S. HRG. 112–952 

OVERSIGHT: REVIEW OF EPA REGULATIONS 

REPLACING THE CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE 

(CAIR) AND THE CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE 

(CAMR) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 30, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

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

OVERSIGHT: REVIEW OF EPA REGULATIONS REPLACING THE CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE 

RULE (CAIR) AND THE CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE (CAMR) 

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

23–818 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–952 

OVERSIGHT: REVIEW OF EPA REGULATIONS 

REPLACING THE CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE 

(CAIR) AND THE CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE 

(CAMR) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 30, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex officio) 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 30, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Carper, Hon. Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ........................ 1 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 4 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 6 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 8 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 9 

Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas .................................. 11 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 447 

WITNESSES 

McCarthy, Hon. Gina, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and 

Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 20 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 23 

O’mara, Collin P., Secretary, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control for the State of Delaware .......................................................... 98 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

Shaw, Chairman Bryan W., Ph.D., Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality .................................................................................................................. 109 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111 

Tierney, Sue, Managing Principal, Analysis Group, Inc. ..................................... 126 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 128 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 151 

Walz, Barbara, Senior Vice President Policy and Environmental, Tri-State 

Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. ................................................ 307 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 309 

Carpenter, David O., M.D., Director, Institute for Health and Environment, 

University of Albany ............................................................................................ 321 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 323 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 331 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

Building and Construction Trades Department ............................................. 449 

American Electric Power (AEP) ...................................................................... 451 

Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC) ....................................................... 455 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control ................... 462 

Office of the Governor, State of Delaware ...................................................... 477 

Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, Division 

of Air Quality, State of Delaware ................................................................ 483 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT: REVIEW OF EPA REGULATIONS 

REPLACING THE CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE 

RULE (CAIR) AND THE CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE (CAMR) 

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2011 

U.S. SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas Carper (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Lautenberg, Cardin, Merkley, 

Barrasso, and Sessions. 

Also present: Senator Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. The hearing will come to order. Good morning, 

one and all. 

Senator Cornyn, nice to see you. We are together in the gym at 

the Y in the Senate gym earlier today, and they have a couple of 

guys here who work hard to stay in shape, trying to keep up with 

them. 

We are going to kick this off, and we welcome, certainly, Senator 

Cornyn, who is going to introduce one of our witnesses and make 

some comments. 

We welcome our witnesses. 

I will speak for a few minutes and then recognize Senator 

Barrasso and other Senators that are here to make an opening 

statement, and then call on Senator Cornyn to, in fact, I think we 

will ask questions of Senator Cornyn. We are going to flip things 

here. He probably is ready. 

Today’s Subcommittee hearing will review the proposed replacements of the Clean Air InterState Rule, affectionately known as 

CAIR, and the Clean Air Mercury Rule, CAMR, and their economic, 

environmental, and health impacts. 

Senators, again, will have 5 minutes for opening statements and 

I will recognize our panel of witnesses. Each witness will have 

about 5 minutes for his or her opening statement, and following 

each panel statements we will have one round of questions. 

Since coming to the U.S. Senate a decade or so ago, I have made 

it my mission to work with our colleagues to ensure that EPA has 

2 

the right tools to clean our air. As some of you may know, I have 

worked diligently across the aisle, even with guys like this guy, on 

clean air legislation to reduce deadly emissions of sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxide, mercury, and other air toxics in our Country. 

Oftentimes, I have been asked why I am so passionate about 

clean air and usually start off by giving a couple of reasons. First 

of all, I believe most of us in the room believe we ought to try to 

treat other people the way we want to be treated, and as many of 

you know, air pollution knows no State boundaries. As Governor of 

my State in the 1990’s, I quickly realized that one State could do 

everything in its power to reduce its own air pollution, but could 

still itself with dirty air because of bad neighbors. 

Many of you have heard me say that Delaware is at the end of 

America’s tailpipe. It is not just Delaware, it is Maryland, it is New 

Jersey, it is Virginia, it is Pennsylvania. Other States to the north 

are less. We are at the end of America’s tailpipe. In fact, our Secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, who is 

here today, Collin O’Mara, has said that up to 90 percent of Delaware’s pollution, at least air pollution, comes from other States. 

As Governor, I think I could have just about shut down every 

source of pollution in our State and Delaware would have still been 

in non-attainment. Think about that. We pretty much shut down 

our State and we still would have been in non-attainment. Christy 

Whitman, my neighbor in New Jersey, was mindful of the same 

thing and equally unhappy about being in that situation. She and 

I quickly learned that our neighbors’ dirty air meant higher health 

care costs for our own States. My neighbors’ dirty air meant difficulty in attracting businesses to our State of Delaware and my 

neighbors’ dirty air meant that we were paying the full price for 

their dirty energy. 

And that is when I realized that we had to have a national solution to address our air quality problems. States can’t do it alone; 

couldn’t do it then and can’t do it now. We are all in this together. 

We have to work together and we need to work with the EPA to 

continue cleaning up our air. 

Second, I believe it is critical for us to achieve better health care 

results in America for less money. In fact, across the board, we 

need to achieve better results in just about everything, including 

health care, for less money, too. But over the 1990 to 2020 time period the EPA estimates that our Country will see over $12 trillion 

of health and economic benefits in the form of longer lives, 

healthier kids, and greater work force productivity from the implementation of the Clean Air Act. Clean Air Act benefits outweigh its 

costs by some 30 to 1. Not a bad bang for our buck. And although 

we have made great strides in reducing our Nation’s air pollution, 

more must be done if we want to protect our children and compete 

in the emerging global clean energy economy. 

Today we discuss two new clean air regulations, the Clean Air 

Transport Rule and the Utility Air Toxics Rule. These regulations 

target our largest emitters of many known toxics that cause cancer, 

brain defects, and respiratory stress: fossil fuel power plants. And 

we have a chart over here. This is a busy chart, but I think it 

shows in the U.S. power plants emit, among other things—I am almost tempted to take out my reading glasses so I can read this 

3 

stuff—but organics. In fact, I am going to take out my glasses to 

read this stuff. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. In a true sign of bipartisanship, Senator 

Barrasso—these aren’t any good. 

Senator BARRASSO. I have done surgery with these glasses. 

Senator CARPER. That is what I have heard. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. All right, here we go. From power plants, U.S. 

power plants, emissions, 60 percent of the arsenic, 60 percent of 

the SO2, 13 percent of the nitrogen oxide, 30 percent of the nickel, 

20 percent of the chromium, 50 percent of the mercury, and over 

50 percent of many acid gases. It is a good chart if you can read 

it. 

These toxic pollutants know no State boundary and they send 

thousands of our children to the hospital every day and contribute 

to shorter life spans for thousands every year. 

Just one of these rules, the Air Toxics Regulation, we could see from it some $13 in benefits for every dollar that we spend in compliance and, again, getting greater health care results for less 

money, and that is being demonstrated by a chart held by one of 

our—I was going to say one of our interns, but our interns are sitting over here, making him do all the work. This is a pretty good 

chart, I can actually read this. But we are looking at the billions 

of dollars in 2010 for the cost of implementation, it looks like about 

$11 billion. The payoff looks like about $145, $146 billion. That is 

a pretty good return. 

And as we will hear today, these regulations are long overdue, 

addressing pollution that should have been cleaned up years ago, 

maybe even decades ago. We will also hear today that we have the 

technology to meet these new standards, and many States like 

Delaware have successfully implemented similar measures. 

I look forward to hearing our testimony today on these important 

issues and regulations. We look forward to working with the Administration and with our colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to 

ensure that we have even cleaner air going forward. 

Senator Barrasso, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM CARPER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Since coming to the U.S. Senate a decade ago, I have made it my mission to work 

with my colleagues to ensure that EPA has the right tools to clean our air. As some 

of you know, I have worked diligently across the aisle on clean air legislation to reduce deadly emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and other air toxics 

in our country. 

Often times, I’m asked why I am so passionate about clean air. Well here are a 

few reasons. First, I believe we ought to treat other people the way we’d want them 

to treat us. As many of you know, air pollution knows no State boundary. 

As Governor of Delaware in the 1990’s, I quickly realized that one State could do 

everything in its power to reduce its air pollution, but could still find itself with 

dirty air because of bad neighbors. Many of you have heard me say that Delaware 

is at the tailpipe of America. In fact, our Secretary of Natural Resources, Colin 

O’Mara who is here today, has said up to 90 percent of Delaware’s pollution comes 

from other states. 

As Governor, I could have shut down EVERY SOURCE OF POLLUTION IN THE 

STATE, and DELAWARE would still have been in nonattainment. As Governor, I 

quickly learned that my neighbor’s dirty air meant higher health care costs for my 

4 

state. My neighbor’s dirty air meant difficulty attracting businesses to my state. 

And, my neighbor’s dirty air meant WE were paying the full price of their dirty energy. 

That’s when I realized we had to have a national solution to address our air quality problems. States cannot do it alone. We’re all in this together. We’ve got to work 

together, and we need to work with the EPA to continue cleaning up our air. Second, I believe it’s critical for us to achieve better health care results in America for 

less money. 

Over the 1990 to 2020 time period, the EPA estimates that our country will see 

over $12 trillion in health and economic benefits— in the form of longer lives, 

healthier kids, and greater workforce productivity —from the Clean Air Act. The 

Clean Air Act benefits outweigh the costs—30 to 1. That’s a pretty big bang for the 

buck! 

Although we’ve made great strides in reducing our nation’s air pollution, more 

must be done if we want to protect our children and compete in the emerging global 

clean energy economy. Today, we discuss two new clean air regulations—the Clean 

Air Transport Rule and the Utility Air Toxics Rule. These regulations target our 

largest emitters of many known toxics that cause cancer, brain defects and respiratory stress—fossil-fuel fired power plants. 

These toxic pollutants know no State boundary and send thousands of our children to the hospital everyday and contribute to shorter life spans for thousands 

every year. Just one of these rules—the air toxics regulation—we could see $13 in 

benefits for every $1 we spend in compliance. Again getting greater health care results for less money. And as we will hear today, these regulations are long overdue, 

addressing pollution that should have been cleaned up decades ago. 

We will also hear today that we have the technology to meet these new standards, 

and many states, like Delaware, have successfully implemented similar measures. 

I look forward to hearing testimony on these important regulations and look forward 

to working with the Administration and my colleagues to ensure we have clean air. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having these hearings today about the regulations coming 

out of the EPA. We have held a number of hearings on these regulations and we have gotten some very useful testimony. I am happy 

to see Senator Cornyn here with us, and I am disappointed that 

the Chairman has ruled that Senator Cornyn is not permitted to 

participate fully and ask his important questions—— 

Senator CARPER. Hold that just for a second. This doesn’t take 

away from your time. 

I think most of us probably live by the Golden Rule. Senator 

Cornyn and I actually talked about this yesterday and I said, John, 

do you want to give an opening statement and have an extended 

opening statement in your introduction and make whatever points 

you want, and he actually said, that is fine, I would be pretty 

pleased to do that. 

And we talked today and I said, you know, in this further Golden 

Rule, when I was in my first year, first 2 years in the U.S. Senate, 

I used to go to hearings of the Judiciary Committee. I wasn’t on 

the committee, but they would actually let me sit at the dais with 

the committee, and at the end, after everybody else on the committee had asked their questions, if they had any extra time, they 

would let me ask questions too, at least for 5 minutes, and I offered 

that opportunity to Senator Cornyn. You don’t know this, but I offered that opportunity to Senator Cornyn, and he said what he 

would really rather do is chair the hearing. So we have agreed to 

do that and I will questions from the dais over here. But I think 

we worked this out. 

5 

If you want to say that, you can go ahead, but I think we worked 

it out. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me go on, because 

there has been a lot of talk about public health benefits of additional government restrictions on power plants, on factories, on 

small businesses, and on other job creators. We have also discussed 

the very real fact that American unemployment stands at 9.1 percent. These are people who are looking for work and cannot find 

someone to employ them. The rest of America wants to keep their 

jobs, and everyone wants good public health. The question is do the 

regulations coming out of the EPA accomplish all of those goals, 

and to me the answer is they do not. 

According to the National Economic Research Associates’ recent 

study, the EPA’s Clean Air InterState Rule, the Transport Rule, 

and the Clean Air Mercury Rule, known as Utility MACT, the two 

rules that we are discussing today, would alone result in $184 billion in costs to power providers and consumers and 1.44 million 

jobs lost, as the poster shows. 

Unemployment in this Country is high and the greenest State, 

California, where regulations such as these have been adopted for 

years, has one of the highest unemployment rates of all. California’s unemployment rate stands at 11.7 percent. 

The negative health benefits of high unemployment are also now 

well documented. In this very Committee, on June 15th, just 2 

weeks ago, Dr. Harvey Brenner of Johns Hopkins University, testified, ‘‘The unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor 

for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological studies 

performed since the early 1980’s.’’ He also found that ‘‘In addition 

to influences on mental disorders, suicide, alcohol abuse, and alcoholism, unemployment is also an important risk factor in heart disease and overall decreases in life expectancy.’’ In addition, according to the National Cancer for Health Statistics, we learn that 

American children in poverty are 3.6 times more likely than nonpoor children to have poor health and 5 times more likely to die 

from an infectious disease. 

We have here testifying today Ms. Gina McCarthy, and she has 

stated families shouldn’t have to choose between a job and healthy 

air; they are entitled to both. But families need to be employed; 

otherwise, the 9.1 percent who are looking for worker, the older 

work in Michigan, the dock worker in Massachusetts, the fisherman in Connecticut, the miner in Wyoming, the stay-at-home 

moms and their children will feel the negative effects. 

If we want to talk about public health, then let’s focus on the 

major threat to the public, and that is unemployment. We must 

face the facts; otherwise, the health costs of not addressing unemployment will far exceed any health benefits of the regulations 

being proposed by the EPA today. 

This Administration and this EPA are on the wrong track. They 

are doing so by proposing dozens of regulations to drive up the cost 

of doing business, and that includes energy costs, for whole sectors 

of the American economy that the Administration has basically 

shown that they don’t like; the refiners, the coal mines, the rare 

earth mines, ranchers, dairy farmers, cement manufacturers, fertilizer producers, coal-fired nuclear power plants, to name a few. 

6 

This Administration, through its policies, is making it harder and 

more expensive for the private sector to create jobs. I am looking 

for ways to make it cheaper and easier for the private sector to create jobs. 

This Administration has also been subsidizing sectors of the 

economy that they favor; renewable energy, manufacturing and 

production. In a June 25th Washington Post story entitled, 

Obama’s Focus on Visiting Clean Tech Companies Raises Questions, the article went on to State, along with Capitol Hill fallout, 

the Administration’s attention to certain clean tech companies has 

led to some industry concerns. Executives of some struggling 

startups ask whether the Administration rigorously examines companies and their products before endorsing a favored few. 

This is the Washington Post. They give an example. The article 

points out that one solar panel manufacturing company that the 

President has backed ‘‘used an array of glass tubes that are expensive to produce, causing investment advisors to question whether 

the product could compete with less expensive Chinese models.’’ 

