 

by utilities with regard to it. 

Now, the other thing that I think is important is to have the 

baseline year, but also, under the State plan—and I know Bruce 

and some other companies made reductions during the 2005, 2012. 

And while that isn’t taken into account in the baseline year, it can 

be taken into account in the compliance plan by the State of Wisconsin. And the State can adjust it saying this utility did quite a 
30 

bit before then, so we are not going to impose as much. There is 

that kind of flexibility in the law—or in the regulations to allow 

those judgments be given credit. Is it perfect? No. 

One thing that really concerns me about this rule is I am sure 

there could be a better rule than this, a better plan, but no one else 

is laying one out there. We have a climate change problem in this 

world. We need to deal with it. And I give credit to the EPA for 

doing it. It may not be perfect, but we need one. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Well, what I would like to do is give everybody an opportunity and just kind of wrap up the hearing and 

spend about a minute—I do not want you waxing on too long here. 

I want to respect everybody’s time because people have been very 

patient. But if you have something that you really want to reveal 

or talk about that has not been either asked or you did not get an 

earlier opportunity—— 

So we will start with you, Ms. Breuer. 

Ms. BREUER. Yes. I will just reiterate that, General Schimel and 

the State of Wisconsin feels that it is in the best interests of Wisconsin citizens to fight this type of regulatory overreach, not because we do not like the environment, but because we do think that 

it is State regulators and Wisconsinites who know our energy system best, who know our land best, and know the best way to use 

it. And we are the largest overreach we have seen in decades. And 

we are going to do everything we can from a litigation perspective 

to stop that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Breuer. Mr. Vebber. 

Mr. VEBBER. Yes. That was well said. And I would say that in 

Wisconsin, it has been said today that we make things. We are a 

manufacturing heavy State. We have members who use over a million dollars a month in energy. When you drive up the cost 10 to 

25 percent of that, that is a serious expense that is going to drive 

jobs out of our State. Manufacturers make up .15 percent of the 

total customer base, but they use a third of the energy. If those 

manufacturers start leaving, that means that the rest of the energy 

costs in the State are going to go up dramatically on families and 

other businesses. And that is going to be devastating. 

So thank you, again, for allowing us to testify today, and I appreciate it. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Holte. 

Mr. HOLTE. Well, I guess I would come back to the point I made 

earlier about the vagueness of the rule and the opportunity for it 

to change and be interpreted differently down the road with no opportunity for us to change that. And that vagueness gives us a 

great sense of discomfort. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Schienebeck. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Like what I used to be, many of our members 

are independent businessmen. And we comply with everything we 

can comply with obviously. We care about the trees and the forests 

more than anybody. Because if you are a logger, the last thing you 

want to do is run out of trees to cut. And we have more trees now 

than we have ever had. I mean, we are well beyond the late 1800s 

and 1900s. And even then we did not actually run out of trees. 
31 

And as an independent businessman, we are seeing more and 

more costs added on, and we have nowhere to pass those costs on. 

I mean, the utility company, they can raise my rates. 

If I am buying equipment when we are right in the final stage of a Tier 4 engine. That added $18,000 on to the cost of the machine. Now we are talking Tier 5 engine, and that is going to be 

probably $30,000 onto the cost with such a minute—you talked 

about the teaspoons before. This would be a thimble for the gain 

of the cost. Quite honestly, we cannot afford to pay the costs anymore of these overreaching rules that have no benefit to them. 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, those trees did grow back, and they did 

have to have some CO2 to grow back. 

Mr. SCHIENEBECK. Absolutely. And we had a Council on Forestry 

meeting today. And we just had another lesson about CO2. And we 

have trees, and they are absolutely (inaudible). 

Senator JOHNSON. I could not help myself. Mr. Ramme. 

Mr. RAMME. Well, I guess the last comment I would make is certainly to acknowledge that the legal challenges need to run their 

course. And hopefully they can occur in a timely fashion. And we 

have to get back to a balance of, environmental protection and considering the economy. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. MEYER. I started working for the Department of Natural Resources before the Clean Water Act, and before the Clean Air Act. 

And you could not eat the fish here in Stevens Point. You could not 

swim the rivers. Snowbanks were covered with soot and coal. And 

it did take Federal intervention to, in fact, cleanup those waters 

and lakes. We have done a good job, and the citizens have done a 

good job. 

We need Federal intervention on climate change. And this rule 

does it for the first time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Meyer, for your efforts. And 

again, we agree on so much because we are here in Wisconsin, we 

love our environment, and we want to keep it clean. 

So, again, I just want to thank all the witnesses for your 

thoughtful testimony, for taking the time, for your thoughtful answers to my questions. 

I certainly want to thank UW-Stevens Point here for opening up 

this room. It is a beautiful facility. We appreciate that. 

And in particular, I want to thank Bill Rowe and his team and 

campus security. 

We want to thank all of the members of the audience in being 

very respectful, in taking the time to hear everybody out. 

This has been a good hearing. This is just a first step. We will, 

have a hearing in Washington D.C., and we will get the EPA in 

there, and we will hear their side of the story. And hopefully, they 

will also listen to some of these, I think, very legitimate concerns 

by business interests. This is going to affect our economy in some 

way, shape, or form. We can argue on exactly how much because 

it is just very difficult to calculate these things in perspective and 

even retrospectively. But it does have an economic impact, which 

is why this is of interest to this Committee. 

So again, I want to thank everybody for their attendance and 

their participation. 
32 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until November 

28 at 5 for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

At 2:41 p.m., the Committee was adjourned. 
(33) 

A P P E N D I X 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 

Æ