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

96–922 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–85 

IMPACTS OF EPA’S PROPOSED OZONE STANDARD 

ON MANUFACTURING AND UTILITIES 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 1, 2015—COLUMBUS, NE 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Baker, Russ, Manager, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Division, 

Omaha Public Power District .............................................................................. 12 

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

Kinter, John, Environmental Manager, Nucor Steel Nebraska ........................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Corbin, David E., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Health Education and Public 

Health, University of Nebraska—Omaha; Fellow of the American School 

Health Association; Affiliate Governing Council Representative to the 

American Public Health Association from the Public Health Association 

of Nebraska ........................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 39 

Zimmerer, Mark, President and CEO, Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce .... 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

(1) 

IMPACTS OF EPA’S PROPOSED OZONE STANDARD ON MANUFACTURING AND UTILITIES 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Columbus, NE. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. on September 

1, 2015, at the Fine Arts Center, Central Community College, 4500 

63rd Street, Columbus, Nebraska, Hon. Deb Fischer, U.S. Senator 

from the State of Nebraska, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. The hearing will come to order. 

Good morning. I am very pleased to convene the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for a field hearing which is titled Impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed 

Ozone Standard on Manufacturing and Utilities. 

It’s wonderful to host this hearing right here in Platte County, 

Nebraska, where the average unemployment rate is 3.24 percent 

and a thriving manufacturing industry serves as the foundation for 

many surrounding local communities. 

I would also like to extend a special thank you to Central Community College for providing today’s accommodations. 

Today we welcome a group of Nebraska stakeholders to share 

their perspectives on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule to reduce the allowable concentration of ground-level 

ozone from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 parts per billion. 

Today’s hearing allows us to explore this issue in depth and determine the impacts this proposal will have on Nebraska’s families, 

businesses and utilities. 

The EPA’s proposal has been called the most expensive regulation of all time. Regardless of one’s view on this proposal, we can 

all agree the American people deserve to know the real cost of this 

regulation. 

Additionally, it is unclear whether the new standard provides 

any real health benefits. There are also serious flaws with the 

EPA’s methods and modeling for the proposal. 

For example, the EPA did not consider personal exposure to 

ozone, which is the concentration people actually breathe in when 

setting the standard. Instead, the agency used outdoor monitoring 

data that significantly overestimates the risk. 
2 

Furthermore, the EPA’s own assessment indicates that lowering 

ozone concentrations would actually result in more deaths in some 

instances. This alarming result either shows a stricter standard 

would not achieve its objective or that there are serious problems 

with the EPA’s methodology. 

While questions remain about the scientific evidence used to justify the EPA’s proposal, there is no question that this new standard 

would be economically devastating. A stricter ozone standard would 

put 57 Nebraska counties in nonattainment. This includes rural 

counties that have less than one person per square mile. 

This rule would also expose urban areas like Omaha, which currently complies with Federal clean air standards, to harsh regulations that will stifle new and existing industry growth, as well as 

impede transportation infrastructure improvements. 

Moreover, the EPA’s proposal would require power plants and industrial facilities across Nebraska to install expensive ozone control 

equipment, limit production or buy offsets, which would stifle economic growth. 

This means that our citizens, Nebraska is the only 100 percent 

public power State in the country, and this means that our citizens 

own the electricity. 

The additional compliance costs imposed by this proposed rule 

would be passed down to small businesses, it would be passed 

down to families and it would result in a $370 drop in average 

household consumption per year. 

Nebraskans value clean air. Our businesses and utilities take seriously their role in protecting air quality. However, many communities are still struggling to achieve the standards that were set in 

2008. Stricter standards would put an additional burden on communities across our State. In some cases, due to background ozone 

levels, attainment would be virtually impossible to attain. 

I have serious concerns about imposing additional rules, regulations and permitting requirements on our jobs, our Nation’s job creators, our electricity providers and our families. We should not be 

in the business of creating unnecessary regulations; instead, we 

need to explore policy options that promote growth. 

I am entering into the record comments submitted by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, the Omaha Public 

Power District and the Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce. Each 

set of comments states that the current ozone standard of 75 parts 

per billion should be retained. 

Additionally, I am also submitting to the record testimony from 

Dr. Bryan Shaw, he is the commissioner of the Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality who provided testimony for the committee hearing on this topic last December. He states that EPA’s 

process of setting ozone standards has not scientifically proven that 

further lowering of the ozone standard will fail to provide any 

measurable increase in human health protection. 

Today’s panel represents diverse perspectives on the effect of the 

proposed rule to lower the ground-level ozone standard. I am eager 

to hear further details from our panelists on the challenges that 

each industry and business will face if and when the EPA finalizes 

this proposed rule. 
3 

Today’s hearing will begin with a witness who can speak to the 

importance of providing affordable and reliable electricity to our 

Nebraska ratepayers. Russ Baker is the manager for the Omaha 

Public Power District’s Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Division. Mr. Baker plans, organizes and directs OPPD’s environmental 

compliance programs and related regulatory matters across the district’s nuclear, coal, natural gas and ever increasing renewable generation fleet. 

Mr. Baker has been with OPPD since 2000 and has worked in 

environmental affairs for nearly a decade. In addition to his tenure 

at OPPD, Mr. Baker has also served on the Board of WasteCap Nebraska, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping businesses 

and communities in Nebraska reduce and eliminate waste in Nebraska. 

Russ, I am very eager to hear how this proposed rule will impact 

our public power utilities, please begin your testimony. 

[The referenced comments follow:] 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

STATEMENT OF RUSS BAKER, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL 

AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS DIVISION, OMAHA PUBLIC 

POWER DISTRICT 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is 

Russ Baker, and I am the manager of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at Omaha Public Power District. 

I am here testifying today on behalf of the Nebraska Power Association. I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for 

your hard work in the support of our association members throughout the State of Nebraska. We stand ready to continue to work 

with you to maintain and improve Nebraskans access to affordable, 

reliable and environmentally sensitive electric power. 

The Nebraska Power Association is comprised of the 167 utilities 

that produce and deliver electricity to Nebraskans. We are a voluntary organization representing all segments of Nebraska’s power 

industry, municipalities, public power districts, public power and 

irrigation districts and cooperatives which are engaged in generation transmission and distribution of electricity within our State. 

Nebraska is the only State in the U.S. where every home and 

business is served by a publicly controlled utility. Publicly owned 

utilities exist to serve customers. There are no stockholders and 

thus no profit motive. Public power electric prices do not include 

a profit. Nebraskans utilities focus exclusively on keeping electric 

rates low and customer service high. 

Today I will discuss the Nebraska Power Association’s view of 

the EPA’s proposal to update the air quality standards for groundlevel ozone. 

On November 25th of 2014, the EPA proposed to strengthen the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards or ground-level ozone. 

EPA is proposing to update both the primary ozone standard to 

protect public health and the secondary standard to protect the 

public welfare. Both standards would be an 8-hour standard set 

within a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion. 

Ozone is a pollutant that has respiratory health effects in humans and also impairs plant growth and damages crops. It is produced when emissions nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight. 

Controls on nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compound emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources have enabled 

many U.S. counties to meet the 75 parts per billion standard, but 

the number of counties in nonattainment status, currently at 227, 

would jump to 358 or 558 if the standard is revised to 75 parts per 

billion or 65 parts per billion respectively. 

In the State of Nebraska, should the standard be set less than 

68 parts per billion, the counties of Knox and Douglas would likely 

be classified as nonattainment, impacting 8,605 and 535,556 people 

respectively based on 2013 estimates. 

The potential impact of these designations can be found in a 

study by NERA Economic Consulting that was commissioned by 

the National Association of Manufacturers. The study estimated 

that an ozone standard of 65 parts per billion could cost the economy $140 billion per year, eliminate 1.4 million job equivalents an-
13 

nually and cost the average U.S. household up to $830 per year in 

the form of lost consumption. 

We are hopeful that the EPA also considered the adverse effect 

a lower ozone standard may have on low income households and 

whether the possible benefits of lower ambient ozone levels offset 

the possible harmful effects of unemployment or having less disposable income to purchase necessary goods and services such as groceries, medicine, obtaining proper medical care or the ability to afford electricity which is needed for comfort, security, cooking and 

overall well-being. 

While the Nebraska Power Association is supportive of ambient 

air quality standards that are protective of public health, we are 

also concerned with the ramifications of the proposed more stringent ozone NAAQS. 

The impacts of a lower ozone standard in the potential designation of Nebraska’s largest population center, the city of Omaha, as 

nonattainment for ozone, will have significant economic impacts on 

these areas and the State as a whole. 

With significant economic and job loss impacts of a tight ozone 

standard, we feel the EPA reconsider the ultimate benefit of finalizing an ozone standard lower than the current 75 parts per billion 

standard. 

EPA’s own analysis indicates that significant reductions in ozone 

levels will be achieved absent a new ozone air quality standard by 

implementation of a number of other EPA regulations including the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and Regional Haze Regulations. As 

such, the substantial costs associated with large sections of the 

country being designated nonattainment for ozone will needlessly 

be levied on those communities and States, while EPA already has 

regulations in place that will act to reduce ozone concentrations to 

the levels anticipated in the proposed rule. 