The company received a $530 million Federal loan guaranty under 

the President’s stimulus plan. 

Many companies in the article said that they only got a fraction 

of the money that Obama doled out to those few winners that could 

produce much more with less. One CEO is quoted as saying the Administration is giving some companies massive advantages over 

others. And when the President touted the success of the LED light 

bulb manufacturer in North Carolina, he failed to mention that one 

of the companies he toured was having significant financial difficulties, the stock value was cut in half in the last year, and this was 

despite the company receiving a $39 million tax credit through the 

Obama stimulus plan. And financial analyst Jeffrey Benneck stated that company would have a hard time competing unless ‘‘anyone 

can get their cost down to compete with the Chinese companies.’’ 

Picking winners and losers just doesn’t work. This Administration has had 2 years to get this right and has failed. Costly job 

crushing regulations, heavy tax burdens, and investment in uncompetitive industries does not foster economic growth; it does not create jobs; it does not promote commerce; and does not make the 

public healthier. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look forward to the testimony. 

Senator CARPER. You are welcome. 

Senator CARDIN. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. First, Senator Carper, let me thank you very 

much, not just for holding this hearing, but for your leadership. 

You have devoted a good part of your career to the issues of clean 

air. We are neighboring States and we share the same challenges 

of being downwind. So I thank you very much for your continued 

leadership in this area. You are making a difference and I am 

proud to work with you on these issues. 

I must say that I think it is a false dilemma to say that you have 

to choose between jobs and good health and clean air. I can tell 

you, in my own State of Maryland, we have created jobs by impleVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:38 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23818.TXT VERN
7 

menting the toughest standards on clean air in the region. I feel 

very fortunate to be a State where the power companies take responsibility for their actions. It is time that power companies 

around the Nation take responsibility for their actions and stop 

blaming EPA for doing its job. I might say if they used the millions 

of dollars they spend in fighting these regulations, whether in the 

courts or in the agencies, and use that to implement clean air technology, I think we would be further along today. 

In 2007, Maryland experienced, as a downwind State, motivated 

the Maryland legislature and our Governor to take firm and decisive action to reduce mercury, SOx and NOx emissions in the State 

by implementing the toughest power plant emission laws on the 

East Coast, and we created jobs in doing that, Mr. Chairman, and 

we have a healthier environment. But it is not enough. Using 2002 

as a submissions baseline, the Healthy Air Act has Maryland well 

on its way to reducing its inState NOx emissions by 75 percent by 

2012, after already achieving an interim goal of a 70 percent reduction target for NOx in 2009. SO2 emissions will be reduced by 80 

percent this year, with a second phase of controls in 2013 to 

achieve an 85 percent reduction of SO2 emissions. 

Despite Maryland’s success in reducing our emissions, as you 

point out, Mr. Chairman, pollution from upwind States prevents 

Maryland from reaching attainment under the Clean Air Act. So 

we can do all this, but if we don’t have a national standard, we 

can’t achieve the type of clean air necessary for public health in 

Maryland. 

On most bad air days, somewhere between 50 percent and 75 

percent of Maryland’s air pollution originates in upwind States. 

This June, the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area experienced 22 moderate and unhealthy air days. More than 2 million 

Marylanders suffer from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases 

like asthma, emphysema, and diabetes. Unhealthy air days exacerbate the health problems of at-risk populations and cost Americans 

billions of dollars in health care costs, loss of wages due to illness 

triggered by air days that leads to absences from work and school. 

EPA’s newly proposed Transport Rule is a step toward addressing the persistent clean air issues the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast 

States face. The rule’s requirement for power plants to finally install modern pollution control technology across most of the eastern 

half of the United States is long overdue. 

Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County, Maryland, are two jurisdictions that are projected to have maintenance problems even 

with the new Transport Rule in place. The new rule is an important first step, but clearly there is more work that needs to be 

done. 

Fortunately, there are opportunities on the horizon to achieve 

emission reductions needed to allow all States to achieve attainment. 

Mr. Chairman, I am committed to working with you, I am committed to working with all the members of this Committee to come 

up with the reasonable ways that we can address these issues at 

the national level, make sure the tools are available. But one thing 

I believe we can’t compromise, and that is clean air. The Clean Air 

Act is critically important for the public health of this Nation. Air 

8 

knows no geographical boundaries. We need to work together. This 

Committee has the primary jurisdiction and I hope that we will 

continue to find ways in which we can help our industries comply 

with the Clean Air Act. 

I must tell you, to me this is about jobs, it is about creating the 

type of economic growth in this Nation that will allow us to have 

the job growth and healthy environment. We should not have to 

make a choice between the two. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much for your statement. Thanks 

for your kind words, and I look forward to working with you in all 

this going forward. 

All right, Senator Sessions. Good morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Good morning. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, since its enactment 40 years ago, I do truly think 

it is incontestable that the Clean Air Act has produced a much 

cleaner environment. In fact, over the past 30 years total emissions 

of the six principal pollutants have been decreased by 57 percent. 

EPA national emission estimates show that in 1980 there were 267 

millions tons per year produced of these emissions. That number 

has been decreased dramatically, to 107 million tons in 2009 and 

progress continues. And all of us on the Committee want to ensure 

that we continue that progress, and I believe that new restrictions 

can be effective and reasonable on particularly pollutants like mercury that we have had some good studies on in Alabama. 

But I am concerned about the timing, cost, and manner of several of EPA’s new rules, as well as the cumulative impacts of these 

regulations and rules on economic growth and development in a 

time of our Country’s economic stress. 

This chart—maybe you can hold it back so the Chairman can see 

too—is a chart produced by the American Legislative Exchange of 

State Legislators showing how these regulations are coming forward in ever-increasing numbers and having cumulatively a significant impact on American competitiveness economically throughout the world. So I thank you, Jeff, for that. 

I think it indicates that the complaints I am hearing in record 

numbers from people all over my State about excessive new regulations are valid. There seems to be a train wreck of regulations and 

rules coming out of EPA. The ratepayers will be the ones who pay 

the cost. The increased cost of energy could drive companies away 

from the United States and harm our economy’s ability to rebound 

from the recent recession. During this time of high unemployment, 

9.1 percent, we really need to be looking at ways to produce cleaner, cheaper energy, not driving up costs. 

There is no doubt. Those of us who have been involved in economic development know one of the most important questions businesses ask about where they are going to site a new plant and create jobs is how much the energy costs are. We have got to consider 

that as we go forward, so I would like to raise four concerns at the 

hearing today. 

First, EPA issued the Transport Rule after the court cited concerns with the trading provision of the Bush administration’s Clean 

9 

Air Rule. However, instead of simply correcting those deficiencies, 

the EPA went much further than was required by the courts and 

now has decided to impose new requirements. In addition, regarding the Utility MACT Rule, the EPA had originally decided to impose new restrictions on mercury emissions from power plants, but 

after executing an agreement with an environmental group, the 

have decided to cover all hazardous pollutants, changing the nature 

of that review. 

Second, I am concerned about the deadlines for compliance with 

the Transport Rule and the Utility MACT Rule. Too fast a change 

can impose unnecessary costs. I am concerned about the cumulative impacts and costs from all the rules together and what impact that would have on job losses and increased electricity rates. 

One estimate is that increases in electricity rates of over 20 percent 

will occur. This is a tax, really. The articulate Larry Kudlow keeps 

talking about when you get a drop in energy prices, you get a tax 

cut, and an increase is a tax increase. It is the kind of thing you 

can’t avoid, you have to pay, and paying more for the same amount 

of energy is the equivalent of a tax increase. 

Finally, I want to be sure that EPA is listening to concerns of 

the regulated industry concerning the accuracy of the data that 

they rely on. I continually hear that EPA has incorrect data and 

incorrect calculations. I want to be sure that they constantly are 

willing to ensure that they are accurate in the assumptions they 

make when they impose new rules. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Lautenberg, thanks for joining us. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on these issues. I think they rank among the primary concerns 

that all of us have. 

We face a funny dilemma that says, well, you can choose between 

extending life, and I heard the Senator from Alabama very clearly 

talk about the benefits that we have gotten from the Clean Air Act, 

and I am a living example of what has happened with longevity in 

our society. So that has improved, and I would like it to continue, 

if that is not too selfish. But there we are. We see positive results. 

And I don’t understand why it is that we can’t do what we have 

to do in the economy as well as for people’s health. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that a letter to the Wall Street Journal 

dated December 2010 from eight utilities that says we are OK with 

EPA’s new air quality regulations, and these are outstanding companies, including Exelon and PSE&G in my State, other well 

known companies, and they say it is OK. So we know that the 

health of our children depends not only on what we do, but also 

on what our neighbors do, and that is why so many of us have 

worked so hard to keep second-hand smoke out of children’s lungs. 

Yet, when the emissions from a power plant in one State threaten 

the citizens of another, too often little or nothing is done about it, 

and we can’t make any mistakes. 

10 

Pollution doesn’t recognize State boundaries. Dirty air blows into 

New Jersey from many other areas as well, including States in the 

Midwest, where companies continue to build taller smoke stacks 

that shield local residents from health risks, but put others in danger. The Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to correct 

this problem by cutting power plant emission from 31 upwind 

States. This could slash sulfur pollution in half and save as many 

as 36,000 lives a year. I don’t know how you put a numerical value 

on that, but it has to be pretty high. 

Power plants are also a major source of air toxics like dioxins, 

which can cause birth defects; lead, which damages nervous systems and reduces children’s intelligence levels; and arsenic, which 

causes cancer. One of the worst of these air toxics is mercury. 

Brain poison for children. Mercury can seriously damage a child’s 

kidney, liver, and nervous system. Pregnant women who are exposed to high levels of mercury are also very vulnerable. And there 

are newborns; they experience brain damage, learning disabilities, 

and hearing loss. So we don’t discover these things until a much 

later period of time. 

The EPA wants to cut the emissions of air toxics like mercury 

by as much as 90 percent and I would like them to do it. The proposed rule has been in the making since 1990, when both parties 

came together to pass the Clean Air Act amendment. But now big 

polluters and their friends in Congress are stalling, claiming it is 

going to cost businesses too much money to comply, and I believe 

it is nonsense. EPA simply wants to hold all companies to the 

standards used at the cleanest plants, which have shown that they 

can succeed by investing in clean technology. 

To our colleagues who claim these measures will be too costly to 

businesses, we have to ask what about the health cost of breathing 

dirty air? How do you put a price on human life? EPA’s proposed 

pollution control measures are now more than a decade overdue 

and children a paying a price while industry and its lawyers and 

lobbyists create delays. The bottom line is rules and regulations 

aren’t making our children sick; pollution is making our children 

sick. And we have to do a heck of a lot more to protect kids from 

dangerous of dirty air. 

My oldest grandchild, 17 years old, has asthma and we know 

what happens with him when the polluted air is heavy. My daughter, when she takes him to play sports, he is pretty athletic, she 

first looks for an emergency clinic to make sure that, if he starts 

wheezing, she can get him there on time, because in our family my 

sister, who was asthmatic, tried to get to her car where she had 

her respirator, from a school board meeting and she didn’t make 

it out of the parking lot, collapsed, and died 3 days later from asthma. 

So when we have a chance to do something to keep people 

healthy, keep them alive, then why look at the dark side? Look at 

the positive side. 

I look forward to hearing our witnesses about how we can work 

together to ensure all Americans have clean, safe air to breathe, 

and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Lautenberg, thank you for sharing that 

with us. 

11 

The first panel is going to be one witness. On the second panel 

we have several witnesses who are going to be testifying. 

Senator Cornyn has been good enough to come by to introduce 

one of his own, the Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Bryan Shaw. Senator Cornyn, you are recognized 

at this time. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I 

appreciate your courtesy. I could only imagine if the Golden Rule 

were applied by the Senate and Congress in Washington on a daily 

basis, I can’t help but think this would be a better place to work 

and we would do a better job representing our constituents. But I 

appreciate Senator Barrasso and Senator Inhofe making a formal 

request for me to participate as though I were a member of the 

panel, but as you and I discussed when you were kind enough to 

come by my office yesterday, I think my concerns are going to be 

adequately expressed by this statement, and I know the panel 

members will ask further questions that will elucidate the matters 

that I thought needed covering. 

But I want to be here particularly to welcome the Chairman of 

the Texas Council on Environmental Quality, Dr. Bryan Shaw, and 

to speak on behalf of Texas, who may be significantly impacted by 

the Clean Air Transport Rule. I appreciate the opportunity to 

speak and I know Dr Shaw will address several issues concerning 

EPA’s action on the second panel, but I want to focus my limited 

time on reports that EPA is planning to sweep Texas into the final 

CATR sulfur dioxide program without due process. And what I 

mean by due process, I mean simply notice and the opportunity to 

be heard, a matter of fundamental fairness, which I believe, if 

Texas will be swept into this rule, will be denied. 

I hope this worst kept secret in town proves to be wrong, or, if 

it is right, that it is appropriately reconsidered. This anticipated inclusion was brought to my attention recently, and I have serious 

concerns regarding the legality of this action and the projected 

harm it will do to electricity producers and consumers and job creators in my home State. I agree with the panel that we all want 

clean air and clean water. We also need to consider, I don’t think 

it is unreasonable to consider the impact on consumers who are already suffering from high gasoline prices, high food prices, and, 

many places, high unemployment. So I think it is important to consider all of those factors in determining the cost-benefit of any rule. 

By way of background, the EPA did propose to include Texas in 

the CATR nitrogen oxides program, but Texas was not one of the 

28 States EPA proposed to include in the CATR SO2 program. 

While EPA did request comments on the hypothetical future emissions as a basis for potentially including Texas in the SO2 annual 

standard program, it is critical that the EPA never altered its original position excluding Texas or proposal for comment in SO2 emissions budget for Texas or specified any other type of SO2 requirement, despite issuing three supplemental notices regarding aspects 

of the proposed CATR rule since it was originally published. 

12 

My understanding is that if included in the CATR annual program, the State of Texas will be required to reduce its SO2 emissions by around 45 percent in just 6 months. Forty-five percent in 

6 months, due to several incorrect assumptions about the State’s 

ability to comply in that period of time. EPA assumes that most 

Texas power plants have or will immediately stop using Texas lignite as fuel and that dramatic reductions can be achieved with existing and currently planned pollution controls, or fuel switching, 

without a significant impact on the Texas economy and on Texas 

consumers. 

Yet, a diverse group of stakeholders, including union workers, 

chemical companies, investor-owned utilities, municipally owned 

utilities, and others, have expressed significant concerns that compliance costs will require significant capital investment estimated 

at about $1 billion. Jobs will be lost due to closures and drastic reductions in plant operations, and between 7,000 and 13,000 

megawatts of generation would be immediately be at risk in the 

State, and the loss of generation would drastically reduce our 

power grid’s reverse margin. 

