S. HRG. 112–963 

OVERSIGHT: REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY’S MERCURY AND AIR 

TOXICS STANDARDS (MATS) FOR POWER 

PLANTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 20, 2012 

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

( 

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

OVERSIGHT: REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S MERCURY 

AND AIR TOXICS STANDARDS (MATS) FOR POWER PLANTS 

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

25–023 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–963 

OVERSIGHT: REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY’S MERCURY AND AIR 

TOXICS STANDARDS (MATS) FOR POWER 

PLANTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 20, 2012 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 20, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 5 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 7 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 8 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 298 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 299 

WITNESSES 

McCarthy, Hon. Regina, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 23 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 28 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 29 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 40 

Summers, Robert M., Ph.D., Secretary of the Environment, State of Maryland ........................................................................................................................ 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 64 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 65 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 65 

Lambert, William E., Ph.D., Director, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Track, 

Oregon MPH Program; Head, Division of Epidemiology, Department of 

Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University ......................................................................................................................... 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

James, Rob, Avon Lake City Council, Ward I, Avon Lake, Ohio ......................... 76 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 87 

Alford, Harry, President/CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce .............. 95 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 106 

Patton, Vickie, General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund ......................... 111 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 127 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 135 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter from Southern Company to Senators Carper and Barrasso, March 

21, 2012 ................................................................................................................. 303 

Page

IV 

Potential Impacts of EPA Air, Coal Combustion Residuals, and Cooling Water 

Regulations, prepared for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, 

September 2011 .................................................................................................... 304 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT: REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S MERCURY 

AND AIR TOXICS STANDARDS (MATS) FOR 

POWER PLANTS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, 

Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Lautenberg, Merkley, Barrasso, and 

Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. This hearing will come to order. 

Good morning, everybody. I appreciate the effort of all of our witnesses to be with us today. 

Today’s hearing is focused on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which the EPA finalized in December this past year. Senators 

will have 5 minutes to make their opening statements. 

I will then recognize the Assistant Administrator for the Office 

of Air and Radiation at EPA to offer her statement to the Committee. Following her statement, we will have one round of questions, then our second panel of witnesses will come forward. And 

their testimony will be followed by one round of questions. 

I am going to give my statement now and yield to whoever shows 

up. If no one else shows up, it is Senator Lautenberg’s ball game. 

In 1990 Congress overwhelmingly passed and President George 

H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This 

law established the framework for modern day clean air protections 

like the one we are talking about here today. In the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Congress identified 188 air toxics—toxics like 

mercury, lead, and arsenic—that were known to be harmful to public health and needed to be controlled. Many of these air toxics are 

silent killers, getting into food we eat as well as the air we breathe 

and building up in our bodies without our knowledge. 

In the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 Congress also established a common sense approach to reducing air toxics. Congress 

required sources of these toxics to implement proven technologies 

which were already being used by 12 percent of all actors in their 

2 

respective industries. After decades of study EPA has concluded 

that coal- and oil-fired power plants emit over 60 of these identified 

air toxics, roughly one-third. 

The EPA has also found that these types of utilities are the largest source of mercury emissions in this country. 

Over the years, we have seen through State-led examples that 

clean mercury from dirty coal power plants can significantly reduce 

the mercury in nearby lakes, fish, and fowl. Yet 22 years after Congress approved addressing coal- and oil-fired power plants, air 

toxics under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Federal 

Government is just now starting to curb these harmful pollutants. 

This February the EPA issued the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards for power plants, known as the MATS rule, directing 

dirty coal- and oil-fired power plants to use current technology to 

clean up their toxic emissions. As someone who has tried for years 

to work across the aisle to find a way to clean up our Nation’s 

power plants, I was encouraged to see the EPA finally act to address these harmful emissions. 

Furthermore, as someone who also believes the role of Government is to provide a nurturing environment for job growth and job 

preservation while ensuring corporations act as good citizens, I was 

encouraged by how the EPA issued the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Rules. 

This long overdue public health measure will help ensure our 

Nation’s utilities are doing their very best to keep our air clean, allowing many people in this country to live better, healthier, and in 

some cases longer lives. 

At the same time the EPA has provided a reasonable and achievable schedule for our dirtiest power plants to reduce harmful emissions. The agency has even allowed extra time if needed for industry and States to address any possible local reliability concerns. 

As we will hear today, some utilities will decide to close down 

their dirtiest, most inefficient coal plants rather than comply. It is 

just not affordable to modernize some of these plants. And as these 

plants do close, some communities will be impacted more than others. 

However, most communities will see great benefits from these 

rules. In fact, nationally, I am told we will see up to $90 billion in 

public health benefits. And as we will also hear today, modernizing 

our coal fleet is expected to be a net job creator, not a job killer. 

Which leads me to my final thought. I believe it is possible to 

have a clean environment and a strong economy. I believe it is a 

false choice to say that we can only have one or the other. We can 

have both. And in this country today, we must have both. And that 

is also true for cleaning up our air pollution. 