It seems a rational approach would be to maintain the ozone 

standard at the current level, and allow other EPA regulations to 

act to lower ambient ozone levels. EPA could then revisit the issue 

during the next 5-year air quality standard review to assess the 

progress made in lowering ozone levels and determine if setting a 

lower ambient air quality standard is required as further incentive 

to reduce ozone levels. 

Alternatively, if EPA determines that a newer lower ozone standard is required, the Nebraska Power Association suggests that EPA 

set the standard at 70 parts per billion and write the final rule 

such that implementation of the standard has the least economic 

impact on the country as possible. 

EPA has already conducted modeling and an assessment of future ozone levels under current and proposed regulations and determined that ozone levels will drop significantly. Because EPA 

analysis shows that a majority of the country will achieve compliance with a lower ozone standard without any area-specific actions, 

at the discretion of the State involved, the final rule should allow 

for EPA analysis to substitute for the traditional requirements associated with the nonattainment designation. 

There should be no need for a detailed analysis to form a plan 

to achieve compliance, no need for area-specific actions by existing 

sources of emissions and no need for the area to be subject to the 
14 

stringent nonattainment new source review permitting requirements that may act to stunt economic development. 

This approach will allow for achievement of the ambient ozone 

goals while maintaining and minimizing the costs. 

In summary, the Nebraska Power Association believes that the 

most prudent approach to attaining lower ambient ozone levels, 

without imposing a high cost on the country’s economy, is to leave 

the current ozone standard in place and allow the impacts of other 

regulations EPA is implementing to act to lower ambient ozone 

concentrations, as EPA has determined they will. 

Alternatively, if it is determined that a lower standard is required, the Nebraska Power Association believes that a standard 

set at 70 parts per billion is appropriate and implementation of the 

standard should allow States to use EPA’s analysis and modeling 

as a remedy, or part of the remedy, for any area that is showing 

nonattainment with the new standard. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and I 

would be happy to answer any questions you might have for me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you Mr. Baker. 

Next I would like to welcome John Kinter. He is the environmental manager of Nucor Steel which is located in Norfolk. Mr. 

Kinter has over 18 years of experience in environmental affairs, a 

graduate of the University of Nebraska’s Environmental Studies 

Program. He has also served in the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality as an environmental specialist. 

We are very fortunate to have someone testify today who has as 

much experience with implications of environmental regulations as 

you do, sir. So please begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN KINTER, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER, 

NUCOR STEEL NEBRASKA 

Mr. KINTER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Fischer, on behalf of our more than 1,000 Nebraska 

teammates and our over 23,000 teammates across the country, 

thank you for the invitation to testify today on the Environmental 

Protections Agency’s proposed standard for ground-level ozone. 

I am John Kinter, environmental manager of Nucor Steel Nebraska in Norfolk. Nucor Corporation is the largest steel producer 

in North America as well as the largest recycling. 

In order to put into context the impacts of the administration’s 

proposed ozone standard, I would like to take a minute to describe 

briefly the current state of the global steel industry. 

For the past 18 months, steel imports have been surging into the 

United States at record levels. Our market is currently the strongest for steel demand which is attracting these imports. However, 

many of these steel imports are only competitive because they are 

illegally dumped or subsidized. 

All too often, foreign governments provide their steel companies 

with substantial financial support, in violation of international 

trade laws. 

As a result, U.S. steel makers are not benefiting from a stringer 

U.S. economy. In fact, thousands of steel jobs have been lost this 

year because of the impact unfairly traded imports are having on 

our market. 

The effect of these job losses ripple beyond our industry since 

every one steel job supports an additional seven jobs in America. 

In this difficult global steel market, any regulatory proposal that 

threatens to greatly increase our cost is of concern. Margins are already tight. By some estimates, the proposed ozone standard could 

be one of the costliest regulations ever. 

Nucor operates 24 steel mills across the country. Today only one 

of those steel mills is in an area designated as being in nonattainment for ozone. Should the EPA decide to set a new standard at 

the lower end of the proposed range, Nucor will potentially have 19 

steel mills in nonattainment areas, including our mill here in Nebraska. Going from 1 to 19 mills in nonattainment areas would be 

a drastic and costly change. 

Lowering the ozone standard to 65 or even 70 parts per billion, 

would make it difficult to expand or build new industrial facilities. 

Companies wanting to build or expand will be faced with an expensive permitting process and be forced to install costly emission reduction controls. The EPA has acknowledged that existing tech-
25 

nology will not be sufficient to achieve the level of reduction it is 

proposing. This puts companies in a difficult spot. We are being 

asked to make significant emission reductions, but the technology 

to achieve then does not exist. 

Increased costs for emission control technology would not be the 

only hit to our bottom line. Nucor will also face increased energy 

prices as energy producers pass their compliance costs on to their 

customers. 

Energy represents 20 percent or more of the cost of making a ton 

of steel. As I’ve already mentioned, steel companies compete 

against foreign steelmakers that receive subsidies from their governments, including energy subsidies. 

To remain competitive, the steel industry needs global, reliable 

energy. The proposed ozone standard will make an already difficult 

competitive environment for American steelmakers that much 

worse. 

The proposed rule will also hurt economic development for communities in Nebraska and around the country. Lowering the ozone 

standard will reduce investment, especially for the manufacturing 

sector which provides high-wage jobs. The timing couldn’t be worse. 

Low energy prices make the U.S. an attractive place for manufacturing, but reducing the ozone standard will make building new facilities much less likely. Nothing dries up business investment faster than uncertainty. 

Nucor believes the 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion 

should be fully implemented and the environmental and health 

benefits measured before considering lowering the standard again. 

EPA data shows the ozone precursor emissions have been cut in 

half during the last 10 years. Full implementation of the 2008 

standard will result in additional remission reductions. Based on 

these facts, we believe it is unnecessary to lower the ozone standard at this time. 

The U.S. is the one economic bright spot globally right now, let’s 

not jeopardize this position by moving ahead hastily to implement 

a new ozone standard before we have even fully implemented the 

previous one. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kinter follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Next we have Dr. David Corbin, a professor emeritus of the 

Health Education and Public Health at the University of Nebraska 

in Omaha. 

He is a fellow of the American School Health Association, as well 

as the representative of the Affiliate Governing Counsel to the 

American Public Health Association from the Public Health Association of Nebraska. 

I would note that as is customary for Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee hearings, we worked in a bipartisan matter to select witnesses, and I welcome Dr. Corbin to begin your testimony when you are ready. Nice to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. CORBIN, PH.D., PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HEALTH EDUCATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA—OMAHA; FELLOW OF THE AMERICAN 

SCHOOL HEALTH ASSOCIATION; AFFILIATE GOVERNING 

COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 

HEALTH ASSOCIATION FROM THE PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. CORBIN. Thank you for the opportunity to present before you 

today. As you heard, I’m Dr. David Corbin from University of Nebraska in Omaha, and you already heard my other credentials. 

My testimony will be both professional and personal since I also 

suffer from asthma. Since the main focus of this hearing is the impact of ozone standards on manufacturing industry, electric utilities and other stakeholders, I would first like to draw attention to 

another public health issue that I worked on to protect the public’s 

health. 

The issue was to the creation of smokeless environments including bars and restaurants. Many business owners testified about 

how they would go out of business if the law passed. The law did 

pass, business flourished and health improved. In short, what is 

good for health is good for business. 

The Wellness Councils of America founded right here in Nebraska is one of the Nation’s largest and most respected organizations for promoting healthy work sites. 

They believe that the workplace is an ideal setting to address 

employee health and well-being. They also believe, as does any 

health-related organization, that prevention is better and less expensive than treatment. 

A reduced ground-level ozone standard is a known method of prevention. The American Public Health Association and the American 

Lung Association are two of the countless health-related organizations that support a health protective standard for ozone. 

A stronger ozone standard will prevent deaths, hospital admissions, asthma attacks and days missed at work and school. It is society’s duty to protect the most vulnerable, of which I am included 

by virtue of being an older adult, having asthma and being a person who desires to exercise outside. 

Other vulnerable groups are children, people with lung and cardiovascular conditions and even healthy adults who work in the 

outdoors. 
31 

Imagine the dilemma of a public health profession who has spent 

much of his or her career promoting exercise to improve health, 

who then has to advise people not to exercise outside because of 

high ozone levels. 

Businesses, including those testifying here today, rightly promote 

safety and health. What business would want to have their own 

workers or their workers’ families exposed to a known health hazard, especially since it can save the company money and health 

care costs and missed workdays. And since we already have effective methods of reducing ozone levels. 

Nebraska’s blessed with an abundant wind and solar resources 

that when exploited can help to keep ozone levels low and produce 

energy without adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. 

The world just experienced the hottest July in recorded history. 

High temperatures exacerbate ozone levels. The world successfully 

addressed our other ozone problem, the hole in the protective upper 

atmosphere via a worldwide effort that resulted in the banning of 

chlorofluorocarbons. Ground-level ozone is the opposite of protective, but it is a problem that can be solved. 

The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the 

world, published a report on June 23, 2015, in which they said, 

‘‘Ground-level ozone and particulate air pollutants are elements 

that will be most affected by climate change. Climate change is 

predicted to elevate ground-level ozone levels over large areas of 

the U.S. and Europe.’’ 