Earlier this week we had a hot day, and that won’t surprise you, 

in Texas and the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas, or 

ERCOT, issued an energy emergency alert level 1 for power reserves falling to less than 2300 megawatts. If reserves fall to less 

than 1750 megawatts, power loads can be interrupted. 

This is only the beginning of the summer, and the EPA’s anticipated rules will force significant base load to shut down and reserve margins to dip down even further. If we have an unplanned 

significant outage due to a storm or other unforeseen event, many 

people in Texas could end up without power and air conditioning 

on some of the hottest days of the year. 

And I would just point out that last week, when I was in Austin, 

I was startled by the news that Amarillo, Texas, in the northern 

part of Texas, usually a little cooler than the rest of the State, had 

temperatures at 111 degrees. So that is a threat to health and life 

like some of the other factors that Senator Lautenberg and others 

have mentioned. 

Any inclusion of Texas in CATR’s SO2 program should be done 

with a full and open process in compliance with the Administrative 

Procedures Act. I believe to include Texas without notice and an 

opportunity to be heard would be a violation of that law. Instead, 

stakeholders have had to rely on tidbits from those inside the agency about the fate of our State. This, if it is true, would be an abuse 

of power. Every State deserves to know what is being asked of it 

and the opportunity to comment on proposed emission reduction 

budgets and other requirements that will impact the lives of its 

citizens. This rule will impact the elderly and children who depend 

on air conditioning at their homes in a hot summer, and the livelihoods of millions of hardworking Texas. 

My home State has created 37 percent of new jobs in this Country in the last year. In fact, the one thing I hear over and over 

again is the enormous strain that the uncertainty of regulation is 

having on job creators not just in my State, but around the Country. 

13 

If EPA believes that Texas should be included in CATR’s annual 

program, it should demonstrate that inclusion is necessary, that it 

is justified, and that it is beneficial through a transparent process. 

I know the Administration has heard from Democrats, this is not 

a partisan issue, heard from Democrats, Republicans, members in 

labor and management, and other job creators in the State. I am 

hopeful that the EPA will reconsider including Texas in the final 

rule without due process. The stakes are too high to forego adequate process for the citizens of our State and, frankly, we deserve 

better from the Federal Government and the EPA. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make 

this statement, and I want to thank you for allowing me to welcome Chairman Shaw for coming here, and I hope you will enjoy 

his testimony. Thank you so much. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Good to see you. 

Thank you for the introduction. 

With that, I think we will turn to our first panel, a one-woman 

show. We welcome Gina McCarthy back for this panel. Gina 

McCarthy is the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and 

Radiation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. She has 

served in that capacity now for just over 2 years. 

Ms. McCarthy, you will have 5 minutes to deliver your opening 

statement. The full content of your written statement will be included in the record, and then we would like to ask some questions 

of you . But you are recognized at this time. Welcome. It is great 

to have you here. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GINA MCCARTHY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the Subcommittee. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify on the need to reduce harmful air 

pollution from power plants. 

It is time to start cleaning up. That is what the Administrator 

told the Edison Electric Institute. The Administrator discussed the 

need to begin investing now to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants. But it wasn’t Administrator Jackson; that was Administrator Leavitt, who made 

those statements more than 7 years ago. 

As acknowledged by the title of this hearing, we are not the first 

administration to recognize the need to clean up power plants and 

to issue rules to address that need. 

Over the years, many power plants have invested in modern pollution control equipment to reduce their emissions and to help provide healthier air to all our citizens. Many other power plants, 

however, have simply not made those investments. 

Effective technologies for controlling SOx, NOx, and mercury 

emissions from power plants have been available for more than 30 

years, yet a substantial portion of the coal fleet lacks these advanced pollution control equipment. For example, although SO2 

scrubbers have been available for 35 years, well over a third of the 

coal capacity has yet to apply them. Many of these uncontrolled 

14 

units are small and were built before the Clean Air Act was enacted more than 40 years ago. 

Electric power plants today are the Country’s largest source of 

SO2 and mercury and the largest stationary source of NOx. These 

plants cause smog and fine particle pollution, acid rain, and exposure to mercury and other toxic pollutants which contribute significantly to a wide variety of public health and environmental problems. At recent air pollution levels, exposure to fine particles from 

all types of sources, including power plants, is believed to still 

cause between 130,000 and 320,000 premature deaths each and 

every year, while smog exposure prematurely ends the lives of an 

additional 4700 Americans. 

The Bush administration recognized the need to clean up power 

plants and issued two rules to do so, the Clean Air InterState Rule 

and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. The Court of Appeals, however, 

held that these rules did not meet the Clean Air Act requirements 

and they told EPA to redo them. 

To replace these two overturned rules, we will soon be issuing 

two rules, the Clean Air Transport Rule, which we are talking 

about today, as well as finalize the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards in November. 

We are not pursuing these rules, however, just because the Clean 

Air Act requires it and because the courts told us we had to do it. 

We are pursuing these rules because they will dramatically improve public health. They are affordable and they are technologically achievable. 

The Clean Air Transport Rule is designed to help States achieve 

the health-based ambient air quality standards for both smog and 

soot. It will require reductions in power plant emissions in NOx 

and SO2 in the middle and eastern portions of the Country. 

We have also proposed the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards to 

control emissions of toxic air pollutants from power plants. 

The Transport Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standards are 

projected to avoid tens of thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks, cases of acute bronchitis, hospital and emergency room department visits, as well as hundreds of thousands of cases of aggravated asthma and millions of days when people will miss work or 

school each and every year. 

Some in industry are calling us to move quickly, even more 

quickly than they are proposing on these rules. The Clean Energy 

Group recently said needed regulatory certainty will result from 

EPA’s timely implementation of regulations consistent with the 

Clean Air Act, which is in the best interests of the electricity industry, the market, and customers. 

Over the last 40 years, the Clean Air Act has provided a success 

story of which all Americans can and should be proud. Key air pollutants are down more than 60 percent, while our economy has 

grown by over 200 percent. Each dollar we have spent cleaning up 

the air has given us more than $30 in benefits. And the investments in the cleaner energy sector required by these standards will 

keep people working and it will create jobs. 

The Clean Air Transport Rule and Mercury Air Toxics Standards 

are continuing the successful history of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s implementation of it. 

15 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 

16 


23818.001
17 


23818.002
18 


23818.003
19 


23818.004
20 


23818.005
21 


23818.006
22 


23818.007
23 


23818.008
24 


23818.009
25 


23818.010
26 


23818.011
27 


23818.012
28 


23818.013
29 


23818.014
30 


23818.015
31 


23818.016
32 


23818.017
33 


23818.018
34 


23818.019
35 


23818.020
36 


23818.021
37 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy. 

Before we get started with questions, I want to ask unanimous 

consent to place into the record two letters to me from the Institute 

of Clean Air Companies and the American Federation of Labor that 

State that labor availability will in no way constrain industry from 

complying with the proposed Transport Rule or Air Toxics Rule. 

I also ask unanimous consent to place into the record a letter to 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson from Ms. Angela Davis, mother 

from Pennsylvania. She writes in support of the Air Toxics Rule 

and tells her terrible story of losing her 17 year old son Cameron 

to asthma. 

If there is no objection, those will be made a part of the record. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 

38 


23818.359
39 

Senator CARPER. Ms. McCarthy, again, thank you for your testimony and for your service. I just want to start off by saying you 

have the opportunity here, not only Senator Cornyn’s introduction 

for his Commissioner from Texas, but also to make some additional 

comments. Anything that you want to say just in response to some 

of Senator Cornyn’s comments? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would appreciate the opportunity and again, 

Senator, thank you for your leadership on these issues. 

We have looked extensively and we have met with the company 

and we have spoken on the Texas issues and their concerns related 

to the Transport Rule. Let me point out just a few things. One is 

that the process that we used, the public process we used related 

to the Transport Rule thoroughly addressed both the legal requirements under the Act to look at the air pollutants that Texas is contributing to their downwind neighbors. We also did extensive modeling to show what the most cost-effective emissions could be 

achieved in Texas commensurate with what we believe to be the 

significant contribution to downwind States. 

We are very confident that we not only met our legal obligation, 

but we also met the spirit of the law. We actually identified and 

sought comments on including Texas for the variety of pollutants 

that we were looking at. We actually received comments from both 

TCEQ, as well as the regulated community that talked in detail—— 

Senator CARPER. Comments from what? What was the acronym 

you used? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. TCEQ. That is the Texas—— 

Senator CARPER. Council on Environmental Quality? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. 

Mr. SHAW. Commission on Environmental Quality. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Commission on Environmental Quality, TCEQ. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That was their Chairman, Bryan Shaw. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And we firmly believe that we have met not only 

our legal obligation, but we are basically—the State and the regulated community provided great comments, and we know they understand and we will consider those comments in the final. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. Thanks for saying that. Could 

you take a moment to discuss with us how the Transport Rule, that 

is, the one replacing the Clean Air InterState Rule, tries to ensure 

that we are all better neighbors when it comes to air pollution? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. I believe that—I don’t cover this too much— 

you are more than familiar with the Clean Air InterState Rule, but 

it was a rule that intended to address the clean neighbor provisions 

in the Clean Air Act, in other words, that downwind States 

shouldn’t have to suffer the air pollution from upwind States that 

are causing them to be out of air quality attainment, have bad air 

quality, or to continue to achieve that air quality through maintenance operations. 

The Clean Air InterState Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule 

were found by the courts to be failing in terms of meeting the obligations of the Clean Air Act. The courts told us that they would 

40 

remand it back to the agency, but we needed to be expeditious in 

terms of replacing those rules with rules that would meet the test 

of the Clean Air Act and the courts. 

Senator CARPER. When can we see a final Transport Rule from 

EPA? I am hoping it is going to be soon. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Next week. 

Senator CARPER. Next week. All right. That is pretty soon. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is soon. 

Senator CARPER. Monday? Probably not Monday. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I will go off over the weekend and will 

contemplate it, Senator, but it will be middle of the week next 

week. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And thank you for your patience. 

Senator CARPER. Sure. A couple of my colleagues talked to you 

about how important energy costs are in driving economic development or job creation in certain States. As Governor, I worked for 

8 years on economic development and job creation. I loved it and 

still do. I describe myself as a recovering Governor. 

And there are any number of factors that companies consider 

when they are deciding whether to create jobs, put up shop in a 

particular area of a State, grow jobs or not grow jobs. They look 

at schools, they look at quality of schools; they look at access to decisionmakers; they look at look at regulations, whether or not the 

regulations use common sense; they look at access to transportation; they look at crime. They look at all kinds of stuff. They also 

look at energy costs, and some of them look at a lot of energy costs, 

and a lot of them look at health care costs, given how much health 

care costs are. 

And, for me, one of the things that drives me crazy is that we 

have to compete with States that have lower—for jobs, we have to 

compete with other States for jobs where they burn dirty fuel, they 

put out a lot of air pollution, they get cheap, in some cases, coalcreated electricity. It is cheap for them and they send the pollution 

over to us, and then we have to take special safeguards that drive 

up our energy costs to compensate for the cheap energy costs that 

our neighbors have. And, on top of that, we end up with more air 

pollution in our State from their State and it drives up our health 

care costs. That is just not fair. That is just not fair. Do you have 

any comment on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I would agree with you. The Clean Air 

Act actually intended that when national ambient air quality 

standards were changed, that this upwind issue, this interState 

transport of pollution would be addressed. It simply hasn’t been effectively addressed. It has caused an economic disparity, where 

some States that are the receivers of this pollution have to spend 

much more money to take a look at eking out pollution reductions 

that in upwind States would be much cheaper to produce for the 

American public. 

And it is a level playing field issue, it is a good neighbor issue, 

it is a fairness and equity issue, and it is time that we took action 

and moved these rules forward that will provide everybody equal 

opportunity for clean air. I have worked in States, as you have 

lived in, where I believe that we could shut the entire State down 

41 

and still not produce the clean air that our citizens are looking for. 

That has to change. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. In 1998, the agency, EPA, completed a report to Congress on the health impact of air toxic emissions from utilities and whether utilities should be regulated under 

the air toxics framework in the Clean Air Act. Could you take 

maybe a minute, that is about what I have left, and describe this 

report and the results? I am thinking the report was due sometime 

like in 1993. Maybe you can clarify that for us, if you would, 

please. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. There were two reports that were required 

in the 1990 Clean Air Act; one had to do with looking at all of the 

health and science around the issues of mercury: Is it a pollutant? 

Is it a pollutant that is posing significant risk to public health and 

the environment? And the other was specifically looking at the utilities as whether or not they are a major contributor and should be 

regulated under the Clean Air Act. 

And those studies were completed in the end of 1997 and 1998; 

they underpinned the decision of the EPA that mercury is a toxic 

constituent; it is a pollutant that threatens, in particular, the 

health of our children; that it needed to be addressed. It also 

verified that utilities are the major stationary contributor toward 

the emissions of mercury in our atmosphere. 

And this decision led to an appropriate necessary decision that 

said that utility mercury emissions and emissions of other hazardous air pollutants should be regulated under the provisions in 

which we are now moving forward to regulate it. And without these 

there is no Federal standard to control toxic emissions from this 

Country’s largest stationary source of emissions without this rule 

moving forward. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. Thanks very much for 

those responses. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

You do have a high responsibility, Ms. McCarthy, and I understand that, but you would acknowledge that, for example, with regard to mercury, President Bush’s regulations would drop the mercury emissions 70 percent. Now EPA wants to go to 90 percent. Do 

you know whether or not that extra 20 percent will cost as much 

as the first 70? Don’t we have an extra cost when you reduce the 

emissions closer and closer to zero? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I appreciate the question, and EPA 

looks very closely at both the costs and the benefits. The benefits 

and cost ratio for the Mercury Air Toxics Rule is going to be very 

significantly leaning toward many more benefits as opposed to cost. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we have a number of challenges. On 

how we achieve those we can disagree. I know the Chairman 

shares a belief that nuclear power can be one of our clean energy 

sources. Natural gas is cleaner. But both of those sources—cleaner 

than coal. Both of those sources are under environmental attack 

and it is hard to move forward with them in a way that would economically make sense for America, it seems to me. 

What is the compliance deadline for the Transport Rule and the 

Utility MACT? Are those deadlines mandated by courts, are they 

42 

your deadlines, and is there any opportunity to seek compliance or 

delays in order to reasonably transition? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The statutory deadline for the rules related to 

MACT, which is our Toxics Standards, are a 3-year window for 

compliance. States usually, and often, give a 1-year extra window, 

which we would encourage in this rule, and we are encouraging. 

That is a 4-year window in order to comply with the rules from the 

date of the rule becoming effective. 

Senator SESSIONS. And when would those likely be? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are intending to complete the rule in November of this year, which means the compliance window would be November 2014 or 2015, depending upon whether the State gives that 

extra year. 

