Testimony of George Wilson before the Environmental Protection Agency 

regarding the Clean Power Plan 

Denver, Colorado 

July 30, 2014 

Good morning. My name is George Wilson. I am Senior Assistant Business Manager 

for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 111. Local 111 is located in 

Denver, Colorado but I work out of our satellite office in Craig, on the Western Slope. Local 

111's approximately 3,500members are employed in many classifications of work by electric 

and gas utilities in Colorado with many of our members working for co-ops. 

Myself and other members of Local 111 are very worried about the effects of EPA's 

proposed Clean Power Plan on electricity prices, reliability, and jobs. Here in Colorado we have 

been made painfully aware of what happens when an electricity provider moves away from 

inexpensive coal-generated power too quickly. Our experience is a real-live test case and I urge 

EPA to pay attention. As a result of Colorado's Renewable Portfolio Standard, the state has been 

moving away from coal and towards natural gas and renewables. Some parts of the state, Pueblo 

in particular, have seen electricity prices rise 26 percent. That may not be a problem in wealthier 

parts of the state but in Pueblo, where the poverty rate is 18.1 percent, the pain is very real. An 

article that appeared just last week in the Washington Post titled "How Not to Shut Down Coal 

Plants" speaks to the pain of Sharon Garcia, a single mother in Pueblo who operates a day care 

out of her home. Her electricity provider, Black Hills Energy, choose to replace nearly all its 

inexpensive coal generation with natural gas over a short period of time — the result was a 26 

percent increase in electricity rates with more to come with the addition of another gas peeking 

unit to be built. 

Local 111 is not the only group who is worried about the high-cost of switching to mostly 

one fuel. Last week, IHS incorporated; an industry data, custom software, and consulting 

services company, released a study called "The Value of U.S. Power Supply Diversity." In a 

nutshell, the report said it is not prudent to put all your eggs in one basket and that the least 

expensive, most reliable electricity delivery system is one that uses a diverse mixture of fuels. 

Unfortunately, the Clean Power Plan openly calls for the use of more natural gas generation at 

the expense of coal. EPA would be wise to read this 56 page report and consider the advice from 

IHS. 

So how much coal generation will the Clean Power Plan close? EPA's own numbers 

state 41 to 49 thousand Megawatts of coal will be closed. Also The Mercury and Air Toxic 

Standard (MATS) is expected to close approximately 56 thousand Megawatts of coal generation. 

Combined, the Clean Power Plan and MATS will close approximately 40 percent of today's coal 

fleet, leading to a loss of fuel diversity, massive increases to consumer prices, less reliability and 

security of the electrical grid, and the loss of approximately 400,000 jobs. 
So for all this trouble — the loss of jobs, loss of fuel diversity, increase in prices, and the 

pain felt by people like Sharon Garcia — you would think the Clean Power Plan will result in a 

meaningful reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, our members and other Coloradans 

will be very disappointed, for the Clean Power Plan will have almost no impact on the CO2 

emissions that contribute to global climate change. As the graph included with my testimony 

shows, the problem is not with the United States, whose CO2 emissions have been flat since1990 

but rather, with the rest of the world where CO2 emissions have risen approximately 44 percent 

in 24 years. It is not possible for the United States to solve the world's global warming problem 

on its own. Any meaningful attempt to address global greenhouse gas emissions must 

incorporate America's trading partners; China and India in particular. 

The EPA and the administration should return to the drawing board to rethink its Clean 

Power Plan. The United States cannot afford the loss of fuel diversity, increased prices, the 

threat to reliability of the electric grid, or the job losses that will be caused by the Clean Power 

Plan. 

Thank You. 
45,000 

40,000 

35,000 

30. 

25, 

20,000 

15.000 

10.000 

5.000 • 

1990 2010 2020 2030 

—40—Total Global CO2 Emissions 

--4,—Non-U.S. CO2 Emissions 

—.—U.S. CO2 Emissions with EPA Rule 

—40—Total Global CO2 Emissions with EPA Rule 

U.S. CO2 Emissions 

U.S. and Global Carbon Emissions Projections 

(million metric tons) 

SOM.' EPA Carbon Regulation Proposal pg 547-543, and va.m.ela.gov/forecasts /table21.cfni