If the threat to human health isn’t enough, the very heart of our 

Nebraska agricultural economy is threatened by ground-level 

ozone. A study published in the journal of Atmospheric Environment said this: ‘‘Our results suggest that ozone pollution poses a 

growing threat to global food security even under an optimistic scenario of future ozone precursor emissions. Further efforts to reduce 

surface ozone concentration thus provide an excellent opportunity 

to increase global grain yields.’’ 

This information alone should be a call for strict standards on 

ground-level ozone. My own physician here in Nebraska, Dr. Linda 

Ford, who would have liked to be here to testify today but couldn’t, 

she treats me for asthma and she’s been the president of American 

Lung Association. She summed up the ozone situation succinctly: 

‘‘Every little bit we decrease the levels of ozone, we’ll save on 

health care costs. So where do you want to spend your money? If 

you want to take care of your people and prevent disease, you 

spend it on decreasing ozone.’’ 

I and millions of other Americas would love to breathe easier and 

spend less money on my asthma medication. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corbin follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much, Dr. Corbin. 

Next we have Mr. Mark Zimmerer, president and CEO of the 

Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce, a life-long Nebraskan Mr. 

Zimmerer has also served as the director of the Northeast Nebraska Child Advocacy Center, Faith Regional Health Services, an 

advocacy group dedicated to working to achieve child-focused approaches and child abuse and negligent cases. 

Mark, you are to be commended for your community service and 

working with abused and at-risk children. 

Prior to being selected as the Chamber’s new president, Mr. 

Zimmerer served on the organization’s board of directors. I am 

looking forward to hearing from you and I know you will offer great 

insight on how the proposed ozone rule will impact the small business community in Norfolk, Nebraska. When you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF MARK ZIMMERER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NORFOLK AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator 

Fischer, for having me testify today. 

I’m Mark Zimmerer, president and CEO of the Norfolk Area 

Chamber of Commerce. Representing our 650 businesses, in which 

Nucor is one, and we are deeply concerned about the harmful impact of the EPA’s recent proposed rule to make ozone standard 

more stringent could have on a struggling economy. Ozone standards at the levels considered and EPA’s proposal could push virtually the entire country into nonattainment. 

Where local communities face burdens in attracting and keeping 

commercial and industrial activity, not only vital to creating jobs, 

but also to providing tax revenue that supports important local 

services like public safety and education. 

We all value clean air. The managers and employees of the companies we represent, as well as their families, we all breathe the 

same air. We are proud that the emissions of ozone-forming emissions have been cut in half since 1980, leading to a 33 percent drop 

in ozone concentrations. 

Moreover, EPA just updated these ozone standards just 6 years 

ago. This country can expect to see even greater reductions in 

ground-level ozone as States make up lost ground in putting the 

current standards into effect. 

Indeed, States are currently committing substantial resources, 

both in time and money, toward achieving emission reductions 

under those current ozone standards. Yet despite over three decades of cleaner air and before States can catch up with the EPA’s 

delays on implementing existing ozone standards, EPA is now proposing a new stringent standard between 70 and 65 parts per billion. 

In some areas, this proposed range is out or near the level of 

ground—background ozone that is naturally occurring or internationally transported pushing even remote counties far from industrial activities into nonattainment. 

According to EPA’s own data, even the pristine Grand Canyon 

and Yellowstone National Park would fail proposed ozone standards. 
55 

If finalized, EPA’s proposed stringent ozone standards could limit 

business expansion in nearly every populated region in the States 

and impair the ability of U.S. companies to create new jobs. 

The Clean Air Act carries even stiffer consequences for nonattainment areas, directly impacting economic vitality of local communities and making it difficult to attract and develop business. 

Increased costs associated with restrictive and expensive permit 

requirements would likely deter companies from sitting new facilities in nonattainment areas. 

We cannot stand by and allow our economy to be collateral damage as a result of more unnecessary and unfunded regulations. 

Nonattainment designations will have profound impact on infrastructure development vital to the business community. 

Beginning 1 year from the date of nonattainment designation, 

federally supported highway and transit projects cannot proceed in 

nonattainment areas unless the State can demonstrate that the 

project will cause no increased ozone emissions. These restrictions 

do not disappear when an area finally comes into attainment. Instead, former nonattainment areas face a legacy of EPA regulatory 

oversight. 

Against these economic consequences, scientific uncertainties regarding the benefits of more stringent ozone standards have increased. 

Indeed, stringent ozone standards may have severe unintended 

consequences for public health. Indeed, stringent ozone standards 

may cause the increase of cost of goods and services, such as energy and decreasing disposal incomes. Regulation can inadvertently 

harm social economic status of individuals and thereby contribute 

to poor health and premature death. 

The Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce believes these scientific 

uncertainties should better explored in order to best allocate resources in a manner that strengthens both the economy and environment. 

The need for balanced government policies and reasonable flexibilities has never been greater, and no single regulation threatens 

to disrupt this balance more than the EPA’s ozone rule. 

The air is getting cleaner and current ozone standards need an 

opportunity to work. Therefore, in light of the economic hardship, 

reduction in funding for crucial civic services and uncertain benefits all related to the stringent ozone standard that EPA now is 

considering, the Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce calls on the 

EPA to retain the existing ozone standard of 75 parts per billion. 

Standard for ground-level ozone. Let us meet these requirements 

before once again moving the target. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zimmerer follows:] 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much and I thank you all for 

your thoughtful testimony. 

It’s clear that you and the groups you represent have strong appreciation for the importance of a healthy environment and strong 

driving communities here in Nebraska. But there are clearly some 

major issues with the proposed rule that would impact both rural 

and metropolitan areas of the State. 

I would like to open up this first question to all the members of 

the panel, if you would like to weigh in on it. 

In your view, how do we as Nebraskans ensure that our air quality is at the highest standard and how will this proposed rule impact efforts to safeguard our air quality? Do you think the costly 

top down Federal standard from Washington, DC, basically, is it a 

help or is it going to be a hindrance? Why don’t we start with you, 

Mr. Baker. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Senator Fischer, for that question. 

I think, you know, from my perspective and I think you’ve heard, 

for sure Mr. Kinter and Mr. Zimmerer, speak about it, background 

levels of ozone are about half of what that standard is and it’s influenced by a lot of different conditions that are beyond our control. 

For instance, when there is burning that done in Kansas in the 

Flint Hills, we get particulates in ozone that cross over into the 

State of Nebraska and cause us air quality problems. 

Global transport from Asia and from States that are west of Nebraska also factor into it as well. 

The Federal Government in the way I think that they’re looking 

at this ozone standard in ratcheting down basically to a background of, will not allow any States that are going to be impacted 

to have any sort of economic development opportunities. 

I think as you heard Mr. Kinter talking, and I would wholeheartedly agree from a utility perspective, we’re getting to the 

point right now where there is not a technology that’s available 

that you can deploy to reduce the kinds of emissions that EPA is 

calling for. So it really is—it is a hindrance, and it’s almost like 

we’re at the law of diminishing returns on lowering a standard 

down a level that’s almost immeasurable. 

The health impacts of it, I would—I would argue to some of Dr. 

Corbin’s points that he’s making are hard to measure. We don’t 

have absolute data that shows a direct cause and impact, it’s extrapolated across a whole population of a country and not looked 

at specifically on a county or city basis. 

The lowering of that standard I think is a hindrance to our Nation and to our communities as a whole. That would be my perspective. 

Senator FISCHER. If I can follow up with you on that, you mentioned fires in the Flint Hills of Kansas and then you talked about 

States west of us and even overseas. We’re seeing millions of acres 

burn west of us, and we’ve all seen the effect on the red sky in the 

morning and at night that we see all across the State. I’ve traveled 

all across the State this month, I can tell you that every part of 

Nebraska has been affected by those fires to the west of us. 

Is there anything in the proposed rules that would take that into 

account that would allow for flexibility for a natural occurring 

event that we as a State have absolutely no control over when 
61 

they’re measuring the parts per billion on this, or is it just—is it 

just strict and we would be in nonattainment and then how do we 

get out of nonattainment? 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 

There are provisions that they speak about in the regulations 

where a State would be able to, more or less make a plea to EPA 

to say we’ve got certain conditions that are existing that are beyond the control that you can—that you should take into account. 

But the fact of the matter is, there are no real definitive boundaries on what they can do, it’s subjective and up to the interpretation of EPA and the agreement of EPA on whatever—whatever evidence or whatever sort of information that you bring forward from 

a State. That’s the way that I understand that. 

It’s not as—it’s not as definitive as what is stated to the regulation, so there are provisions to do that. 

I would say most, or at least from a utility perspective, you probably view that as maybe being a little skeptical of how—of how 

they would interpret that and maybe apply that given the plethora 

of other regulations that we’re facing in the utility industry for 

sure, I’m sure some of the other, if not all the other industries, in 

the State of Nebraska. 

Senator FISCHER. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Kinter. 

Mr. KINTER. Yes, thank you. Mr. Baker hit on a lot of—a lot of 

good points that I would just echo for Nucor. And no one would disagree that we want to live in a prosperous and healthy community 

and have clean air. What Nucor is concerned about is the uncertainty. 

We’re talking about specifically ground-level ozone and looking at 

a 65, 70 or keeping it at 75, there’s uncertainty with that. We just 

don’t know where this thing’s going to eventually go. And to Mr. 

Baker’s point about what’s happening that’s out of our control in 

Kansas, how is that really going to impact us when that can be a 

huge impact on raising the background levels which even tightens 

it even more for us. 