Senator SESSIONS. I have learned that some of the EPA proposed 

Transport Rule was based on incorrect data and assumptions. Are 

you aware of any of those problems and are you committed to ensuring that the data you actually base a decision on is accurate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are certainly openly and we will be reviewing all of the comments and will consider those in the final. EPA 

has no interest in basing its decisions on inaccurate or incomplete 

data and we believe that we will have the data sufficient to make 

this decision. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to ozone, we have made some 

real progress in ozone reduction; the standards have gone from 125 

parts per billion to 75 today. The first drop was to 85, and then 

85 to 75. And now I understand you are considering ozone standards as low as 60 parts per billion. But one of the things that is 

troubling about this to me is the alteration of the normal standard 

of evaluation of ozone, the 5-year review process. 

In other words, the last reduction went from 85 to 75. That is 

a 13 or so percent reduction. The previous one was from 125 to 85, 

a 33 percent. But as you get that number lower, there is a lot of 

naturally occurring ozone and it is harder to get each percentage 

below, I think you would recognize. So EPA’s reconsideration of the 

2008 ozone determination is occurring outside the normal 5-year 

window, or at least inside it; it is about 2 years or 3 years instead 

of the 5-years. 

How do you justify that? Don’t you think that a rational policy 

would be a gradual, sustained, reasonable reduction of ozone? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we are moving forward the 5-year review of ozone, but when Administrator Jackson came into office, we 

were facing litigation requiring the prior administration’s decision 

to make a determination that 75 ppb was the appropriate level for 

ozone. That was outside of the range of science-based information 

that the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee recommended to 

the agency at that time. The Administrator decided that rather 

than litigate, she would work with the litigants to put that litigation on hold; she would revisit the science. She didn’t believe that 

the decision that the Bush administration was actually commensurate with the science at the time it was made; it was in conflict 

with the recommendations of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, and she was appropriate, rather than to defend that standard and to move forward with it, to reconsider that, and that decision will be made at the end of July. 

43 

Senator SESSIONS. It is a very significant matter, and numbers I am seeing are that it costs as much as $90 billion. And we have 

to ask ourselves whether the path we are on, a steady reduction, 

closer and closer to situations in which certain days naturally occurring in the summer in my State get close to 60 parts per billion, 

I am told, naturally. So I don’t know exactly what that figure is 

and the appropriate number is, but I do believe that you are accelerating that beyond what was expected and it is going to have a 

great cost and is causing some concern. 

Mr. Chairman, I think Senator Barrasso will be back shortly, 

and I thank you for the opportunity to—— 

Senator CARPER. Should we wait for him? What do you think? 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. to ask these questions. 

Senator CARPER. All right. You bet. Thanks. 

Senator Sessions raised questions, justifiably so, about the cost 

of implementation of these regulations and one of the things that 

you may recall that Senator Alexander and I worked on for years 

is legislation that would step down over time emissions of sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury; and our goal for mercury was 

to reduce emissions by as much as 90 percent. I think we asked 

for and got a GAO study that showed mercury reductions can be 

obtained at that level for as low as, I think, $0.10 a month for families who use electricity, and I would ask unanimous consent to 

submit that EPA study for the record. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would be glad to see that. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Sure. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

44 


23818.367
45 


23818.368
46 


23818.369
47 


23818.370
48 


23818.371
49 


23818.372
50 


23818.373
51 


23818.374
52 


23818.375
53 


23818.376
54 


23818.377
55 


23818.378
56 


23818.379
57 


23818.380
58 


23818.381
59 


23818.382
60 


23818.383
61 


23818.384
62 


23818.385
63 


23818.386
64 


23818.387
65 


23818.388
66 


23818.389
67 


23818.390
68 


23818.391
69 


23818.392
70 


23818.393
71 


23818.394
72 


23818.395
73 


23818.396
74 


23818.397
75 


23818.398
76 


23818.399
77 


23818.400
78 


23818.401
79 


23818.402
80 


23818.403
81 


23818.404
82 


23818.405
83 


23818.406
84 


23818.407
85 


23818.408
86 


23818.409
87 


23818.410
88 


23818.411
89 


23818.412
90 


23818.413
91 

Senator CARPER. All right, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. We have this debate going on here about whether or not things that will improve 

health are affordable, and I mentioned before the Wall Street Journal article, a letter to the editor written by eight companies, including Public Service Electric & Gas, Calpine Corporation, National 

Grid USA, Exelon, Austin Energy Texas Company, that says we 

are OK with EPA’s new air quality regulation; and it goes on to 

suggest that plants are retiring old plants because of EPA’s regulations fails to recognize that the lower power prices and depressed 

demand are the primary retirement drivers. 

Contrary to the complaints by the claims that EPA’s agenda will 

have negative economic consequences, our companies, they say, experience complying with air quality regulation demonstrates that 

regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job 

creation, while maintaining reliability. How do we ignore that evidence, I can’t quite comprehend. 

Now, people in my State of New Jersey are suffering because a 

coal-fired plant just across the river in Pennsylvania is pumping 

dangerous levels of sulfur dioxide into the air. It is the Portland 

Generating Station in Pennsylvania, located just across the Delaware River from New Jersey, and is the primary source of sulfur 

dioxide pollution in several New Jersey counties. In fact, the Portland Generating Station in Pennsylvania emits more sulfur pollution than all of the power plants in New Jersey combined. 

So we have this problem. Emissions from the plants are causing 

some New Jersey counties to exceed Federal limits for sulfur dioxide that causes serious breathing problems for children, the elderly, 

and people with asthma. EPA has proposed reducing sulfur pollution from the plants by more than 80 percent. 

Ms. McCarthy, when will EPA finalize the rule and offer some 

relief to those people in New Jersey who are breathing that polluted air? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. First of all, Senator, I hope you are proud of 

your State of New Jersey; they did a wonderful job on the petition 

and the data that they presented. We have been working closely 

with them. As you know, we have proposed some control strategies, 

a Federal implementation plan to address these pollutants from 

that particular facility. We have finished the comment period, we 

have finished the hearings, and we will be issuing that final decision this summer. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. This summer? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, end of summer, potentially September. 

But we are moving forward. We want it to be defensible and we 

think you have made a very strong case. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Terrific. Earlier this week OMB released 

a report that found EPA rules had cost polluters roughly $25 billion, while providing as much as $550 billion in public benefits over 

the last decade. Should we expect this pattern of modest cost to 

polluters, large benefits to the public to continue if EPA follows 

through on the rulemakings you have had in the works? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, EPA has had 40 years of history in 

doing exactly what you suggest, which is to find the most cost-effective ways to achieve the greatest amount of public health benefit. 

92 

What the OMB study showed is that we are still on track, as we 

have been for 40 years. We are going to maintain that track record. 

And the Clean Air Transport Rule that you are talking about today 

is exactly the same rule with high benefits, low costs. The Mercury 

Rule is the same. So we are proud of these and they will continue 

in the course that we have set for the Clean Air Act. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. On balance, the benefits far exceed the 

costs. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They do, on a balance of 30 to 1, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to issue 

air toxic rules that force polluting facilities to operate as cleanly as 

other companies in their industry that have already invested in 

pollution controls. What message might it send the companies that 

invested in technology to reduce the pollution decades ago if we are 

going to delay those rules yet again? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the major concern and what you are 

hearing from the Clean Energy Group is that for those who have 

invested in clean energy, we are not allowing them to run their 

units as they are available to run and, instead, basically investing 

in the dirty ones by allowing them to make more profits while the 

cleaner ones sit by. I think we need to recognize the public health 

costs of that pollution and that cost should be reflected in the way 

in which we meet our energy obligations in this Country. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. A former high-ranking EPA official who 

left the agency during the Bush administration told the New York 

Times that a decade-long delay in air toxic rules says, ‘‘costs thousands of lives.’’ Now, you recently put an end to that delay by proposing limits on the largest sources of air toxics, but polluting industries continue to lobby to prevent these long-overdue rules. 

What would be the impact of further delaying or weakening these 

rules in terms of illness and loss of life? What might we expect? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The Mercury Air Toxics Rule alone would reduce 

premature deaths by 17,000 every year. The Transport Rule has 

equal size benefits, and actually even more. We are talking about 

lives lost, work days lost. We are talking about exacerbated asthma 

levels. We are talking about hospital and emergency room visits. 

Those are real costs to American workers, to American families, 

and to our children? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Ms. McCarthy. 

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that the Massachusetts accent 

lends charm to the facts that we are hearing, so well delivered. 

Thank you, Ms. McCarthy. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thanks, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. I knew it wasn’t Mississippi, that’s for sure. 

Maybe we will go another 2 minutes or so, and then we will go 

to our newt panel. 

Recently, American Electric Power, AEP, stated that they are retiring, I believe, some 6,000 megawatts in the next couple of years, 

and all these retirements are due to recent clean air regulations 

proposed under your watch. However, didn’t AEP agree to retrofit 

or retire most of the megawatts in question under consent decrees 

with former President Bush’s EPA? And is it your understanding 

that AEP’s retirement announcement includes facilities listed in 

past consent decrees? 

93 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Many of the facilities that they indicated would 

be retiring as a result of our rules have already been under consent 

agreements. In fact, 20 of them were already under consent agreements to retire or upgrade with proper pollution control equipment. 

In addition, as we all know, announcements have been made that 

retirements are in the offing for some of these smaller, inefficient; 

they simply can’t compete in the market. So what AEP was doing 

was confusing information by attributing market conditions and 

their failure to comply with earlier required reductions with the 

impacts of these rules. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. Another question is in testimony from an earlier hearing, a company mentioned that they 

had several coal-fired units that are currently not being scrubbed 

and, therefore, may have to close down or switch to natural gas, 

if possible, due to the air toxics regulations. Many of the sites in 

question were installed over 50 years ago, over a half century ago. 

How efficient are these coal-fired plants today if they are running 

on 50-year-old technology? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would say, Senator, first, that these rules seek 

the most cost-effective ways to make these reductions. Our coalfired power plants now are, on average, over 50 years old. What we 

see is that those units are at least, the average, 20 percent efficient 

than the units that are constructed today, and many of them are 

nearly 40 percent less efficient. They are simply not competitive if 

they have to compete on a level playing field. But those are market 

decisions. Our decisions don’t drive those retirements. Our decisions drive the installation of cost-effective, available pollution control equipments that save lives. 

Senator CARPER. Good. A third question, in the 1970 and 1990 

Clean Air Act amendments, Congress delayed air control requirements for older coal plants because apparently we thought that 

most of the old plants would still retire. The thought of investing 

in new technologies at a plant that wouldn’t be around much 

longer didn’t really seem logical at the time. But looking back, did 

many of these coal plants actually retire? And what would you 

guess is the average age of our coal fleet, any idea? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We did not see the retirements that the Clean 

Air Act expected. We now have a coal fleet that, on average, is over 

50 years old. We see them being more inefficient than current technologies and we see the availability of equipment that can be installed that will help them reduce the pollution that was expected 

under the Clean Air Act. So I would say that what we are seeing 

now, though, is, with the change in the market that inexpensive 

natural gas has brought to the table, that you are seeing a change 

in the position of those, the marketability of those units and the 

electricity they generate. So many retirements are expected just 

simply as a result of inexpensive natural gas, but that gives us the 

opportunity at this point, frankly, to have an ability to bring costeffective reductions to the table. 

However, I would also add that it will not reduce, and we don’t 

predict a significant number of retirements attributable to these 

rules. We are talking about 10 gigawatts of coal retirement. There 

are 300 gigawatts of coal retirement in the system today and there 

is 1,000 gigawatts of electricity generation today. 

94 

So we are talking about a small amount of retirements attributable to this rule and the installation of pollution control equipment in the vast majority of those larger units that are necessary 

and functioning and competitive, and that is going to produce the 

results that we are looking for that will have such significant public health benefits without increasing significantly electricity costs. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks so much. 

Senator Merkley, welcome. Good to see you. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good to be 

here. 

Thank you for your testimony. I wanted to ask for EPA’s perspective on coal plants that have agreed to a negotiated shutdown but 

are now making or needing to make new investments in pollution 

control technologies. Specifically, we have a plant in Boardman, Oregon that has negotiated to shut down all coal firing by 2020. But 

if they upgrade all their pollution controls to meet the requirements, then they feel like they need to keep the plant open longer 

in order to be able to recoup the investment in those technologies. 

Does EPA have any flexibility on specific pollution reduction targets if it can also take into consideration a State-negotiated and 

federally enforceable shutdown, especially if that produces a better 

picture in terms of total emissions reduction? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we are more than happy to sit down 

with the folks who have negotiated the settlement and with 

Boardman themselves. We think that the agreement that was 

reached is quite remarkable. I think that you should be very proud 

of them, their attitude in working with all of the concerned citizens, as well as our regional EPA offices, and coming up with this 

agreement, and we are more than happy to look at what flexibilities are available to us on a one-on-one basis to take a look at how 

we can accommodate this agreement and ensure that they have 

certainty moving forward. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I think that would be very helpful. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator CARPER. You are welcome. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCarthy, Senator Cornyn was here, had a couple of questions. In the Clean Air Transport Rule proposal, EPA excluded 

Texas from the SOx trading program, but now sources say that 

Texas will be included in the final rule. All EPA did in the proposal 

was, in a single sentence, asked for comment on possibly including 

Texas. No specific program elements, such as emission budgets, 

were provided for public review and comment, as they were for 

every other State included in the trading program. So obviously we 

have serious concerns that this violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Is your position otherwise? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. My position is that Texas was in the CAIR program, it had requirements and, as you know, the Transport Rule 

is replacing the Clean Air InterState Rule. We did provide sufficient notice that we had concerns about the significant contribution 

of Texas. As you indicated, we sought comment on that issue, 

which we are required to do under the law. 

95 

We will take a look at the comments we received, but I will tell 

you that in our record, when that is released with the Transport 

Rule as it is released next week, you will see that the regulated 

community, as well as the State, did not miss that sentence; they 

actually understood the implications. They provided significant 

comment and we will make our decision on the basis of that comment and sound data that we have available to understand the significant contribution that the State of Texas might make to their 

downwind States. 

Senator BARRASSO. This EPA appears to be rushing to issue as 

many new rules and regulations as it possibly can, and it seems 

to be making critical mistakes in the analysis that can have huge 

impacts on the recovery of our economy. For example, the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality points to a number of careless errors in an analysis EPA did provide in support of its Clean 

Air Transport Rule, hypothetical assumption about future Texas 

emissions. At a plant EPA predicted to have an increase of more 

than 15,000 tons per year in SOx, there actually is an enforceable 

cap on emissions that reduces the emissions by more than 27,000 

tons per year. 

In light of these and other discrepancies, how is it that the EPA’s 

last minute addition of Texas is not just arbitrary and capricious 

when EPA attempts to base a regulatory program not on what is 

actually happening, but on flawed data and mistake-ridden predictions about future emission levels that don’t exist? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I would say that we do not believe that 

we are rushing to judgment or we will produce a rule that is based 

on inaccurate data. We are not rushing; it has been 20 years delay 

in terms of bringing this rule in addressing the issues associated 

with interState pollution. We are not rushing to judgment. We will 

take a look at the data that is available to us and we will make 

a sound decision, and that decision will be based on quality data 

and sound analysis. 