In fact, as the EPA has implemented the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, our Nation’s air has gotten cleaner. Electricity 

rates, I am told, have stayed constant. Our economy has grown by 

some 60 percent. Moreover, for every dollar we spend cleaning our 

air, we have seen some $30 returned in reduced health care costs, 

better workplace productivity, and lives saved. 

Now with our economy moving out of a deep recession, some people—many of whom are my colleagues—are asking us to choose 

again between the economy and public health. They say we must 

3 

choose between cleaning up our biggest mercury polluters and jobs. 

They say we must choose between keeping our children safe from 

deadly toxics and keeping the lights on. Let me say again, we do 

not have to choose. We can have both; we must have both. 

And on that statement, I look forward to having here an open 

and thoughtful dialogue with our witnesses and with our colleagues 

today. 

I am happy to recognize, on my left from Wyoming, not CamdenWyoming, Delaware, but from the State of Wyoming, Senator John 

Barrasso. 

Good morning. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

In 1990 Congress overwhelmingly passed—and President George H.W. Bush 

signed—the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This law established the framework for our modern day clean air protections—like the one we are talking about 

today. 

In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Congress identified 188 air toxics— 

toxics like mercury, lead, and arsenic—that were known to be harmful to public 

health and needed to be controlled. Many of these air toxics are silent killers—getting into the food we eat as well as the air we breathe and building up in our body 

without our knowledge. 

In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Congress also established a common 

sense approach to reducing air toxics. Congress required sources of these toxics to 

implement proven technologies—which were already being used by the best 12 percent of all actors in their respective industries. After decades of study the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that coal- and oil-fired power plants 

emit over 60 of the identified air toxics. The EPA has also found that these types 

of utilities are the largest source of mercury emissions in this country. 

Over the years we have seen through State-led examples that cleaning up mercury from dirty coal power plants can significantly reduce the mercury in nearby 

lakes, fish, and fowl. Yet 22 years after Congress approved addressing coal- and oilfired power plant air toxics under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Federal Government is just now starting to curb these harmful pollutants. This February the EPA issued the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants 

(MATS) rule, directing dirty coal- and oil-fired power plants to use current technology to clean up their toxic emissions. 

As someone who has tried for years to work across the aisle to find a way to clean 

up our Nation’s power plants, I was encouraged to see the EPA finally act to address these harmful emissions. Furthermore, as someone who also believes the role 

of Government is to provide a nurturing environment for job growth and job preservation while ensuring corporations act as good citizens, I was encouraged by how 

the EPA issued the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule. 

This long overdue public health measure will help ensure our Nation’s utilities 

are doing their very best to keep our air clean—allowing many people in this country to live better, healthier, and in some cases, longer lives. At the same time the 

EPA has provided a reasonable and achievable schedule for our dirtiest power 

plants to reduce harmful emissions. The agency has even allowed extra time if needed for industry and States to address any possible local reliability concerns. 

As we will hear today, some utilities will decide to close down their dirtiest, most 

inefficient coal plants rather than comply. It is just not affordable to modernize 

these plants. And as these plants close, some communities will be impacted more 

than others. However, most communities will see great benefits from these rules— 

in fact nationally we will see up to $90 billion in public health benefits. And as we 

will also hear today, modernizing our coal fleet is expected to be a net job creator 

not a job killer. 

Which leads me to my final thought: I believe it’s possible to have a clean environment and a strong economy. I think it’s a false choice to say that we have to have 

one or the other; we can have both. That is especially true for cleaning up our air 

pollution. In fact, as the EPA has implemented the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990, our Nation’s air has gotten cleaner while electricity rates have stayed constant 

and our economy has grown by 60 percent. For every dollar we spend cleaning the 

4 

air we’ve seen $30 returned in reduced health care costs, better workplace productivity, and lives saved. 

Now with our economy moving out of a deep recession, some people—many of 

which are my colleagues—are asking us to choose again between the economy and 

public health. They say we must choose between cleaning up our biggest mercury 

polluters and jobs. Choose between keeping our children safe from deadly toxics and 

keeping the lights on. Let me say again—we do not have to choose. We can have 

both. And on that note, I look forward to having an open and thoughtful dialogue 

with our witnesses and my colleagues today. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I prefer to be on 

your right, as I tend to be on the right on most issues. So thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify and to talk about 

this, about the EPA’s Utility MACT rule. 

I will wait until the witness pays attention to my comments. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, EPA’s Utility MACT rule is designed to protect 

the public health. In reality, it is not a boon for public health. It 

should be, but it is not. And that is unfortunate. 

The rule is meant to address mercury emissions from coal-fired 

power plants. Yet over 99 percent of the benefits the EPA claims 

are from reducing particulate matter, even though it is strictly regulated under other Clean Air Act programs. This is misleading the 

public about the true cost of this rule. 

EPA estimates that the health benefits for reducing mercury— 

and Mr. Chairman, you made the comment about mercury—the 

EPA estimates that the health benefits of reducing mercury to between a half a million and $6 million a year. EPA also states that 

the cost of the rule would be $9.6 billion in 2016, meaning the costs 

far, far, far outweigh the benefits, contrary to the rhetoric coming 

out of this agency. 