The permitting process that’s already in place is effective. We believe the 75 parts per billion number is the right number right 

now. We’re making significant progress to getting to that point and 

would challenge anybody to question the quality that we have here 

in Nebraska specifically on our air quality. 

The other point is that on the regulatory burden side is that we 

have to stay competitive. And in order to stay competitive on a 

global market, we’re competing with countries that basically are 

cheating the system through manipulating currency and trading 

practices that are currently in place that are being allowed. And 

the more that we have these stringent, burdensome regulatory, and 

costly I might add, regulations, the harder it’s going to be for us 

to compete. And where is the return on that? 

Again as I said, the health’s important to us. We all work and 

live in these communities as well, that’s part of our mission statement at Nucor, but there has to be a cost benefit analysis and were 

getting to the point of, as Mr. Baker said, a point of it just doesn’t 

make any sense. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. Dr. Corbin. 
62 

Mr. CORBIN. I agree about uncertainty. The uncertainty that I’m 

concerned about is when I’m going to have my next asthma attack 

or when my asthma is going to get worse. 

It would be hard for me to believe as a public health professional 

that all of these medical associations and public health groups that 

I’ve listed on the hand out are somehow conspiring against business. They are trying to make the country healthier and they are 

all of the belief that lowering the standards will do that. 

The—and by the way, I should point out conspire means breathe 

together, the original and that’s what we should all be doing: We 

should all be breathing together, not working against each other. 

So there’s ample evidence and usually we have what’s called a 

precautionary principle and that it says when it’s—when you’re in 

doubt about when it’s going to harm your health, you error on the 

side of good health. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Zimmerer. 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Well, part of my resume you left off, I ran the 

wellness program at Faith Regional Health Services as one of my 

other duties—— 

Senator FISCHER. My apologies, my apologies. 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Appreciate—I appreciate the doctor’s comments 

on this, you know, but I’m also a Husker fan and you say, well, 

how is that related? Well, you know, when we talk about the new 

coach, Coach Riley isn’t setting the team goal to reach the Super 

Bowl. Of course not. That’s not attainable through the college system. So what they do is they set goals to win the Big 10 and then 

maybe win the national championship, but those are all attainable 

goals. Those are something you can put the team’s efforts toward. 

This goal that they’re setting now is unattainable and it’s unrealistic and it’s just going to put our businesses at risk, so I’ll leave 

it at that. 

Senator FISCHER. If I can follow up with you. I believe from the 

standard that was set in 2008, California basically is in nonattainment; do you know about that? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. I do, yes. 

Senator FISCHER. And they get, like, a waiver or something, is 

that right, for the next 20 years, and it’s accepted that they will 

never attain the previous standard or the current standard that we 

have from 2008; is that correct? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Absolutely. 

Senator FISCHER. What happens to California if we see the 

standard lower? Are we just saying, well, you couldn’t meet the 

previous one, we know that, and we know you’re never going to 

meet this one too? What happens? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. And that is the concerning part, Senator, when 

we’re talking about, you know, you’re in a nonattainment area, we 

talk about critical infrastructure needs of our highway system, you 

know, possibly being at risk here, how is that fair that Nebraska 

is hindered by these restrictions and not some other State? These 

are—— 

Senator FISCHER. So California wouldn’t have to—they wouldn’t 

be affected by any of those restrictions even though they’re in a 

nonattainment area, because they have this waiver basically 20 
63 

years right now, so they can continue to build roads, they can continue to build manufacturing plants even though they’re never 

meeting the standards? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. I believe EPA has yet to clarify that, but I believe 

if they are lifting the ban on the restrictions for California, then 

that would, yet, eliminate the violations. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. Thank you. 

I have some questions for Mr. Baker. And I do thank you for 

your testimony and I’m very happen you’re here today. 

As you mentioned, Nebraska’s a hundred percent public power 

State. I happen to be very proud of the fact that Nebraskans own 

the electricity that we use. Do you believe that Nebraska and Nebraskans will be disproportionately affected by this rule because we 

are a public power State, and what actions are the utilities in the 

State going to have to take in order to meet the standard if it— 

if it is lowered to 65 parts per billion? What actions are going to 

have to be taken, and do you have any idea what the cost of that 

will be? 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

You know, as a public power entity, I don’t know that it would 

be fair to say that public power in and of itself would be singled 

out or have a disproportionate impact. I will go back to some of my 

testimony that says we have no profit margin that’s built into our 

rate structure, so any and all costs on this regulation, and the myriad of other regulations, are a direct pass-through to our customer 

owners because of that. 

You know, you might be able to draw a conclusion and say at, 

you know, public power entities without a profit, it is—it is a direct 

impact to our customer owners, so in that way, you could, but I 

don’t know that the—— 

Senator FISCHER. So basically, every Nebraskan’s going to be 

paying more for electricity? 

Mr. BAKER. They will pay whatever—well, whatever those utilities that are representing them need to spend more money in order 

to be in compliance with this particular rule, it will directly impact 

that bottom line. 

To some of your other questions on that, you know, logically and 

as we talked about before, you know, when you’re facing a regulation and when something with the ozone they’re looking at nitrogen 

oxides, I think it would be reasonable to assume the EPA is looking 

for any industries, in particular though electric generating companies and those facilities, to put in technologies that would control 

nitrogen oxides. 

I would say in most cases, almost all of the utilities in the State 

of Nebraska have deployed technologies to remedy that. We have 

put in catalytic reduction units, you know, much like a, you know, 

much like a catalyst on a car, you know, to control the emissions 

on many of our big units. 

We also deploy what they call low nitrogen oxide burners and 

technologies that do some things to reduce nitrogen oxides that 

way as well. Again, we’re getting to a point where there wouldn’t 

be much more that we could really do. 

I would also caution and bring to the forefront that half of the 

ozone that we’re measuring comes from natural background. Of the 
64 

half that’s remaining, it’s only a fractional part that’s really coming 

from industry. The large majority of that remaining fraction is 

coming from transportation. 

It seems to me that a strategy would be better to focus on kind 

of the mobile sources much like in the State of California. Those 

are some of the reasons why those areas suffer from such huge attainment issues because they have so many people that are on the 

roads and that’s why you see a lot of the California emissions on 

vehicles, they’re different than the rest of the Nation. It’s because 

of transportation. 

So it seemed with fuel, fuel efficiency standards and such like 

that, you can make more. You can get more bang for the buck than 

you would on limiting the economic development opportunities of 

whole parts of our country and whole parts of our State by reducing that standard. There would be very little on the industrial side 

that you could do to control some of those emissions. 

Senator FISCHER. Are there discussions by the EPA to further reduce emissions from vehicles? Do you know or has the focus been 

on utilities and manufacturing with these rules? 

Mr. BAKER. You know, my experience has been it’s hard to say 

with EPA right now. We’ve—I’ve got my hands full just worrying 

about producing electricity in the myriad of regulations that we’re 

facing on that front. And of course, we’ve just recently had the 

Clean Power Plan which is, you know, trying to do other things, 

you know, to the industry. 

So would they be looking at fuel efficiency standards, I think a 

reasonable person would say that they probably are looking at 

ways to ratchet that down. 

But I don’t know if the fuel efficiency standards, how much they 

actually take credit for that in issues like ambient air quality 

standards with ozone. I’m not sure about that. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. I would like to take a minute and highlight the—what you believe is a very robust energy portfolio that 

many Nebraska utilities are now incorporating and I commend our 

utilities for taking the initiative to introduce these new fuel sources 

like natural gas for utilizing renewable energy sources to produce 

electricity. I think a balanced energy portfolio is very, very important for all of us here in this State and in this country. 

And I also know that we are blessed that we have an abundance 

of natural resources in this country and they need to be managed 

correctly so that we can ensure domestic energy security as we 

move forward. 

Mr. Baker, I would ask if you can describe more about the impact that these proposed standards and if you want to throw in 

other EPA regulations, that would be fine, would have on our energy reliability and what are the potential costs that utilities face. 

You know, we as Senators, we always hear about regulations and 

most of the time the negative impact that they have on Nebraska 

families, so I would ask your opinion on that. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that question and 

that perspective. 

You know reliability, as I stated in my opening remarks, is, you 

know, is critical to the success of utilities in the State of Nebraska. 
65 

We want reliable, affordable and environmentally sensitive electric 

generation for our customer owners. 

Reliability, I would say would be impacted in some ways and it 

should be no surprise, I think to you, that, you know, the EPA has 

a concerted effort to try and reduce the dependence of coal fire generation in the United States. The regulations—an objective observer would say there’s a whole-scale effort to try and limit the 

amount of electricity that’s produced by that fuel source. 

A reduced ozone standard could have, when measured with all 

the other regulations that we’re facing, have the impact of reducing 

our ability to generate electricity using coal. That added to all the 

other, you know, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the Clean 

Power Plan, limitations that we have on coal ash of where we can 

bury it and what we need to do with it and how we need to measure on that and issues on water discharges and thermal issues and 

just the entire, you know, the entire list of different regulations 

that we face, really limit our ability to produce coal. 

Two of the utilities in the State of Nebraska have nuclear in 

their portfolios. Omaha Public Power District does. Nebraska Public Power District does. We’re very proud to have that zero carbon 

producing generation in our portfolios, and many utilities have 

been—begun adding a lot of renewables into the mix as well. 