Senator BARRASSO. So do you dispute the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality’s pointing out the careless errors in the 

analysis that the EPA provided in support of your rule in terms of 

assumptions that were made? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do believe that every rule is a challenge in 

terms of getting every number right, and we take that challenge 

very seriously. There was an error that was pointed out to us very 

early in the process on one computation that had to do with a small 

amount of information that had no impact in terms of the outcome 

of the decisionmaking for the regulated community. We took public 

responsibility for that. We put a notice out; we correct that very 

early in the process. I do not believe that there are substantive 

data problems in either the proposal, and we certainly, though, will 

look at the comments we have received, and if TCEQ and others 

point out issues, we will look at those thoroughly and address them 

in the final rule. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you for admitting that there was 

an error in that, and I know that Texas is going to go on to continue to address this with you, as will I. 

You have often referenced EPA’s report of the benefits and costs 

of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 as justification for saying 

96 

that today’s EPA regulations will provide trillions in benefits. In 

congressional testimony before the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee on March 24th, you stated, EPA can’t monetize all of 

the benefits from recent Clean Air Act regulations. To the extent 

we can, however, you said, study indicates that the Clean Air Act 

will provide $2 trillion in benefits in 2020, over $30 in benefits for 

every dollar spent. 

The EPA relies upon their own cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Air Act when they cite this up to $2 trillion in annual economic 

benefits by 2020. Are you saying that in the absence of air quality 

regulations, that gross domestic product in 2020 would then only 

be $18 trillion because of the $2 trillion that you are taking under 

account? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, EPA doesn’t believe that gross domestic product is an appropriate measure of the economic success of 

the rules that we are doing and the cost-benefits. The only thing 

I would tell you, Senator, is that the study that I was quoting on 

cost effectiveness of our rules and the kind of benefits we bring to 

the American public versus cost was actually a study that was first 

envisioned by the legislature. 

It was heavily peer-reviewed by a body that the legislature asked 

us to create that has expert panels. It went through rigorous peer 

review process. So when you say it was an EPA cost-benefit study, 

everything that underpinned that rule went through scientific rigorous review by professionals in the field and it is done in accordance with the best economic practices. So while we filled the data 

in, it was done absolutely with everybody’s view and peer review, 

and we believe it is one of the most credible analytical reports that 

you will see today in terms of the cost-benefits of any rulemaking. 

Senator BARRASSO. Clearly, the Country is very concerned about 

the economy, 9.1 percent unemployment, getting that under control, getting people back to work, and we need to understand the 

true costs and benefits of the regulations coming out of your agency, but other agencies as well. So could you please explain why the 

total benefits in EPA’s study are based on public surveys of how 

much people are willing to pay to avoid slightly greater health 

risks and not more focused on economic considerations such as the 

GDP and employment, which I think is key to getting people back 

to work? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that the idea of using GDP as a measure 

of economic success is fine in the economic world, but we actually 

put a value on human life. There needs to be people out there 

working in jobs, getting to their jobs, sending their kids to school. 

What we have done in the IRAs, in the analysis of the Mercury and 

Air Toxics Rule is done a specific cost-benefit analysis that is not 

based on a survey or projections of what someone might want to 

pay, but actual economic analysis of the costs and benefits associated with this rule; and when we do that we see costs of $10.9 billion in 2015, as opposed to benefits of $59 billion to $140 billion. 

That is a credible cost-benefit analysis. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Chair, my time has expired. I have some 

additional questions that perhaps I could submit those for the 

record and get a written response. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Sounds great. 

97 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

I think that’s it. Senator Merkley, anything else? 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since I used only about 

30 seconds of my time, I would like to do one followup here, which 

is just to observe that recently a bipartisan delegation of Senators 

took a trip to China, 10 of us led by the majority leader, and what 

I was tremendously struck by was that virtually every conversation 

we had with a diplomat had some element of the health impact of 

the air in China on his or her family. We had one diplomat talking 

about the fact that—— 

Senator CARPER. Chinese diplomats? 

Senator MERKLEY. American diplomats. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Senator MERKLEY. American diplomats saying that they could 

only keep their family in the country for 2 years because of the advice of their physicians about the impact on the long-term health 

of their family. We had another diplomat saying that the children 

were all affected by China cough, which apparently is the term now 

used by the persistent cough, as if you were a smoker. 

And it took me by back, in a way, to being in Southern California, in LA, before the full impact to clean up the air in LA, 

where your eyes stung and your lungs were irritated, and I just 

want to say that I think Americans understand that there is just 

an enormous value to our quality of life to take pollutants out of 

the air, and thus the widespread support for clean air. It does have 

value and we appreciate having an agency that is recognizing that 

the environment and the economy are not at war together; they can 

be in partnership to make a better America for all. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for that statement. 

Ms. McCarthy, you are now excused. Thank you so much. Our 

colleagues have 2 weeks to ask some additional questions, and if 

someone does I would just ask that you respond promptly. But, 

again, we appreciate your presence, your testimony, your responses, and your service. We look forward to seeing you soon. 

Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. As our next panel comes to the witness table, 

I would observe I think we know, we realize we need electricity in 

this Country. Quality of life, if we didn’t have it, frankly, it 

wouldn’t be very good. And we generate electricity from a lot of different sources. Close to 50 percent of our electricity comes from 

coal, another 20 percent comes from nuclear. I would like to personally see that go up a little bit. We generate a fair amount of 

electricity from natural gas-fired power plants and I think we are 

going to see that continue to rise. Some comes from hydro. My hope 

is we will be generating some electricity off the East Coast here, 

including off Rehoboth Beach in a couple of years, about 12 miles 

out. But we all realize that we need electricity. 

We also need to be fair in the way that we generate that electricity, so that States that are generating electricity for their own 

use, for their own people, for their own businesses don’t disadvantage other States that happen to be downwind from them. And that 

98 

is what we are trying to get out and trying to do it in a way that 

is cost-effective and uses some common sense. 

Someone who is pretty good at using common sense is our lead 

off witness here, and his name is Collin O’Mara. He has been our 

Secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection for 

the State of Delaware, starting, I think, he was nominated by Jack 

Markell, Governor, when Jack was, I think, about 29 years old. I 

kid with him back home; if I had half his energy, I would be both 

president and vice president. This guy is a dynamo and just a great 

server to the people of Delaware. He is also currently the Chairman of the Ozone Transport Commission and is instrumental in 

making Delaware a leader in the global clean energy economy. 

We have Bryan Shaw. Bryan has been introduced also by John 

Cornyn, but he is the Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Welcome, sir. Very nice to see you, Dr. Shaw. 

Sue Tierney, Managing Principal of the Analysis Group, Incorporated. Ms. Tierney, great to see you. Thank you for coming. 

Barbara Walz, who is the Senior Vice President for Policy and 

Environment, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Incorporated. 

Welcome. 

And Mr. David Carpenter, who is the Director of the Institute of 

Health and Environment at the State University of New York at 

Albany. 

Our oldest son, Christopher, is going to go to work for a company 

that actually makes, part of their business model is to take the 

concept of the cleanest, most affordable form of energy is the energy we never use, a company called Honeywell. Actually, a big 

part of their business model is based on that and our son is going 

to be going to work next Monday, a week from Monday in that part 

of the business and is going to be living and working out of Albany, 

so you will have a new neighbor there, a new Carper to join the 

Carpenters. Welcome, Dr. Carpenter. 

Secretary, I want to welcome you and thank you for your time. 

Your testimony will be made part of the record and we will ask you 

to use about 5 minutes to do that. I understand you are under the 

gun to get to your next engagement back in Delaware, so we will 

try to be mindful of your time. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF COLLIN P. O’MARA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONTROL FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Mr. O’Mara. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you today. Before I testify to the broader transport challenges, I would first like 

to address the Utilities Toxics Rule just briefly. 

We believe the toxics rule proposed by EPA on May 3d to set 

emissions standards for hazardous air pollution from coal and oil 

electrical utility steam generating units will produce significant 

and cost-effective public health benefits. We also believe this is well 

overdue. The proposed emission standard is much superior to the 

existing CAMR trading approach. 

Since 2009, Delaware has actually already required that every 

coal-fired unit in the State, you control its mercury emissions by 

at least 90 percent. We develop our standards in consultation with 

99 

industry. Our experience has demonstrates that controlling toxic 

metals like mercury on a unit-by-unit basis is both cost-effective 

and technologically feasible. While there are several coal units in 

Delaware that are scheduled for shutdown, existing units ranging 

from 90 megawatts to 400 megawatts in size were all able to 

achieve these reductions in a cost-effective and timely manner. We 

adopted this approach because we do not believe it is proper to 

allow emissions trading or averaging of neurotoxins when cost-effective and site-specific reductions are possible. 

A strong complimentary Transport Rule would make the incremental lift necessary to meet the goals and requirements of the 

Toxics Rule much smaller. For example, acid gas emissions are 

eliminated with any level of scrubbing technology for sulfur dioxide, so we can actually achieve multi-pollutant reductions at the 

same time if we do these policies in tandem. 

Regarding the Transport Rule itself, as Senator Carper said earlier, Delaware’s air quality challenge is caused by both local emissions and emissions from upwind sources. In Delaware, as much as 

90 percent, that is 90 percent of our non-attainment problem comes 

from out-of-State sources; and, as a result, we face significant public health consequences, including higher than average rates of respiratory illness, lung disease, and asthma. 

Primarily due to this pollution transported into our State, all of 

Delaware is currently designated as non-attainment, or out of compliance with the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the NAAQS. Our most populace county, New Castle County, 

up north, is designated non-attainment for particulate matter as 

well. 

Up to now, Delaware has been able to offset the inadequate mitigation of transport by requiring additional control of its local 

sources above and beyond most States. Delaware has adopted numerous measures to meet the legal requirements of the Clean Air 

Act, including multi-pollutant regulations, transportation conformity, multiple rounds of control technology reviews, plus a myriad of other regional measures like paint regulations, gas cans, and 

other consumer products. And these have resulted in significant 

mitigation of Delaware’s local emissions and improvements in air 

quality. 

However, as we put together our plans to meet the new 75 parts 

per billions or lower standards, there are virtually no cost-effective 

pollution reduction options remaining for the State. In fact, our 

modeling shows, as you said earlier, that we could eliminate all 

stationary sources in the State of Delaware and still not achieve attainment under the likely new standard. 

For this reason, it is absolutely imperative that we find ways to 

reduce pollution from upwind sources that continue to impair air 

quality in Delaware and much of the ozone transport region. While 

ozone transport regions, as Senator Cardin said, of adopting most 

of the stringent and costly standards in the Nation and significantly reduced emissions, highly cost-effective emission reductions 

in upwind States continue to be possible even after the implementation of some reductions through the NOx and CAIR. Delaware 

and other downwind States have been a force to adopt more costly 

100 

control measures to a large extent because of the Federal failure 

to fully mitigate transport. 

This inequity in regulatory requirements has significant consequences and has contributed to relatively higher regional energy 

costs for OTR States compared to our counterparts, while EGUs 

and upwind States remain able to offer lower cost electricity which 

is generated by virtually unregulated units. This imbalance allows 

the upwind States to enjoy a competitive advantage for economic 

development while the downwind States are suffering more and 

more every day. This is particularly true in the recruitment and retention of manufacturing firms, which are heavily dependent on energy pricing. The downwind States are forced to deal with the consequences, both economically and environmentally, of irresponsible 

activities upwind. 

In addition, these new upwind industries themselves are actually 

contributing to the problem even more because they are subject to 

less stringent standards, which means more direct and indirect 

emissions will then come our way. This is a double whammy, so to 

speak, for the OTR States because they face both a competitive disadvantage economically from the increased energy costs in our 

States compared to the other States, as well as greater public 

health costs and environmental costs due to the lack of regulatory 

equity. We must address this growing inequity through this new 

Transport Rule; it is a matter of fundamental fairness. 

For Delaware to have any chance of shedding its status as the 

tailpipe of the Nation and reducing local pollution levels to comply 

with the new NAAQS, as required by the Clean Air Act legally, we 

will need a strong Federal commitment to achieving significant reductions through a much more comprehensive and timely approach 

than any of the rules that have been proposed or adopted to date. 

This is a regional challenge and, as such, requires a truly regional 

solution. We propose a handful of steps that will significantly improve air quality, and we would be happy to discuss those during 

the question session. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. I thank 

you, Senator Carper, for your incredible leadership on air quality 

issues and look forward to working with you to make sure to make 

sure that all Delawareans can breathe deeply and have good public 

health outcomes. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Mara follows:] 

101 


23818.022
102 


23818.023
103 


23818.024
104 


23818.025
105 


23818.026
106 


23818.027
107 


23818.028
108 


23818.029
109 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much for your leadership. It is great 

to be your partner. Thank you. 

Dr. Shaw, welcome. We are delighted to see you. What part of 

Texas are you from? 

Mr. SHAW. I live in Austin at this time. I grew up in West Texas, 

though. 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRYAN W. SHAW, PH.D., TEXAS 

COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member 

Barrasso. I think he stepped out, but thank you for the opportunity 

to address this Committee and to address not only what are some 

very important issues from the standpoint of the particular actions 

in place today that we are discussing, but also to shine some light 

on a larger issue of some issues or some actions that EPA has 

taken that have been focused largely on Texas, but have implications broadly. 

EPA has tended to move away from following clearly the direction that the Federal Clean Air Act and direction from Congress 

would require in making certain that the relationship between 

State and Federal Government, that is, the State regulatory agencies and the Federal EPA, follows what is envisioned by the Clean 

Air Act and also to adhere to the directives that this Congress has 

directed through the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and others. And specifically I want to address what has happened with regard to the Clean Air Transport Rule and looking at the issues 

there. 

One, I want to say that my State, fortunately, is not one that 

contributes to those challenges in the northeast. We certainly do, 

and I certainly do support the fact that the Clean Air Act requires 

States to address through the rulemaking process to address interState transport, and that failing States’ ability to avoid impact on 

those non-attainment areas outside of their State, that it would be 

appropriate for this action to take place through the action such as 

the Clean Air Transport Rule. 

However, the problems that I want to discuss largely today discuss with the errors in the methodology that was used, the errors 

in the data that were used to come to the conclusions, and the unintended impacts that these will foretell. 

I started talking about some of the EPA actions and their impact 

on Texas. I want to briefly discuss that in light of what happened 

with the Flexible Permit Program in Texas. EPA has denied that 

permitting program after about 13 years of existence, and in that 

process EPA failed to follow the Clean Air Act requirements and, 

in fact, they were forced by a lawsuit to make a decision. They are 

supposed to make decisions within 18 months of a SIP approval or 

SIP submittal, and did not do that until 13 years later, when forced 

to do so. And in their Clean Air Federal Register notice having to 

designate why the Flexible Permit Program failed to meet Federal 

requirements, they were forced to address what those deficiencies 

were. We followed up and addressed and expressed that those deficiencies were unfounded. 

We also agreed to an expedited rulemaking process to clarify and 

ensure that not only did we meet those requirements, but that we 

110 

would continue to meet them going forward; and, unfortunately, 

EPA changed their view of the relationship between State and Federal Government and indicated that they were not interested in 

pursuing that further, that even though they no longer were arguing verbally that it didn’t meet Federal requirements, they then 

generated another requirement that they failed to provide notice 

for and, more importantly, indicated that they don’t like or don’t 

want the Flexible Permit Program going forward, which I think 

signaled a dramatic change in the State-Federal relations, which 

impacts these other regulations as well. 

We have seen similar failure to allow meaningful public input 

through the greenhouse gas tailoring rule, whereby EPA unilaterally changed the definition in the tailoring rule such that States no 

longer had the opportunity to address their State implementation 

plans for greenhouse gases, but, instead, EPA dictated that greenhouse gases would be regulated January 2011. 

With regard to how that applies to the Clean Air Transport Rule 

and the MACT Standards, EPA has again avoided public participation, meaningful public participation, and I think the key there is 

the definition. While EPA asserts that they did indeed ask for comment on inclusion of Texas a Group 2 State, having failed to include information about the adequacy of SO2 budgets, the new unit 

set-asides, and the variability limits, those key components to what 

a regulation would mean, brings into serious question how meaningful that input was, on top of the fact that there were several errors associated with the data collection and the analysis that suggests that there are other potential errors and that the benefits 

and requirements they highlight are unlikely to occur. 

Not only do they have that, but if you do look at the data they 

have, EPA’s own data suggests and indicate that Texas would not 

have an impact from PM 2.5 because of the existing levels of emissions. In fact, only if you follow through with their scenario of what 

could and might happen if the cost of high sulfur coal decreases 

and low sulfur coal increases, and Texas somehow able to change 

the infrastructure necessary, go through the rigorous permitting 

process, which is very demanding and a great daunting task, that 

somehow we might increase our SO2 emissions. There were other 

discussions earlier that there are emissions reductions that are in 

place that EPA failed to take into account. So there is great concern that not only are those benefits not there, but that the data 

to lead to those conclusions were wrong and based on a faulty scenario. 

As you look at the EPA’s efforts to include the ozone deployment 

of the Clean Air Transport Rule as well, the only State that is tied 

to Texas is New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the data 

shows that Texas does not exceed the levels—I will finish up, sir— 

and also that area is no longer non-attainment. So it appears that 

there is no justification for continuing inclusion of Texas in either 

the PM2.5 or ozone portion of the Clean Air Transport Rule. 

And I am happy to answer questions if time permits. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:] 

111 


23818.030
112 


23818.031
113 


23818.032
114 


23818.033
115 


23818.034
116 


23818.035
117 


23818.036
118 


23818.037
119 


23818.038
120 


23818.039
121 


23818.040
122 


23818.041
123 


23818.042
124 


23818.043
125 


23818.044
126 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much, Dr. Shaw. 

Ms. Tierney, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SUE TIERNEY, MANAGING PRINCIPAL, 

ANALYSIS GROUP, INC. 

Ms. TIERNEY. Thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Barrasso. Thank you very much for this opportunity to come 

and speak to you. I have looked at these issues for 20 years, during 

which time I was both a utility commissioner in Massachusetts, a 

regulator, and Secretary for the Environment, and was an original 

member of the Ozone Transport Commission. 

I thought I would look at the question of whether or not these 

regulations relating to mercury, air toxics, and sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxide are achievable so that Americans can have both 

clean air and public health issues, as well as reliable electricity 

supplies. And I think very strongly the answer is yes. Six reasons 

I want to give you today, and they are amplified in my written testimony. 

One, the industry has a tremendously successful track record in 

its mission of providing reliable supply. There are no circumstances 

under which there is a situation where the utilities have allowed 

a shutdown of a plant for a reason, including clean air, where there 

were going to be reliability considerations. 

No. 2, the regulations, as we have heard today, are not a surprise; they have been in the works for many, many years, and the 

technologies that are available in the marketplace are achievable, 

they are feasible, and many utilities and electric companies have 

considerable options in what to put in place to comply. 

No. 3, many plants are ready to respond. As we have heard, 

many States have already moved forward on strict mercury regulations. There are court orders in place that bring about the kinds 

of changes we are likely to see. We have already talked this morning about the regulations that have affected American Electric 

Power. But, additionally, the CEOs of many of the largest coalowning fleets indicate that they are ready to comply with these 

rules, and those include Excel, Duke, Florida Power & Light, Wisconsin Energy, Edison, PP&L, NRG, and TVA, one of the Nation’s 

largest owners of coal plants. 

Additionally, the low gas prices that we are enjoying in the 

United States have not only lowered prices of electricity for American consumers in the last few years, but they are putting pressure 

on coal plants to retire. We have heard this morning about the 

number of older, inefficient, and uncontrolled units that operate 

very rarely, and those are likely to move to retirement. 

No. 4, the studies. There have been so many studies in the last 

year on whether or not this set of regulations are achievable by the 

industry. Many of those studies were performed prior to the time 

when EPA had actually issued its proposed regulations. Now that 

we see that there is more flexibility, the range of pessimistic estimates of retirements are too large. The more reasonable ones indicate that these are manageable impacts. 

No. 5, industry and its regulators have a very robust set of tools 

to respond. The system planning organizations, the grid operators, 

the transmission organizations do plans. States require utilities in 

127 

many parts of the Country to do integrated resource plans. The 

wholesale markets in a third of the Country are very vibrant. We 

are seeing plants under construction totaling 42 gigawatts as of 

today. We are seeing plants in advanced states of development and 

permitting, almost 30 gigawatts on top of that. 

So there is a very strong, vibrant marketplace. States are getting 

prepared. One can avoid some of the costs, as you just said, Mr. 

Chairman, through energy efficiency, and many of the States with 

the lowest prices for electricity and heavy reliance on coal actually 

have the largest opportunity for energy efficiency and saving customer bills. 

Finally, there is very clear market evidence that this is doable. 

I already mentioned that CEOs have been reporting to investments, according to SEC rules that require them to comment truthfully on their ability to comply. AEP and Duke, which are part of 

the PJM interconnection system in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic 

area, have indicated that by 2014 and 2015, when the rules go into 

effect, they will be ready. And the PJM auction for making sure 

that they have enough power supply in that time period in the future came forward with many more offers for both energy efficiency, demand response, and new generation that would enable 

the region to comply adequately. 

So I want to say with confidence that these regulations are doable and Americans don’t have to choose between clean air and 

public health on the one hand and affordable electricity and reliable electricity on the other. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tierney follows:] 

128 


23818.045
129 


23818.046
130 


23818.047
131 


23818.048
132 


23818.049
133 


23818.050
134 


23818.051
135 


23818.052
136 


23818.053
137 


23818.054
138 


23818.055
139 


23818.056
140 


23818.057
141 


23818.058
142 


23818.059
143 


23818.060
144 


23818.061
145 


23818.062
146 


23818.063
147 


23818.064
148 


23818.065
149 


23818.066
150 


23818.067
151 


23818.068
152 


23818.069
153 


23818.070
154 


23818.071
155 


23818.072
156 


23818.073
157 


23818.074
158 


23818.075
159 


23818.076
160 


23818.077
161 


23818.078
162 


23818.079
163 


23818.080
164 


23818.081
165 


23818.082
166 


23818.083
167 


23818.084
168 


23818.085
169 


23818.086
170 


23818.087
171 


23818.088
172 


23818.089
173 


23818.090
174 


23818.091
175 


23818.092
176 


23818.093
177 


23818.094
178 


23818.095
179 


23818.096
180 


23818.097
181 


23818.098
182 


23818.099
183 


23818.100
184 


23818.101
185 


23818.102
186 


23818.103
187 


23818.104
188 


23818.105
189 


23818.106
190 


23818.107
191 


23818.108
192 


23818.109
193 


23818.110
194 


23818.111
195 


23818.112
196 


23818.113
197 


23818.114
198 


23818.115
199 


23818.116
200 


23818.117
201 


23818.118
202 


23818.119
203 


23818.120
204 


23818.121
205 


23818.122
206 


23818.123
207 


23818.124
208 


23818.125
209 


23818.126
210 


23818.127
211 


23818.128
212 


23818.129
213 


23818.130
214 


23818.131
215 


23818.132
216 


23818.133
217 


23818.134
218 


23818.135
219 


23818.136
220 


23818.137
221 


23818.138
222 


23818.139
223 


23818.140
224 


23818.141
225 


23818.142
226 


23818.143
227 


23818.144
228 


23818.145
229 


23818.146
230 


23818.147
231 


23818.148
232 


23818.149
233 


23818.150
234 


23818.151
235 


23818.152
236 


23818.153
237 


23818.154
238 


23818.155
239 


23818.156
240 


23818.157
241 


23818.158
242 


23818.159
243 


23818.160
244 


23818.161
245 


23818.162
246 


23818.163
247 


23818.164
248 


23818.165
249 


23818.166
250 


23818.167
251 


23818.168
252 


23818.169
253 


23818.170
254 


23818.171
255 


23818.172
256 


23818.173
257 


23818.174
258 


23818.175
259 


23818.176
260 


23818.177
261 


23818.178
262 


23818.179
263 


23818.180
264 


23818.181
265 


23818.182
266 


23818.183
267 


23818.184
268 


23818.185
269 


23818.186
270 


23818.187
271 


23818.188
272 


23818.189
273 


23818.190
274 


23818.191
275 


23818.192
276 


23818.193
277 


23818.194
278 


23818.195
279 


23818.196
280 


23818.197
281 


23818.198
282 


23818.199
283 


23818.200
284 


23818.201
285 


23818.202
286 


23818.203
287 


23818.204
288 


23818.205
289 


23818.206
290 


23818.207
291 


23818.208
292 


23818.209
293 


23818.210
294 


23818.211
295 


23818.212
296 


23818.213
297 


23818.214
298 


23818.215
299 


23818.216
300 


23818.217
301 


23818.218
302 


23818.219
303 


23818.220
304 


23818.221
305 


23818.222
306 


23818.223
307 

Senator CARPER. That was exactly, exactly 5 minutes. Normally, 

when witnesses do that well, we give them an extra 15 minutes to 

talk about anything they want. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Since lunch is bearing down on us, we will 

forgo. That was great. 

Barbara Walz, welcome. Good to see you. Thank you for joining 

us. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA WALZ, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

POLICY AND ENVIRONMENTAL, TRI-STATE GENERATION 

AND TRANSMISSION ASSOCIATION, INC. 

Ms. WALZ. Thank you. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Barrasso, it is good to be here with you today, and it is particularly 

good to be here with you, Senator Barrasso, as you have been a 

great friend to the co-op world. 

My name is Barbara Walz, and I am Tri-State Generation and 

Transmission Association’s Senior Vice President for Policy and Environmental. I hold a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering and 

a master’s in environmental management. 

Tri-State is a not-for-profit member owned rural electric cooperative based in Colorado. Tri-State is committed to maintain high environmental standards while providing reliable cost-based wholesale electricity to our 44 not-for-profit member systems that serve 

1.5 million rural customers in Wyoming, Nebraska, New Mexico, 

and Colorado. 

To meet our member energy needs, Tri-State generates or purchases power produced by hydropower, solar, wind, coal, and natural gas sources. We recently integrated 50 megawatts of wind and 

30 megawatts of solar into our generation mix. Renewables now 

constitute about 16 percent of our generation needs. The bulk of 

our power comes from coal-based power plants in Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. These plants are an important 

part of the rural communities in which they reside. For example, 

the Craig Plant in Colorado and the coal mines that supply it employ 750 people near a town of 10,000 and provides $73 million in 

wages. The plant is also an important tax base to Moffat County, 

paying $9 million in taxes each year. 

Tri-State’s generating facilities all have state-of-the-art emission 

controls. These plants were primarily built from 1978 through 1983 

and were equipped with controls well before the 1990 Clean Air Act 

came into place. We have scrubbers on our facilities that remove 

more than 90 percent of the sulfur dioxide and bag houses that remove up to 99 percent of the particulate matter. These controls 

also result in a co-benefit mercury emission reduction ranging from 

65 to 95 percent. 

Even with all of these advanced environmental controls, TriState cannot meet the proposed Utility MACT emission limits. Significant additional controls will be required and will result in higher electricity costs for our co-op consumers. In addition, the Utility 

MACT emission limits for new units are set at such low levels that 

it will be impossible to construct and operate new coal facilities, 

even with the most technologically advanced controls. 

308 

Tri-State currently operates in compliance with mercury regulations in Colorado and New Mexico. These regulations were negotiated in good faith with State agencies and environmental groups. 

In the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, Congress treated electricities different than other industries. The law required EPA to 

conduct a study of the hazards to public health that were reasonably anticipated to occur as a result of emissions. The study was 

completed in 1998 and found that mercury emissions were of greatest concern. Given this determination, Tri-State believes that 

EPA’s authority is limited to regulate only mercury at this time. 

Particulate matter is already regulated through the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. Added particulate matter standards included in the MACT will require Tri-State to install additional controls at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. These 

costs will be passed on to our rural electric co-op consumers. Particulate matter should not be regulated under this MACT rule. 

The EPA cost-benefit analysis found that 90 percent of the benefits of the rule are based on the reduction of particulate matter. If 

this rule is finalized as proposed, it will be nearly impossible to 

meet the time lines for installation of controls by 2014. Utilities 

need time to design, permit, and construct retrofit control equipment. There are a limited number of qualified vendors who have 

limited skilled labor to take on these technical projects. And because rural electric cooperatives are small business, when the 

deadlines come, co-ops are not going to be able to get the qualified 

labor needed to get the job done because vendors will be bidding 

on the bigger jobs of our friends in the investor-owned utility community. 

Tri-State supports and is committed to good environmental regulations, including full implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act, 

but we firmly believe that the Utility MACT Rule goes beyond EPA 

authority and over-regulates coal plants. What Assistant Administrator McCarthy is saying utilities need to do Tri-State did 30 

years ago, and we have those controls in place today and they still 

do not meet the Utility MACT Standard. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify here today, and I would be 

happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Walz follows:] 

309 


23818.224
310 


23818.225
311 


23818.226
312 


23818.227
313 


23818.228
314 


23818.229
315 


23818.230
316 


23818.231
317 


23818.232
318 


23818.233
319 


23818.234
320 


23818.235
321 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Ms. Walz. Thanks so much. 

Dr. Carpenter, welcome. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID O. CARPENTER, M.D., DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALBANY 

Dr. CARPENTER. Senators Carper and Barrasso, I thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee on clean air 

and nuclear safety. I am a public health physician and the former 

Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany, 

and, as you know, public health is that part of the medical profession that is concerned with prevention, rather than treatment, of 

disease. I strongly support the new regulations and changes in the 

Clean Air InterState Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule. These 

changes, once implemented, will significantly reduce morbidity and 

mortality of U.S. citizens, especially those living downwind of coalfired power plants. 