If you diminish the amount of coal fire generation that we have 

and only to our proximity to mines where we have very affordable 

transportation rates, you know, to use that coal and to generate 

electricity in a very clean manner with proven technologies, you 

know, to capture some of these contaminants, what you’re left with 

are a lot more renewables, right. 

The Clean Power Plan is really pushing to bring more renewables into a portfolio. That’s the tie-in to the reliability because the 

renewables aren’t there all the time; solar is not there at night. 

Wind doesn’t blow in July in the State of Nebraska, or in many 

parts of the country when it’s very, very hot. So what do you do 

when you can’t produce base-load generation using our tried and 

true and clean, you know, coal fire generation and you have limited 

access to nuclear in these days, you have nothing left. You have 

some natural gas which we have in the State of Nebraska, but we 

need a huge amount of infrastructure build-out to bring a lot of 

natural gas, unlike maybe the State of Texas. 

So you would—that is where you would have the unreliability aspect, because you would need to have some base-load generation to 

supply activity when the sun’s not shining and when the wind’s not 

blowing. 

And absent—absent having a build-out of natural gas or fossil reserves that you can rely on, that I think would be the tie into to 

the reliability. 

Senator FISCHER. Statewide, could you tell me how much of our 

portfolio for electricity is a percentage that would be reliant upon 

a coal-fired plant? I’ve heard two-thirds; is that about what it is? 

Mr. BAKER. I think somewhere a little more than 50 percent 

right now in its current state, but you may or may not be familiar, 

like at Omaha Public Power District, last year our board of directors made an announcement we’re retiring three of the units. Three 

of the five units that we have at our North Omaha power plant. 
66 

It wasn’t a direct result of the Clean Power Plan, it wasn’t a direct result of the Mercury and Air Toxic Standard, it wasn’t a direct result of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. I’m just naming 

a couple, two or three right now, as an example; it was because of 

the myriad of regulations that we were facing where we looked and 

said that these units were not going to be viable and it wasn’t economically feasible to invest a whole lot of money for their continued 

operation. And when we look to the future and, of course, our planning horizon is 15 or 20 years into the future, you know, we needed 

to make some certainty in decisions that we were making. So we 

last year made a decision to retire three units at our North Omaha 

power station. 

That will have a consequence of improving, you know, on an air 

quality emission profile that will be less air emissions coming from 

those units because the will no longer be in operation. 

Senator FISCHER. How do you handle your base-load capacity 

then? If, I mean, you mentioned with renewables, if the wind 

doesn’t below, you can’t turn on the lights, there’s no storage right 

now for the electricity produced in that way? 

Mr. BAKER. Correct. 

Senator FISCHER. So how are you going to manage—if we have 

a turnover really quickly, which I don’t think is possible to see that 

happen very quickly, to close coal-fired electric plants, but if you 

do have a turnover, how do you handle base-load capacity and 

what—what do you see, I guess, happening to the utility in the future then? 

Mr. BAKER. So at Omaha, Nebraska Public Power District, I can 

tell you we had some excess capacity that was in our portfolio so 

we could take those units out of service, and keep in mind three 

units of the five is about half of the generation from that facility, 

so it’s a little shy of 300 megawatts of generation that we were 

going to take out of or portfolio. 

That margin, we were still OK looking to the future from my 

company’s perspective, I don’t foresee us building another nuclear 

plant for baseload. Renewables, as I’ve already stated, are kind of 

there to fill in some gaps. With an inability to build any future 

coal-fire generation, the only thing that we would really have left 

to add for extra capacity would be natural gas combined cycle is 

where we would look to meet that gap. I would say that would. 

Senator FISCHER. And you would have to fill that gap with a 

source like natural gas, correct? 

Mr. BAKER. At some point you would have to build extra generating capability to take up the slack and to cover those times when 

renewables aren’t there. And right now the only thing that’s really 

left would be natural gas, in my opinion, and kind of looking at, 

you know, looking at the future right now in the short term, 

that’s—that would probably be it. 

Senator FISCHER. We had talked about a nonattainment designation and the impact that it may have. I would like to know since 

you represent OPPD, what impact do you think a designation of 

nonattainment would have on Omaha, how would that affect further development really in the metropolitan area of our State? 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Senator. 
67 

You know, as you have heard, I think it would be crippling. The 

permitting that you would need to undergo for bringing in any new 

sources, any new industries into the area would be massive and 

very expensive. Not to mention some of the unintended consequences that you would have. 

I know from first hand working with organizations like the Metro 

Area Planning Agency in Omaha metro area, we’ve been looking at 

this issue for over 5 years. Omaha Public Power District, the State 

of Nebraska and really even the State of Iowa, because this isn’t— 

it would affect Omaha for sure and Douglas County and some of 

the surrounding counties, it would also effect Iowa, so the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has been involved. 

We have been in a partnership with some of those other groups 

to do what they call Little Steps, Big Impact. And so some of the 

consequences of nonattainment from the perspective of the inability 

to bring in other industries which are so vital to kind of the economic viability of those communities, but some of the simple things 

like the way that you would dispense your gasoline may have to 

change and some limitations that we would have on our ability to 

car pool, there might be local standards or State standards or 

maybe even a Federal, you know, through EPA imposed on us 

where you would have to do more, you know, more car pooling. 

Which, you know, on the surface would be a good thing, but 

there’s also that negative impact of what kind of build-out you 

would need from a public transportation perspective, which we may 

not have the ability to do. 

But for the last 5 years, we’ve been trying to work to educate the 

communities of what these negative impacts would be, absent really any industrial impact, just on the lifestyles of people and try to 

encourage them to car pool when it made sense, try to encourage 

them to mow their lawns in the evening. 

There are a lot of unintended consequences of setting that standard too low which at this point, depending on where that level is, 

could really impact—could impact individuals and families in the 

community in very negative ways. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much for answering my questions; I appreciate it. 

Next, Mr. Kinter, you’re up. Here we go. You mentioned the very 

difficult global environment that we’re seeing with our steel companies now. I guess I would like you to expand on that a little bit 

and really how that’s going to affect Nucor specifically, if you could, 

and how you’re going to deal with your competition. 

Mr. KINTER. OK, first off, Nucor is never afraid of a fight, as long 

as it’s on a level playing field. 

Senator FISCHER. I’ve toured your plant, so tough people. 

Mr. KINTER. And that’s what we talk about a lot is that we’re 

not afraid to compete as long as it’s on a level playing field. 

Senator FISCHER. Exactly. 

Mr. KINTER. So I would start off with that and say that again, 

to what we have here in America versus the air quality in different 

parts of the world is completely different. And we’re asked to continue to operate and be permitted under such regulatory burden, 

it’s hard for us to compete. 
68 

Again, not saying that the rules and regulations and the permits 

that are in place are for the right thing. We do agree we need to 

operate in a healthy and safe manner, but in order to stay competitive with the markets right now, and some of this understand is 

outside of the scope of the EPA; it has to do with the trading issues 

that of course we’ve talked publicly a lot about, I’m sure you’re 

aware of as well. 

Just to put it in perspective—and Mr. Baker did a great job of 

covering as well—but our second largest input to making steel is 

energy. We are the largest fired electricity in the State of Nebraska, so as you can imagine our power bill is significant the way 

it is already. 

Our estimates are looking at 20 to 30 percent increase in electrical costs, specifically to this rule, and that’s on not to mention 

the Greenhouse Gas Rules and the Clean Power Rule and things 

that are coming along the pipeline there as well. 

So to put it in perspective, we have 24 operating steel mills in 

this country, billions just for us specifically here in Nebraska, 

which multiply it by all our other plants. Again when our margins 

are so tight, as I mentioned in our testimony, that millions of dollars equates to less profit and less success for the company. 

Of course, we have a number of shareholders and folks that we 

need to continue to be profitable. And there are numerous examples of steel companies today, right now, that are shutting down 

because they’re no longer profitable and successful. So we definitely 

have concerns with that. 

In regards to the renewable discussion, I would just add that for 

Nucor, we have many customers that are into their own business 

as well, so we are supportive of that. Under two circumstances: 

One, it needs to be reliability, and it also needs to be economical. 

Those are the two things that we should be looking at when we’re 

looking at renewables. 

Right now, because of coal and what it is, specifically for Nebraska that’s a huge baseload for us. And we are concerned about 

the new born in the renewable energy business, where is the reliability going to be and of course the costs associated with it. 

Senator FISCHER. Can you tell me the difference in how you 

produce steel as a company here in the United States and compare 

it to how steel is produced overseas and what you can tell us about 

the environmental impact on both of those cycles? 

Mr. KINTER. Sure. Sure. 

Nucor, hundred percent of the steel that Nucor makes is with the 

electric arc furnace technology—— 

Senator FISCHER. Tell us, how does that work, though. 

Mr. KINTER. We use electricity to basically create an arc in our 

furnace which melts the steel at approximately 300 degrees Fahrenheit, that’s the electric arc furnace technology. Nucor basically 

invented that and it started in Europe in the early 1960s, and 

Nucor kind of took that and expanded upon it. We now produce almost 20 million tons of steel in the United States all using electric 

arc furnace technology. 