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that exposure to current levels of major air pollutants causes serious disease and death 

of thousands of Americans. The risk of sudden death due to respiratory or cardiovascular failure is dramatically elevated in older 

persons on days when concentrations of these pollutants are elevated. 

Air pollutants cause asthma attacks both in children and adults, 

and increase the risk of respiratory infections. Particulate air pollution contains cancer-causing polyaeromatic hydrocarbons and metals such as arsenic, chromium, and nickel that are known human 

carcinogens. Consequently, chronic exposure to particulate air pollution increases the risk of lung and other cancers. 

The detailed scientific evidence for these statements is contained 

in my written testimony. 

Let me tell you of studies that I and my colleagues have recently 

completed. In New York, we have an excellent data base that reports to the State Health Department all of the diseases diagnosed 

in patients when they are discharged from the hospital. We have 

this information on hospitalization for about 2.5 million New Yorkers each year from 1993 to 2008, with information on age, sex, 

race, and zip code of residence. 

We have compared rates of hospitalization for various respiratory 

diseases in New Yorkers who live in a zip code that contains a fossil fuel-fired power plant, not just coal, as compared to those that 

live in a zip code that does not contain such a power plant. We find 

that living in a zip code that contains a power plant is associated 

with 11 percent greater frequency of hospitalization for asthma, a 

15 percent greater rate of hospitalization for respiratory infection 

such as pneumonia, and a 17 percent greater rate of hospitalization 

for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

These increases rates reflect only the contribution of power 

plants, not the total air pollution contribution, because, unlike 

emissions from motor vehicles, power plants are stationary. In addition, these data do not reflect illnesses that do not lead to hospitalization, nor the transport of contaminants into Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Vermont. 

322 

Implementation of these changed rules will also significantly reduce releases of metals that are known to be carcinogenic and of 

mercury, a very dangerous metal that is converted into 

methylmercury in bodies of water. Methylmercury bio accumulates 

in fish and, as a consequence, many fish from inland lakes and 

streams, as well as the oceans, are now unsafe to eat, especially 

by children and women of reproductive age. Methylmercury, like 

lead, is a neurotoxicant. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2000 that methylmercury causes irreversible reduction of 

IQ in children exposed before birth to the methylmercury in their 

mother’s body. 

Further results indicate that between 8 and 10 percent of U.S. 

women of reproductive age contain levels of methylmercury in their 

body as a result of eating fish that poses harm to their unborn 

child. The majority of this mercury comes from releases from coalfired power plants, and these releases make fish, an otherwise 

healthy food, unsafe to eat. 

Coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in 

the United States than any other industrial source. The Clean Air 

Act requires control of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired 

power plants, but absent these new rules no national standards 

exist to limit these pollutants from these plants. In the U.S. there 

are more than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 States 

across the Country, and they release in excess of 386,000 tons of 

hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year. Hazardous 

air pollutants are known to cause sudden death from cardiovascular and respiratory disease and also cause cancer. 

It is the responsibility of all of us to protect the health of the 

public, and especially the health of the unborn and of children. Implementation of these rules, which reduce air pollutants coming 

from power plants will help significantly to reduce the burden of 

disease and the death of the public. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Carpenter follows:] 

323 


23818.236
324 


23818.237
325 


23818.238
326 


23818.239
327 


23818.240
328 


23818.241
329 


23818.242
330 


23818.243
331 


23818.244
332 


23818.245
333 


23818.246
334 


23818.247
335 


23818.248
336 


23818.249
337 


23818.250
338 


23818.251
339 


23818.252
340 


23818.253
341 


23818.254
342 


23818.255
343 


23818.256
344 


23818.257
345 


23818.258
346 


23818.259
347 


23818.260
348 


23818.261
349 


23818.262
350 


23818.263
351 


23818.264
352 


23818.265
353 


23818.266
354 


23818.267
355 


23818.268
356 


23818.269
357 


23818.270
358 


23818.271
359 


23818.272
360 


23818.273
361 


23818.274
362 


23818.275
363 


23818.276
364 


23818.277
365 


23818.278
366 


23818.279
367 


23818.280
368 


23818.281
369 


23818.282
370 


23818.283
371 


23818.284
372 


23818.285
373 


23818.286
374 


23818.287
375 


23818.288
376 


23818.289
377 


23818.290
378 


23818.291
379 


23818.292
380 


23818.293
381 


23818.294
382 


23818.295
383 


23818.296
384 


23818.297
385 


23818.298
386 


23818.299
387 


23818.300
388 


23818.301
389 


23818.302
390 


23818.303
391 


23818.304
392 


23818.305
393 


23818.306
394 


23818.307
395 


23818.308
396 


23818.309
397 


23818.310
398 


23818.311
399 


23818.312
400 


23818.313
401 


23818.314
402 


23818.315
403 


23818.316
404 


23818.317
405 


23818.318
406 


23818.319
407 


23818.320
408 


23818.321
409 


23818.322
410 


23818.323
411 


23818.324
412 


23818.325
413 


23818.326
414 


23818.327
415 


23818.328
416 


23818.329
417 


23818.330
418 


23818.331
419 


23818.332
420 


23818.333
421 


23818.334
422 


23818.335
423 


23818.336
424 


23818.337
425 


23818.338
426 


23818.339
427 


23818.340
428 


23818.341
429 


23818.342
430 


23818.343
431 


23818.344
432 


23818.345
433 


23818.346
434 


23818.347
435 


23818.348
436 


23818.349
437 


23818.350
438 


23818.351
439 


23818.352
440 

Senator CARPER. You were right on the money too. 

Senator Barrasso, we don’t see this every day. 

Senator BARRASSO. No, we don’t. 

Senator CARPER. It is pretty impressive. 

Secretary, I was mentioning to Senator Barrasso today is also 

June 13th, the last legislative day, the last day of the Fiscal Year 

for a bunch of States. In Dover, Delaware, this is really a big day 

for Governors and secretaries of the Natural Resource and Environmental Control. The legislature convenes at 2 this afternoon and 

I know there is a Governor back there who would like to have his 

Secretary by his side, so I am going to ask a question or two of Secretary O’Mara, and I said to Senator Barrasso if he has any questions to ask of you, to feel free. I think he is not going to, but at 

that point in time you would be excused to return in your personal 

helicopter. No, not really. We wish. They used to say to me when 

I was Governor, do you have your plane? I said, no, we have a glider in Delaware. All we need. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Secretary, a couple of questions, if I could, then 

you will be excused. Do I understand you and Dr. Shaw are contemporaries from your respective States? Is that pretty much it? 

Mr. O’Mara. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. Have you all met before? 

Mr. O’Mara. No, not before. 

Senator CARPER. Well, good. Secretary O’Mara, before you go, 

would you just comment on some of Dr. Shaw’s concerns with 

EPA’s rulemaking process that he has expressed? 

Mr. O’Mara. I think one of the challenges that we do face is that, 

as you said in your opening remarks, that pollution doesn’t really 

know State boundaries. So we need to have good science driving 

and look at what the attainment area should be. I obviously can’t 

speak to the mechanics of what was noticed and what wasn’t and 

the specifics, but I do think that adopting a regional approach to 

address a regional problem is absolutely critical, and having the 

science drive that. 

One of the things that I didn’t mention in my comments was 

having broader non-attainment areas make a lot of sense and just 

making sure that those boundaries are broad enough to actually be 

able to resolve the challenge. So while I can’t speak to some of the 

mechanics of the administrative process, I generally agree that we 

need to make sure that we are looking beyond our State borders 

for reductions that improve the quality of life for folks in every individual State. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Another question for you, if I could. 

Two of the witnesses on this panel believe that the emissions 

standards for the Transport Rule and the Air Toxics Rule are too 

tight and said it would need more time. Could you just take maybe 

a minute or two to highlight your experiences with our own regulations in Delaware and how companies have been able to respond 

to tighter emission standards? 

Mr. O’Mara. In many ways Delaware is a great example of a real 

test case, rather than a theoretical model or some kind of abstract 

hypothesis because, like many other States, to achieve our air quality attainment plan, our SIP goals, we really needed to do everyVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:38 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00446 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23818.TXT VERN
441 

thing we possibly could to reduce emissions in State. So we have 

had a very strong mercury rule in place for several years, and companies in our State found they were able to, through a fairly costeffective carbon injection technology, go from 70, 80, 90 percent 

emission reductions for mercury. 

Senator CARPER. Does that kind of thing cost hundreds of millions of dollars to have that kind of technology? 

Mr. O’Mara. It is in the millions, but in the lower part. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

Mr. O’Mara. And these are investments they believe they can recoup very quickly in the capacity markets and other types of investments in the PJM grade, of which Delaware is a part. 

Senator CARPER. But do they find that they had confined in the 

work force people, tradesmen and women who could actually do the 

work, or is it hard to find them? 

Mr. O’Mara. No, absolutely, because one of the—there is a series 

of improvements being made right now in the largest coal unit in 

Delaware, and under your leadership we were able to make that 

successful, about $300 million worth of improvements to actually 

put four or 500 tradesmen to work that are working right now that 

actually weren’t employed otherwise because of other changes in 

the broader economy. So we found a good supply of skilled labor 

and actually the cost for implementation was a little lower because 

of that competition. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Good. Thanks. One quick followup. Under 

the Clean Air Act States have few tools available to them to hold 

upwind States accountable. What if we took away these tools from 

the States and just had one standard that stood forever for utilities? How could that affect a State more like ours, or like New Jersey or Rhode Island, or some of the other States that are represented here, Maryland? 

Mr. O’Mara. We fundamentally agree that the work that you 

have been working on in the multi-pollutant regulation of having 

some national standards, it is critical to have a baseline, a floor, 

if you will, of consistently. At the same time, we do believe that the 

States should have some flexibility to go above and beyond that 

floor. In many cases there are local factors that do require and that 

States will want to address, smaller cancer causes, more localized 

problems. 

So we would love to see a national floor that had a rigorous base 

to make sure that there aren’t these massive transport issues, 

while still giving the States some flexibility to address key issues 

that might be specific to their individual State. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Senator Barrasso, any questions of Secretary O’Mara? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator CARPER. Do you think he is a keeper? What do you 

think? 

Senator BARRASSO. The people of Delaware are fortunate to have 

both of you. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, you are nice to say that. I would say you 

are least half right, with respect to him. Thank you, Senator. 

OK, Secretary O’Mara, good luck. Tell the Governor I said good 

luck. Go get them. 

442 

Mr. O’Mara. We will give everybody your best in Dover. 

Senator CARPER. Please do. 

Let me yield now, if I could, to Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Walz, it is my understanding Tri-State owns about 24 percent in Basin Electric, which in turn owns the Laramie River Station Power Plant, and it is the largest employer in the Wheatland 

area, about 300 well paid people, great benefits, good salaries, good 

jobs, and the taxes paid to the county, to Platte County, are over 

half of the county’s budget. 

What happens to a town, Wheatland, a county like Platte County, and it is not just them, hundreds of communities around the 

Country, if a power plant has to close because of a combination of 

EPA regulations? What happens to kids? What happens to the seniors in the small towns in terms of the school district, emergency 

services, police, fire services? What are the impacts when EPA regulations force the closure of a power plant? 

Ms. WALZ. Senator, in my opinion, I will use the example of Laramie River Station. It is a very critical aspect for the town of 

Wheatland. It employs a large number of people with good paying 

jobs, good benefits, takes care of family, keeps produces and services flowing in the community. Basically, I think if the power plant 

there had to close, it would be devastating to that community. I 

would say significant people would have to move either out of the 

area, out of the State, and find other opportunities because it is a 

critical key aspect to the town of Wheatland, and similar to other 

rural communities where we have power plant locations. 

Senator BARRASSO. In your written testimony you stated that, 

‘‘Because we are a not-for-profit cooperative that is ultimately 

owned by our consumers, these new compliance costs are going to 

be passed on directly to cooperative member owners in the form of 

higher rates.’’ Please describe for me and for the Committee how 

the cooperative member, who they are? Are they wealthy CEOs? 

Are we talking about Wall Street financiers? And will the folks at 

home feel the impact of higher costs? 

Ms. WALZ. Yes, Senator. A cooperative is an electric utility 

owned by the residents in the communities. You have to be in a 

rural area to be considered a rural electric cooperative. So essentially the people that get the end-use electricity are farmers, ranchers, small businessmen in the small towns. Basically, in the event, 

again, rates were increased because of costs associated with these 

controls, all of those costs are passed on directly to those end-use 

customers. It is different than investor-owned, where you have 

shareholders and others to absorb the costs. 

Additionally, they are absorbing more costs. An example I can 

give you for that is if you look at one mile of transmission line and 

you look at a cooperative across the Country, basically you have 

five consumers per one mile of transmission line. In Wyoming, it 

is actually 2.8 consumers, so even less population there. 

Where you have an investor-owned utility, you have about 37 

people that are served by one mile. That one mile of transmission 

line still has the same costs associated with it not only for capital 

investment, for operation and maintenance; and that is just the 

transmission line side. If you look at the generation stations and 

443 

the cost of additional controls associated with that and you invest 

$100 million into a community where you only serving a much, 

much smaller population than like a Chicago or even a Denver, obviously the costs are more significant for those rural folks; they 

have a larger share, if that makes sense. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you feel the EPA really understands how 

rural co-ops operate, how they work, compared to company-owned? 

Ms. WALZ. It has been my experience that we routinely have to 

explain the differences on both the Federal and State level, that I 

do not think they understand fundamentally the differences. 

Senator BARRASSO. Dr. Shaw, in your testimony you said we 

question whether it is appropriate for EPA to establish energy policy for the Country. Could you elaborate a little bit further on this 

point and where this issue could be handled better? 

Mr. SHAW. Sure. Clearly, the Clean Air Act gives certain authority to EPA, and specifically their intent is to derive the standards 

and programs to address those environmental issues. It appears in 

this rulemaking that EPA is more intent on changing what the energy fuel makeup of the Nation is through a misapplication, if you 

will, of the section of the Clean Air Act that they are using to justify this. A great deal of the concerns I have are exactly with that. 

EPA doesn’t seem to be addressing those requirements for justifying the health-based concerns associated with the emissions; instead, it is looking at more trying to assert a different policy using 

this as a tool. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You are welcome. 

Two last questions, then I am all done. 

Dr. Carpenter, if I could ask a question of you. In Chairman 

Shaw’s testimony he questions the scientific knowledge that we 

have on health effects of mercury exposure. However, in Texas 

alone, where I used to live, I was a naval flight officer stationed 

at Corpus Christi, lived in Flour Bluff. The only guy I ever talked 

to from Texas who knew where Flour Bluff was George W. Bush. 

However, in Texas alone, the Lone Star State has numerous 

health advisories against eating mercury-laden fish in Texas waters. Could you take a minute or two to give us a little more detail 

on what we know about airborne mercury particles; how they can 

get into our fish and how mercury exposure impacts developing 

children’s health? And are U.S. coal-fired power plants a large 

source of that mercury, are they a significant source, a small 

source? Finally, is the scientific data robust? 