In doing so, our greenhouse gas emissions are a third to twothirds less than what we would call an integrated facility which 

uses the natural iron ore out of the ground to produce steel. So sig-
69 

nificantly much more energy intensive process, because you’re taking it from the ground and produce the steel, where a lot of the 

process has already happened when we take the scrap metal and 

put it to electricity. 

So environmentally, our impact is much less. Obviously, we’re recycling a product that otherwise would have ended up in a landfill. 

And that’s a success story on the scrap side as well because, you 

know, there are still many countries that don’t have a way of recycling scrap. We have that here. We have a great network of scrap 

handlers and dealerships throughout the country that scrap has become a great example of how recycling should work. I mean, we’ve 

always said we were green before green was really cool, because 

we’ve been doing it since the 1960s. 

Senator FISCHER. Good. Your comment that the proposed rule 

will hurt economic development, and you said reduce investment in 

communities in Nebraska that that’s disturbing to hear. Can you 

talk about how the manufacturing sector typically grows around 

one of your steel mills and do you see additional facilities develop 

around your steel mill, what about jobs, you know, just the effect 

on a local area with say one of your 24 plants? 

Mr. KINTER. Sure. Sure. With every one steel job, seven more are 

created in the community. And when you look at various partners 

that we have specifically in Norfolk, we have a number of facilities 

and industries have grown around Nucor and buying various pieces 

of steel or supplying us with inputs that we need for making steel. 

One thing to point out, and we focused a little bit on Omaha and 

the concerns there, but one thing to consider is I would—we would 

consider Norfolk to be in a rural part of the State, more or less. 

And when it comes to ozone and how we’re going to get to the levels EPA is proposing is through two ways: is through offsets and 

it’s through technology. 

Senator FISCHER. You said the technology’s not there to reach, to 

reach the proposed rules. Did I hear that correctly in our opening? 

Mr. KINTER. For the steel-baking electric arc business, the SER 

technologies that Mr. Baker talked about are out there. We have 

yet to find somebody that can put a CR system on an electric arc 

furnace. As you’ve seen the facility before that would be very challenging to do that. 

It’s not there yet, could it be there in 10 to 20 years, possibly. 

Offsets is the way that Nucor would have to go and in looking at 

a rural community, where do we get the offsets from? There isn’t 

a whole lot of manufacturing, although we’re proud of our manufacturing areas that we have in Norfolk, there are some, but when you 

look at Nucor and what we do and where we need to get those offsets. 

Technology isn’t there yet, and there really aren’t offsets for us 

to grow. So to your point about growing in Norfolk and bringing in 

more business, quite honestly the last thing from the environmental perspective what we would probably want to do right now 

is try to attract somebody that produces a lot of NOx and volatile 

organic compound emission in Norfolk because that would keep us 

from growing. 

Senator FISCHER. Under the proposed rule, do you have to find 

an offset in a local community within a certain radius? You said 
70 

the offsets aren’t available in Norfolk, can you look—can you look 

elsewhere? Can you look anywhere in the State? Can you look in 

other States or is it specific to a region that you’re located in? I 

don’t know the answer. 

Mr. KINTER. There is some flexibility in that. Again, it’s how it’s 

interpreted and how even the State of Nebraska would look at that 

and how the different areas are set up when a nonattainment actually comes in place. 

And again, speaking on—to the uncertainty about 65 percent, 70, 

that’s a big difference. 70 versus 65. 70 is one thing, but when you 

start talking about 65, that would stop Nucor from growing, period. 

There just wouldn’t be any way we can get down to the levels we 

need to, as far as expanding. 

Does Mr. Baker alluded to 70 offers some flexibility, but again, 

it’s just the challenge to figure out how we would get there and 

where those offsets would come from. 

1.8 million people in Nebraska. We do have some industries in 

Nebraska, but unfortunately it would be hard to come up with 

where those offsets would come from, no matter where it is in the 

State. 

Senator FISCHER. You know, a lot of times I hear about, you 

know, rules and regulations, how burdensome they are. Can you 

tell me any current rules, regulations out there, if you have to go 

through a permitting process, to expand, what’s the effect of that? 

You know, I can speak to environmental impacts statements with 

road building, they can last 6 to 8 years. We have a case where one 

lasted 19 years to go through, what kind of permitting process do 

you have to go through with your company, and what are we looking at for a timeframe there? 

Mr. KINTER. Sure. We’re what you would call a class one major 

source of Nebraska. There’s very few, I think there is 20 or so on 

that list. And we go through a process called new source review 

and the prevention of sedimentary program and the also the Title 

5 operating permit process—the Title 5 operating permit process 

and in private business, we don’t have a whole lot of patience, of 

course, and there’s always opportunities for us to get better with 

project planning and working with the State agencies to get the 

permits. 

But as an example, when we went through our recent expansion 

here, about 2 years ago, it took us approximately 15 months to get 

our most recent air quality permit. Typically, EPA and even DEQ 

will say 12 to 18 months for that process to happen. We’re concerned that if we move into these lower ozone ground-level numbers we’re talking about, and nonattainment specifically, who 

knows how long it would take. Because you’re looking at what they 

call a lowest achievable emission rate technology, which is, again, 

back to this whole technology thing that we don’t even know what 

that is right now on an electric arc furnace. So to go in with a new 

permit to try to talk about some technology that doesn’t even exist 

yet to get to us where the levels we need to be, we don’t know how 

we would do it. 

So yes, it’s a—the permitting process right now that we have in 

place takes time. Again, the DEQ here, specifically in Nebraskans, 

been great to work with, been a great, you know, to work with over 
71 

the years. But again, this uncertainty and then moving into these 

new levels that we’re talking about and the process it would take 

to get there, not to mention EPA oversight on all of our permits, 

which is what we have, we may never get a permit. 

Senator FISCHER. Does the EPA ever account for costs in the permitting process? Do they ever consider that, or is that just up to 

you? 

Mr. KINTER. Well, again, when we’re talking specifically about 

establishing ambient air quality levels such as the ground-level 

ozone, EPA is required to do a cost benefit analysis. And the recent 

case ruling that came out in regards to EPA not specifically doing 

that cost benefit analysis, I think, came back to haunt them a little 

bit. 

And again, that’s where our concern is with this one as well is 

that where is the cost benefit analysis and are we really getting 

enough bang for our buck, quite honestly, to—in having the 

healthier air and citizens being more healthy. We’re not—we don’t 

see that correlation, quite honestly. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. Good lead in for my question, thank you 

very much. Good lead in for questions for Dr. Corbin. And again, 

thank you so much for being here. I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. CORBIN. I feel a little alone. 

Senator FISCHER. That’s what happens when you’re a minority 

witness, so. No, but I’m very, very happy that you’re here. I appreciate your views on this, sir. 

The EPA concludes that long-term exposure to ozone likely 

causes respiratory mortality based on a single study, and you mentioned that I believe the Jerrett 2009 study. Did you mention that 

in your testimony? 

Mr. CORBIN. No, I mentioned the Lancet study. 

Senator FISCHER. The Lancet study, OK. The study that I have 

here was a Jerrett 2009 study, and that study found that there was 

an association between long-term ozone exposure and mortality 

caused by respiratory diseases, but it—but not in southern California where the highest ozone concentrations in the country occur. 

That didn’t make any sense to or for me. Wouldn’t it make— 

wouldn’t it make sense that there would be an association found 

where we have the highest ozone concentrations exist? 

Mr. CORBIN. Yes, that’s a 2000—I’m not familiar with that study. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. 

Mr. CORBIN. But there’s been plenty since then that don’t say 

that. And I might just want to respond a little bit because I’ve been 

attending OPPD meetings for at least 3 years now on a regular 

basis, their board meetings. I’m familiar with their goal for renewables with 10 percent, and now I’m very proud to say because of 

people have gone before OPPD and tried to make a case for renewables, that they’ve—that they are going to close down those units 

and change to coal and that we also live in a different environment 

in terms of how the—we’re part of the Southwest Power Pool here 

and OPPD and so when people talk about, you know, businesses, 

the fastest growing business in the United States and, indeed, in 

most of the world is renewables. And that’s what’s creating most 

the jobs. 
72 

Companies like Facebook and Google are going a hundred percent renewable energy and they’ll—the reason they’re going to Iowa 

instead of Nebraska is because Iowa has higher renewable energy 

and they also have a lower rates than we do in Nebraska. So higher renewables; lower rates. So better health. 

Warren Buffett is—Berkshire Hathaway Energy is heavily invested in that, and who here wouldn’t want to say that after 

Fukushima that we are glad that there are regulations on our nuclear plants to make sure that we are all safer and that we don’t 

have a terrible incident like they did there. That’s when Federal 

regulations are at their best. 

I can’t deny that there are rules that sometimes don’t make 

sense, that’s what we need to do is make—make those so that they 

really work and that—but to use your—what you were saying earlier, that California hasn’t been in compliance, so why is everybody 

worried about everything when everybody can get extensions time 

and time again. OPPD’s had extensions on certain things. 

So, if anything, you could argue the EPA is too weak because 

they keep giving groups and all kinds of things extensions. And 

then, of course, the air is—the air that we all breathe, and so 

you’ve already talked about the fires and all of those kinds of 

things. 

So it is something that we’re all in it together. And as I said to 

Russ before we started, we’re not adversaries, we want the same 

end. We just disagree, somewhat, on how fast and when and what 

the best ways to get there. 

So I think that there’s—there’s—we certainly are making 

progress in a lot of this from a public health point of view. I don’t 

think the progress is fast enough; obviously, there are people who 

differ in that opinion. 

But I think there’s a lot of evidence to say—and I know some 

people don’t like to hear the word climate change, but the fact is 

it’s not a belief. It’s real. And it is those things that we are talking 

about renewable energies and all of those things that are going to 

hurt the State more if we don’t do something now. 

Senator FISCHER. I’ve been looking at the Clean Power Plan regulations that have been finalized and you mentioned Iowa and perhaps Nebraska has lost some business opportunities here in the 

State because of the less expensive energy electricity in Iowa. 

Iowa joins Nebraska as being one of the 10 biggest losers under 

the Clean Power Plan, and Nebraska, I always say, that that 

means that the people of Nebraska are the losers because we do 

have public power in this State. 

But in Iowa, I’m just amazed—and I’m off topic here, I fully 

admit that—but I am amazed that they would be listed under this 

Clean Power Plan as one of the 10 biggest losers because of their 

wind development. And it just, to me, it shows how bizarre some 

of these rules and regulations are that come out because they don’t 

get credit for that. 

So being a Nebraskan, I’m kind of hopeful that we’re going to see 

businesses come to the State of Nebraska for our less expensive 

electricity because Iowa doesn’t get any credit. 

Mr. CORBIN. That’s one—— 

Senator FISCHER. So I mean—— 
73 

Mr. CORBIN. That’s one time when I would agree that the rules 

don’t make sense. 

Senator FISCHER. Yes, it’s just bizarre. 

Mr. CORBIN. You don’t get credit for what you’ve already done. 

Senator FISCHER. Exactly, no, I do fully agree with you, you 

know, that we’re all here to work and make sure that we do have 

clean air, clean water in this State. It’s a valuable resource, so it, 

you know—to find ways that we can work together and continue 

to have an open dialog and respect, I think that’s very important. 

Mr. CORBIN. And that bureaucracy, by the way, runs both ways. 

So to try to get a permit in some places in Nebraska to put solar 

panels on your home, in some places it’s multi-page this and that, 

and you have to have—if it’s a hot water, you have to have a steam 

fitter and water doesn’t get hot enough for a steam fitter and electricians have to come and approve it and an electrician may or may 

not know anything about solar. So those—I’m all for—— 

Senator FISCHER. You and I can work on some issues here. 

Mr. CORBIN [continuing]. Streamlining the rules and making 

them as simple as possible. 

Senator FISCHER. No, I agree. And both wind development now 

and the siting and the building of transmission lines, there’s a lot 

of my neighbors and friends who are upset about the process there. 

So there’s—there’s always challenges. There’s always challenges 

that we’re going to—— 

Mr. CORBIN. And public health, I mean, when aren’t they? Did 

the automobile industry say please let us put seat belts and air 

bags into cars? That’s nothing more that we would remember do, 

but we did it, people are safer and the roads are safer. 

Senator FISCHER. If I can ask you some specific questions with 

your credentials and background with public health if you would 

know these for me, the answers. 

Do you know how many asthma attacks in children nationwide 

would be prevented if we lower that ozone standard? Do you have 

any information available on that? 

Mr. CORBIN. I believe it’s in the—in one of the documents that 

I did that I handed in, but I don’t have the exact, but there are 

plenty of organizations that have computed that and, of course, it 

is an estimate. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. 

Mr. CORBIN. But they all agree that it would definitely go up. 

And that’s when you get into the argument about what’s—how 

many kids deaths are acceptable and how many aren’t. 

And so like I said, all of these organizations that are on this one 

letter to President Obama trying to urge the ground-level ozone 

level to be more strict, they have studied this extensively. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. And do you know how many studies were 

done and that the EPA looked at between the association between 

the ozone and asthma symptoms when they did their integrated 

some kind assessment, do you know how many studies they looked 

at? 

Mr. CORBIN. I do not. I would, again, put most of my—the most 

respected one that I’ve seen that’s come out is a very extensive report and it not all about ozone, but that’s the Lancet report which 

came out this year in June. 
74 

Senator FISCHER. I had information that there were 33 studies 

and only 12 of those found an association between ozone and asthma symptoms, can you address that? 

Mr. CORBIN. I can. I cited my experience with working on tobacco 

issues. We heard the same thing, how do you know it’s tobacco 

that’s causing cancer and not the air pollution, the mold in your 

house, and all of these kind of things? It is complicated. 

But there’s no evidence, that I know of, that says adding ozone 

will make your asthma better. It almost—it won’t make 

everybody’s worse; but it will make a lot of people’s worse. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. I just wanted to point that out for the 

record that in the 33 studies, there were 12 that found an association between the ozone and asthma symptoms. And this was from 

the EPA with their integrated science assessment. 

Mr. CORBIN. Remember the ozone goes with the other pollutants 

that are coming from some of the same sources, so. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. 

Mr. CORBIN. They go together. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. Well, thank you so much. Appreciate 

you being here today. 

Mr. CORBIN. Thank you. 

Senator FISCHER. Mr. Zimmerer, again, I thank you for your testimony on Federal regulations and the impact that they have on 

businesses and how they affect growth, economic growth in our 

communities, which in turn affects all of our families here in the 

State of Nebraska. 

I know that local businesses work hard to provide their communities with jobs, they have public service support and, of course, everyone tries hard to protect the environment, it’s a priority it for 

all of us. 

You mentioned in your testimony that the ozone standards considered in the EPA’s proposal would impose real and immediate 

hardships to the American worker. Can you tell me what you mean 

about that? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Absolutely. And I think my colleagues to my right 

also mentioned these in their statements, but just talking about 

the capital investment needed for companies to come into compliance. Great companies like Nucor Steel, they have to invest capital 

in these projects where, in fact, they could be invested in increasing their goods and services and increasing their market to create 

jobs that will put more taxes in our communities, tax dollars in our 

communities, to pay for those community service programs that 

help enhance the lives of our neighbors. 

Senator FISCHER. So this—obviously, you believe then that this 

proposal would have a really large ripple effect, then, throughout 

a local community in the workers that live there? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Absolutely. You know, when we’re talking about 

a large tax base, you know, those taxes are divvied up amongst 

many programs and services, but some of those expenses will have 

to come out of that. The State burden for these types of regulations 

will trickle down to the city, and in that case, programs will have 

to be cut, services will have to be cut. And, you know, I would hate 

to be at the city council chambers when I have to decide which one 

of those programs is more important than the other. 
75 

And so I think that’s where I look at it from a city perspective 

as well is we need to do this in a balanced approach. And I understand the doctor here, and I was going to give him a hug when he 

wasn’t feeling loved. 

But you know, we have to do it with balance. And that’s what 

I ask for. We can’t have EPA acting as its own form of government; 

it is an agency to be controlled by, you know, by the people, and 

when I hear, you know, 14 State Governors wrote in a letter with 

concerns that, you know, bring us to the table when we’re discussing this. Help us help you get to where the doctor wants to be, 

you know. That’s—that’s what we want. We just want balance. We 

can’t have one without the other. So to be successful, we have to 

work together. 

Senator FISCHER. We talked about a little bit earlier when I was 

interrupting to ask questions, but the EPA updated their ozone 

standards in 2008 and you mentioned in your statement the EPA 

delayed implementing the 2008 ozone standard for 2 years while it 

pursued reconsideration, and so States are just now catching up 

with implementing that standard. 

Particularly, since the EPA proposed implementation rules for 

the standard, I think it was just this past December; is that correct? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Correct. Correct. 

Senator FISCHER. Now, the EPA is proposing new ozone standards that are going to overlap those 2008 standards, so how does 

the—how does the delay in implementation challenge local communities, local businesses when they’re tasked with putting together 

a plan in order to meet the new—the new standards coming when 

they’re still working on the old ones, where does that put businesses? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Right. Well the bad part about presenting last is 

John pretty much answered that question. That uncertainty in the 

life of businesses is chaos. It leads to more expenses. It leads to inefficiencies in management and, obviously, that does have a ripple 

effect. 

And I think the States are experiencing the same thing, that’s 

why the Governors are so concerned about it. 

So we are managing, you know, we weren’t quite sure where we 

were going to go and now we’re sure again, but yet we’re going to 

add more uncertainty by bringing it to the 70 or 65 level, that’s 

just absurd. 

Senator FISCHER. So when you’re working on implementing the 

standards, what, do you have a partnership with the State Department of Environmental Quality? Are you working more with the 

States since they’re trying to implement the EPA’s rules; is that 

true? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Well, you know, just and—— 

Senator FISCHER. I guess I’m saying instead of directly with the 

EPA, you’re working more with the State level, right? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Absolutely. I’m starting at the city level. I’m 

working with our partners at Nucor Steel, you know, how can we 

make them better? How can we improve the quality of services 

they provide in their work? How can they make the environment 

better? And I’m doing that with all of our businesses. 
76 

But this is just one example of, you know, everybody—like said 

in my statement: We’re breathing the same air. We all want what’s 

best. The ozone levels continue to decrease, so let’s see where they 

go. And then we can have time to study. We can see what that— 

what that foreign pollutants are doing to our ozone. We can tell 

what the fires are doing to it. We can do more studies on how it 

affects asthma in children. 