You will hear us say from time to time we need good science; we 

need to work on good science. And when George Voinovich was 

here, he chaired this Subcommittee, he and I actually worked on 

a proposal to require somebody at a very high level at EPA to be 

like their science I won’t say czar or czarina, but just somebody 

who was there to say we are using good science, we are just dedicated and committed to good science. So is the scientific data robust? 

Dr. CARPENTER. Let me start with the second question you 

asked, which is what is the percentage of contribution from coalfired power plants, and the best evidence—and I think the best eviVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:38 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00449 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23818.TXT VERN
444 

dence comes through reports of the National Academy of Sciences, 

which has done extensive reports on the issue of mercury—is that 

about 50 percent or a little more of the mercury in fish in U.S. waters comes from coal-fired power plants. 

Senator CARPER. A little more than half? 

Dr. CARPENTER. A little more than half. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Dr. CARPENTER. Now, mercury is a global pollutant. We get some 

mercury from China, because when coal is burned, the mercury 

goes into the air; it is the vapor phase of the elemental mercury 

and it can be transported for long distances. 

On the other hand, there is clear evidence, particularly studies 

in Florida, where mercury releases from power plants were dramatically decreased and mercury levels in local fish followed over 

a period of time showed a dramatic reduction. 

So while getting all the mercury out of the power plants isn’t 

going to solve all of the problem—everyone would agree with that— 

it is going to solve the majority of the problem. 

Now, is the evidence robust? The evidence is overwhelming. Mercury causes a reduction in IQ of children born through the mercury 

in their mother’s body. It has been demonstrated in countries 

around the world. Again, the National Academy of Sciences reports 

are probably the most objective critical reports in that regard, but 

there are hundreds of scientific publications. 

So I think it is simply not true that there is any question about 

the science, nor any question about the impact. And what we need 

here is the will to follow through and reduce the local mercury releases, which are the majority albeit not all of the problem. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

My final question would be of Ms. Tierney, if I could. We had a 

hearing, Senator Brown of Massachusetts asked us to do a field 

hearing up in Boston and we focused on an issue involving Federal 

financial management up there, and there was a Congressman 

named John Tierney who testified. I think he is maybe from the 

Third District. Are you from Massachusetts? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I am from Massachusetts. I am married to John 

Tierney, but not that one. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. It is a small world, isn’t it? OK. Well, in your 

testimony—I wonder if the other John, Congressman John Tierney 

is married to a woman named Sue. Wouldn’t that be something? 

Ms. TIERNEY. They are just all over the place. 

Senator CARPER. They are. Up there they are. 

In your testimony you State that reliability should not be an 

issue with the implementation of the Transport Rule or the Air 

Toxics Rule. However, in Chairman Dr. Shaw’s testimony, he mentions that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas recently came 

out with a report contrary to your findings, I believe, and I would 

just ask are you familiar with that report and could you take a 

shot at explaining the differences, if there are any, please? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I would be happy to. ERCOT, which is the Electric 

Reliability Council of Texas, very recently came out with a study, 

having been asked by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, to 

look at this question of whether the clean air rules would be adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:38 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00450 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23818.TXT VERN
445 

versely affecting reliability in Texas. The ERCOT analysts essentially ran a model of what the system would look like with these 

new regulations in place, with gas prices as they are today and expected to be in the future, and a number of other assumptions. 

The interesting results were that ERCOT did not believe that 

coal plants would likely retire as a result of these rules. They said 

that some of the oldest thermal gas-fired power plants might retire 

and, if that were the case, ERCOT had not really looked at the 

question of what would be in place to replace them. 

In Texas, which has one of the most vibrant markets for power 

in the Country, there is a tremendous amount of market interest 

and development of gas-fired power plants and wind power plants. 

There are many in process at the moment, and one of the interesting things that ERCOT discovered was that in order to address 

some of those potential retirements of gas-fired power plants in the 

Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth area, that would enable—when 

those units would be replaced, that would avoid transmission investment that would be required otherwise in that area and there 

would actually be savings for Texas consumers. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Senator Barrasso, last questions? Any closing comment, please. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. 

Dr. Shaw, you said throughout your testimony the EPA rules are 

not technologically feasible, that they won’t work. Assistant Administrator McCarthy was here earlier, testified in the first panel, that 

effective technologies for controlling emissions—mercury, NOx, 

SO2—from power plants ‘‘have been available for years.’’ So what 

are you seeing that Assistant Administrator McCarthy isn’t seeing? 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you. Certainly, while these rules have been 

talked about for some time, what we are seeing more recently is 

the advent of these controls that they are looking to putting into 

a very tight timeframe. Some of what is missed in their analysis 

is the, for example, the ERCOT study that was just talked about 

did not consider that the Clean Air Transport Rule would include 

Texas, even though EPA was taking comment on that, the models 

that they applied did not consider those impacts. 

So what we are looking at is, in the State of Texas, due to our 

resilient growth in both population and in job creation, the demand 

has increased such that even absent some of the early retirements 

associated with these rules, we are looking to not meet the increase 

in demand required to maintain reserve capacity. So I think what 

Ms. McCarthy is seeing is that it fails to look at some of the control 

technologies that are already in place and does not take full account of the costs associated with not only the capital investment, 

but also the operating and changes in infrastructure required for 

those. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Tierney, you work with utilities that 

seem to support the proposed EPA MACT Rule for the power sector, along with most of the other rules coming down the pike that, 

to me, increase the cost of doing business for coal-fired facilities. As 

I understand it, your clients don’t use a significant amount of coal, 

so their own compliance expenditures under the rule wouldn’t be 

very much. Those clients wouldn’t need to stand in line for addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:38 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00451 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23818.TXT VERN
446 

tional engineering resources for capital and the like. Yet, they kind 

of speak with confidence about the rule. 

There was an editorial in the Wall Street Journal back in December that might shed some light on some of the motivation of those 

utilities. The Journal wrote, ‘‘Eight leading utility CEOs responded 

recently to one of our editorials with a letter defending the EPA, 

claiming that the coal retirements are ’long overdue’ and that the 

regulations would ’yield important economic benefits.’ ’’ 

What they didn’t mention is that those benefits were mostly accrued to the businesses that they happen to head. The Journal 

cited actual transcripts of analyst calls with CEOs of those companies, notably John Rowe at Exelon, Lew Hay at NextEra. Essentially, they went on to say these companies say that the rules that 

are costly for their coal-fired competitors will cause more consumption of natural gas, thus significantly increasing the price that consumers can be charged for electricity in the markets that these two 

companies serve, without requiring either company to make any 

additional investment. It is called increasing the ‘‘clearing price’’ of 

energy. 

So do you disagree that these clients have an economic and a 

competitive motive to embrace what to me are very costly EPA 

rules and regulations? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I don’t disagree that there will be companies such 

as those in the Clean Energy Group who have already made the 

investments and are already living in markets where they have a 

competitive disadvantage at the moment. That said, I also work for 

transmission companies, grid operators, oil electric co-ops, large 

and small energy consumers, environmental groups. I have a very 

diverse set of clients, and as a result of that I speak for myself in 

saying that all of the issues that I have described here today are 

based on analysis of what is going on in the industry. Among those 

things that I mentioned are the CEOs’ testimony and statements 

from companies that are not among the group of companies that 

you just described who have coal units who have said that they are 

ready and well prepared to live with these new manageable rules. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Any closing statement? Do you want just a 

quick closing statement? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. I just continue to be concerned about an 

unemployment rate, Mr. Chairman, 9.1 percent, I think we will get 

new numbers out tomorrow, and I think that has a significant impact on the health of people who are looking for jobs, trying to raise 

families, trying to put food on the table. 

And I think we can do a lot for people and for the Country and 

for the health of individuals by getting people back to work, and 

I think that has to be included in a lot of these discussions, and 

I wish that the Environmental Protection Agency would focus a little more on that and a little bit less on being fixated with eliminating any potential environmental risks, no matter how small and 

no matter how costly. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. I would just close, again, thanking all of you for 

being here and for preparing to be here with us today and for your 

447 

testimony. Just to followup on what Senator Barrasso has said, the 

States that are along the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeastern part 

of our Country who end up having to spend more money for our 

energy because others create cheap energy and send the pollution 

our way impedes our ability to create jobs and retain jobs. 

The fact that we may incur greater costs for health care because 

our air is dirtier because of the bad air that comes to us from folks 

that use, in some cases, old coal-fired plants to create electricity, 

that impedes our ability to maintain our own jobs. Several of our 

witnesses have said there is an equity question. There is really a 

fairness question. It really goes back to the Golden Rule; we ought 

to treat other people like we want to be treated, or, conversely, 

don’t treat others the way you don’t want to be treated. So that is 

at play here. 

And for us the question is how can we address this question of 

fairness or unfairness, and it is the health care costs that underlie 

it all and the economic disadvantages for some States, particularly 

in the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast. How do we do that in a way 

that is cost-effective? How do we do that in a way that maybe harnesses market forces and uses good science? 

We just have to be smart enough to do that, and I think the two 

of us are. I think maybe our 98 colleagues are as well. One of the 

things, we have a lot of smart people working for us and we have 

to be able to figure this out. We tried legislatively for, gosh, my 

first 8 years in the Senate to do this legislatively and harness market forces. 

Ultimately, we couldn’t do it. We just couldn’t summon the political will to pass what I thought was pretty legislation, bipartisan 

legislation. And it falls on EPA to do what we were unable to do 

legislatively, and my hope is that, using good science and taking 

a lot of comments and advice from folks around the Country, to use 

that. 

At the end of the day the question is can we have cleaner air, 

can we have jobs that actually might be created from cleaning that 

air? I think we can do that. I think we can do that and history 

would show that we have been able to do that pretty well for some 

time. 

The folks, our colleagues who haven’t come and had the privilege 

of hearing your statements and to ask you questions, they will 

have a couple of weeks where they can submit questions, and we 

would just ask, if you do get those questions, if you would promptly 

respond to them, we would be most grateful. So wherever you have 

come from across this great land of ours, thank you for making the 

trek. It is great to be with all of you. Happy Fourth of July. Thank 

you so much. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Chairman Carper, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss EPA’s proposed Transport and Utility MACT rules. I would also like to thank the witnesses 

for being here today. 

448 

Let me say at the outset that, when it comes to reducing real air pollution from 

power plants, the best way to accelerate environmental progress and institute certainty for businesses is through multi-pollutant legislation. And even though we 

have fallen short in recent years, it is increasingly clear that the Clean Air Act 

needs to be updated and the rules for electric utilities are the place to start. 

This is not something new for me. I supported 3-P legislation when, as Chairman 

of EPW, I tried to advance the Clear Skies bill. Because that effort eventually failed, 

for reasons I won’t get into now, we received regulations under the Clean Air Act 

that the DC Circuit ultimately rejected—something I predicted would happen. 

Here’s what I said when the Bush administration’s Clean Air InterState Rule was 

promulgated: ‘‘This Clean Air InterState Rule is significantly more vulnerable to 

court challenges than legislation and will undoubtedly be held up. Trying to litigate 

the way to cleaner air only delays progress, often yields little or no result and 

wastes millions in taxpayer dollars.’’ 

So here we sit, debating EPA’s replacement regulations that are onerous and complex and vulnerable to the same lawsuits that stymied previous attempts to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. 

Most alarming is the effect the rules will have on our economy. Messy court rulings and bureaucratic overreach have produced regulations that will harm the economy. As the National Economic Research Associates (NERA) recently pointed out, 

these rules will likely result in electricity costs increasing by as much as 23 percent 

and 1.4 million lost jobs by 2020. Not a recipe for economic recovery. 

Of course, these aren’t the only hurdles the power sector faces. Known as the 

‘‘train wreck,’’ utilities also face moving and uncertain emissions targets as EPA further tightens National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and Particulate Matter (PM) over the next few years. Combined with rules for regional 

haze, new source performance standards, Acid Rain, and new source review requirements, the Clean Air Act presents a labyrinth of overlapping and redundant requirements that drive up electricity costs and hamper our economy. 

In my State of Oklahoma, EPA’s rules are causing substantial concern. And we’re 

starting to see the effects already. Earlier this month, American Electric Power 

(AEP) announced it would be forced to close power plants in six states and lay off 

600 workers as a result of EPA’s rules. Two plants are being idled in Oklahoma. 

All of this might be great for environmental lawyers who, incidentally, make 

money by exploiting the citizen suit provisions of the nation’s environmental laws. 

That’s right, your tax dollars being used to destroy jobs in your own community. 

So you can bet these rules will be challenged, and we’ll be back here next year. 

It might also be great for energy companies—who profit by rising electricity 

prices. Exelon CEO, John Rowe, has been quoted as saying that for every $5 dollar 

increase per megawatt of power generated, his company makes $700 to $800 million 

in additional annual revenue. The regulations we debate here today could raise electricity prices by as much as 20 percent in some markets. 

But ultimately, it’s working families that pay the price. 

Of course, there are ways to reduce emissions and help keep electricity rates low. 

Perhaps the biggest one would be to update the Clean Air Act to stop the EPA 

‘‘train wreck.’’ Reducing emissions doesn’t have to be this costly—the Obama EPA 

just wants it to be. Recall President Obama’s pledge: ‘‘under my plan electricity 

rates will necessarily skyrocket.’’ 

Last year, Senators Carper and Alexander introduced ‘‘3P’’ legislation that began 

to look at many of the issues we address here today. I commend them for taking 

on that challenge. But that legislation failed to get widespread support because it 

did nothing to address the utility ‘‘train wreck.’’ It simply added new requirements 

on top of old, increasing uncertainty and costs. 

Now, with plant closures on the horizon, workers being laid off, and electricity 

prices sure to rise, a coalition of Congressmen and Senators is coming together to 

fix the Clean Air Act. I look forward to working with them. We can and should continue to reduce emissions, but we should do so in a way that protects families from 

skyrocketing electricity prices and businesses from unachievable requirements. 

449 


23818.353
450 


23818.354
451 


23818.355
452 


23818.356
453 


23818.357
454 


23818.358
455 


23818.360
456 


23818.361
457 


23818.362
458 


23818.363
459 


23818.364
460 


23818.365
461 


23818.366
462 


23818.414
463 


23818.415
464 


23818.416
465 


23818.417
466 


23818.418
467 


23818.419
468 


23818.420
469 


23818.421
470 


23818.422
471 


23818.423
472 


23818.424
473 


23818.425
474 


23818.426
475 


23818.427
476 


23818.428
477 


23818.429
478 


23818.430
479 


23818.431
480 


23818.432
481 


23818.433
482 


23818.434
483 


23818.435
484 


23818.436
485 


23818.437
486 


23818.438
487 


23818.439
488 


23818.440
489 


23818.441
490 


23818.442
491 


23818.443
492 


23818.444
493 

Æ 


23818.445