But, you know, these things need further study. And I think my 

two gentlemen to my right said, you know, they don’t even know 

how to get to where they want to be. So if we don’t have any ideas 

of how to get there, then we are putting the cart in front of the 

horse. 

Senator FISCHER. You know, I understand and hear from our 

utilities. I hear from large businesses who know about these proposed rules or final rules, as the case may be, when they come 

through, what about our Main Street businesses, our smaller businesses that truly are, I believe, the life blood of our communities 

around this State from, you know, from Omaha to Valentine? It’s 

our local folks that are, you know, working hard. Are they aware 

in your position with the Chamber? Are they aware of what may 

be coming and do they have any idea of what’s—what the effect 

will be? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Well, I think some of them like to—suffer from 

the ostrich hiding, you know, his head in the sand and—but, you 

know, it’s my job as the chamber president to educate them on the 

possible consequences of such regulation. And I think Russ mentioned that, you know, were looking at a 30 percent utility increase, 

that is significant. 

I mean, we are super conservative here in Nebraska. We all 

know that and, you know, we beared the recession pretty well. 

We’re not out of it by any means, but we did that because we keep 

our costs low, you know. We’re conservative. We don’t spend over 

and above what we can. And so to add this 30 percent cost onto 

these already burdened businesses will have significant costs. 

Senator FISCHER. When we had talked earlier if an area has to 

go into a nonattainment classification and is then able to reach attainment, what’s the process there that the EPA follows? Is there 

a certain number of restrictions that have to be in place for a designated time period or is it just lifted and growth can continue, you 

can continue building roads, you know? How does that work? And 

what’s the time period from the nonattainment to attainment to 

being able to grow again? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. The time period is unclear, other than what I’ve 

mentioned as far as how it affects our roads and infrastructure 

that way. 

But, you know, once an area comes into attainment, they have 

to—they have to put in a plan of action with the State—through 

the State and then through the Federal Government to stay and 

remain in that action, or in that attainment area, and that can be 

significant because what they’re going to be looking at is new businesses, new industry coming in there that are going to have ozone 

emissions. 

And to be honest, even if you go back from out of attainment to 

attainment, there are businesses, businesses like to be conservative 
77 

as well, they like to have the facts and uncertainty about whether 

they can fall back into that area of compliance, really is going to 

prohibit them from creating new businesses or growing in our—in 

that particular area. And that’s probably the scariest part is they’re 

just not going to do it. And what’s really scary is, I think to John’s 

point, is they’re going to do it in other countries. 

Senator FISCHER. So you believe that even when restrictions are 

lifted, it’s really going to be hard to encourage businesses to come 

to an area that’s been in a nonattainment classification? 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Yes, I guess I would have to think the EPA’s got 

a mindset and say I really don’t know what’s going to happen. You 

know, but let’s just do it anyway. I don’t want to go that approach. 

It doesn’t make sense. We have to know what the consequences 

are, how we’re going to get there before we can put these restrictions in place. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. I would like to ask you all just a couple 

questions here for closing. 

First of all, how do you view EPA regulations—and we’ve 

touched on this—but how do you view EPA regulations when we 

look the economic growth for our communities and for our State? 

If you have an opinion on what kind of impact they have—and 

we’ve touched on that somewhat—but I would like to just hear any 

closing comments you may have on that. 

Mr. BAKER. I have some comments that I would love to make on 

that. 

You know, we’re not opposed to EPA. You know, I have a recollection of EPA being created because we have rivers that were 

catching on fire, we had open dumps that were in people’s backyards that were contaminating groundwater, that were contaminating drinking water for many communities. I mean, it was necessary, and some would argue maybe even overdue at that point. 

I think what I’m feeling and maybe what my company and my 

industry are feeling right now is just, you know, we’ve taken care 

of maybe the largest percentage of big problems. We don’t have rivers that are catching on fire. We don’t have open dumps that are 

out there. We, you know, we have mechanisms and processes and 

permits that are in place right now that really have improved our 

environment. 

And I don’t think anybody in the United States—and I would 

argue maybe even worldwide—would want to have a perspective, 

well, we’re going to go out and destroy the environment. We want 

to preserve our natural resources and we want to use them as good 

stewards of the land that, you know, that we’re—that we have communities in. 

So we support preservation and enhancement of natural resources and that. I think, and I go back to maybe a little bit of 

some of my comments that I provided earlier, you know, we’re 

now—now that we’ve taken care of a lot of really big issues and 

have really improved the situation across our Nation with these 

laws. Now, what we’re facing are—we’re facing energy policy that’s 

being enacted through regulation. 

So trying to change the whole source, at least from the energy 

perspective, of how you’re going to generate electricity. Not what 
78 

limitations you should have on conducting commerce, but actually 

transforming the country through regulatory process. 

And we’re also maybe down on the tail end where some of these 

regulations, you don’t have a direct cause and effect of ratcheting 

the standard lower or limiting an emission further or pushing for 

technology development that is very, very costly and may have very 

marginal benefit in the long term. That’s the part I think that, at 

least from my company and maybe from electric utility perspective 

in the State of Nebraska, that’s the part where we have problems. 

There’s a lot of unknowns, a lot of uncertainty that, you know, 

we tried to express to you in our testimony and that, marginal benefit for what could be a very extreme cost and really not for the 

sake of improving the environment in the way that I think Congress foresaw EPA and the creation of EPA to do. So that’s kind 

of my perspective, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. KINTER. No doubt that there was and there still is a need 

for EPA regulations, I don’t think anybody will disagree with that. 

We are reaching a point of diminishing impact and return on 

these rules to the point where it’s hard to run a business because 

of the scrutiny we have with our permits and how we’re required 

to operate our facilities. Much more hands-on approach now, and 

as Russ alluded to, we’re getting much more detailed in our permits. 

So definitely a need for EPA to be there. We’ve had a great relationship with EPA over the years and working through issues, but 

where do you draw the line between, you know, the American way 

and being able to operate your company the best way possible, and 

still being in compliance and the definition of compliance continues 

to change? 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. CORBIN. I used to teach high school right outside Washington, DC, at Bladensburg and I would take my students to the 

EPA for field trips. As you know, the EPA started under the Nixon 

administration, and I agree with all the reasons why it was created 

because we did have rivers catching on fire and we had smog that 

was worse than it is today, and I guess the argument would—it 

is—the critical thing is where you draw the line. 

And the way I understand right now with the Clean Power Plan 

also is that the States have the opportunity to submit their plan. 

I would encourage Nebraska to do that and to work with all the 

people to create that plan. Not to let it go to the Federal Government and say you’re not going to create your own plan, so we’re 

going to create it for you. That’s exactly what people have been arguing against, yet the way I understand it, too, we—we’ve filed a 

lawsuit saying it wasn’t even a good thing to do. 

So the EPA is good. Like I’ve said before, there are times when 

any law—and the reason why we don’t just have one session and 

then say, oh, well, the laws are done is because we try to improve 

upon them as time goes on. 

The question is: What is the improvement and what side does it 

fall toward? And, obviously, being in public health, I’m most interested in the public—in preserving the public’s health, which I think 

a lowering of the standard would do. 
79 

Mr. ZIMMERER. Yes, EPA, it is a need—it’s needed here in the 

United States and I believe that, you know, when we talk about 

that balance, and I’ve said that more than once today, that’s what 

we’re looking for. We’re looking for, you know, with the economy 

and with our public health and—you know, I agree with the doctor 

here. But there are other health consequences. If we’re taking 

money out of families’ pockets, we know what they are, they have 

higher rates of depression, they are higher rates of obesity, they 

have—don’t receive appropriate medical care, and I could go on and 

on. And those—that isn’t coming from research, that’s coming from 

my personal experience in dealing with these families and working 

with them. 

And so that’s, I think, you don’t always have to—you know, you 

also have to balance economy with health, but you have to look at 

all aspects of health as well. So that’s where I leave that. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. Thank you. As we conclude the hearing 

today, I want to, again, expression my gratitude to each of the witnesses for testifying. We were privileged to hear from a group of 

Nebraska stakeholders who provided details on the challenges 

faced by businesses, families and communities as the Administration finalizes the proposed rule to lower the ground-level ozone 

standard. 

Nebraska is unique. We are the only 100 percent public power 

State in the Nation. We own the electricity that is generated and 

consumed within our borders. 

Nebraska is also blessed to have a robust manufacturing industry and small business community, and these are important assets 

that create jobs, ensure that our rural communities and municipalities continue to thrive. 

Currently, Nebraska has zero counties in nonattainment; however, under the proposed rule, 57 Nebraska counties will be classified as being in nonattainment, and many of these communities are 

in rural and primarily agricultural areas. 

Furthermore, or the EPA’s modeling and data, interpretation 

cannot verify that tightening the ozone standard will result in 

health benefits. So I have serious concerns about the impact of the 

proposed rule and what it will do to impose on small businesses 

and energy-intensive businesses and industries some really, I believe, negative impacts. 

It is clear that imposing additional rules and permitting requirements on our utilities and job creators will only stifle economic 

growth and drive up the costs of important projects. We should not 

be in the business of creating unnecessary regulations that generate more red tape. Instead, we need to explore policy options that 

promote growth and enable our job creators’ communities and our 

families to prosper. 

So I look forward to utilizing the insights that I received from 

all of the stakeholders here today at this hearing to do exactly that. 

Again, I thank you, the witnesses, for appearing today. And the 

hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