According to a recent NERA study, the rule, combined with 

EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, could cost 1.4 million jobs. It 

is not a good investment for the public. The costs dramatically outweigh the benefits. Especially if you quantify the negative health 

consequences of unemployment on families with children and on 

the elderly. When the income dries up after the husband or wife 

is laid off at the now-defunct power plant, the impacts are devastating to communities and families. Especially if you factor in the 

lost local tax revenue to towns where coal-fired power plants close. 

As the witness from Avon Lake, Ohio, is going to testify, millions 

of dollars in property taxes will be lost to his town when their coalfired power plant closes. A big chunk of those funds would have 

gone to the local school and to emergency services. 

What programs for children will be cut? How many policemen 

and firefighters will be laid off because of decisions made by this 

Administration? 

We don’t have the answers to all of those questions, but since 

plant closures are occurring in towns like Avon Lake across the 

country, we need those answers. As I stated, the Utility MACT rule 

cost $9.6 billion. I am here to ask the question, how many lives 

could we save with that kind of money? The answer is many. Not 

like this, and I think we can and should do better. 

5 

So the question remains, why are we doing this? I believe this 

rule is part of the Administration’s ongoing war on coal. The Administration can’t flat-out ban coal, because they know Congress 

wouldn’t stand for it in a bipartisan way. Instead, they have decided to regulate everything that a coal-fired power plant does until 

it can’t function any more. 

The EPA has denied that their rules are going to close that many 

coal-fired power plants. EPA predicted about 9.5 gigawatts of electric power retirements in total because of Utility MACT in the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Instead, according to the National 

Mining Association, over 25 gigawatts have already gone on the 

chopping block, and more are likely. According to the association, 

25 gigawatts is enough power and energy to power 18.8 million 

homes affordably. Now those homes will have to get their power 

from somewhere else. Power is going to cost more, and it’s going 

to cost jobs. 

As the President said when he was running for office, under his 

plan electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket. Seniors on fixed 

incomes, struggling families, and small business owners can thank 

the EPA and this Administration for their higher electric bills. 

This rule is a bad bet for the public. It is one of many made by 

this Administration. The Administration is picking winners and 

loser. Unfortunately, the losers are losing, and the winners are also 

losing. President Obama’s plan in subsidizing Solyndra-style green 

energy venture capitalists while over-regulating affordable coalfired power has failed the public. We need a change. 

That is why I support the efforts by Ranking Member Inhofe 

using the Congressional Review Act, his amendment that would 

send EPA’s Utility MACT rule back to the drawing board at EPA. 

It would save millions of jobs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator. 

All right, I think our next speaker is Senator Lautenberg. Welcome, good to see you. I would just ask everyone to try and limit 

their statements to 5 minutes, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I open up with a question. Is there anything more important 

than the health of our children and families? And that is why I applaud the Environmental Protection Agency for setting new pollution standards for mercury and toxic air pollution. It is a major victor in the fight for public health and cleaner air; one of the biggest 

wins in a generation. 

These standards have been in the making since 1990, when 

Democrats and Republicans came together to pass Clean Air Act 

Amendments and require EPA to set strict limits on pollution. 

Today we are finally discussing the new EPA standards that will 

cut toxic air emissions from power plants by as much as 90 percent. For the first time in history, we will limit mercury emissions, 

brain poison to children. 

Mercury can also badly damage a child’s kidney, liver, and nervous system. Pregnant women exposed to high levels of mercury can 

6 

give birth to children, to babies who suffer from brain damage, 

learning disabilities, and hearing loss, among other conditions. It 

is frightening, but mercury is only one of the many air toxics released by power plants. Power plants are also a major source 

dioxins, which can cause birth defects; lead, which can damage 

nervous systems and reduce children’s intelligence levels; and arsenic, which causes cancer. 

Clearly, these new rules are desperately needed. And the benefits 

to public health go even farther. According to the EPA these rules 

will prevent more than 100,000 asthma attacks, almost 5,000 heart 

attacks, and up to 11,000 premature deaths each year. That is a 

fantastic result, without even considering the reduction in costs to 

our country. 

We have waited a long time to see this day, but now the big polluters and their friends in Congress are stalling, claiming it is 

going to cost businesses too much to comply. It is nonsense. EPA’s 

standards simply ensure that all companies use modern pollution 

control. The cleanest plants in our country have already demonstrated that they can succeed by investing in clean technology. 

And to our colleagues who claim that these measures will be too 

costly to business, we have to ask, what about the health costs of 

breathing dirty air, and how do you put a price on human life? We 

have a distinguished colleague here who is a physician. And he 

asks the question, and it is kind of a rhetorical question, how many 

lives can you save? The question is, well, if you can’t save a given 

number, why bother. Well, I think we have to bother. I am a 

grandfather of an asthmatic child. My sister was 53 when she had 

an asthma attack, tried to get to the respirator that she carried in 

a car, fell in a parking lot, and 3 days later died. 

So we know what the effects are with an asthma attack. They 

are devastating. When my daughter takes my grandson to play in 

a sports event, she listens to see when he wheezes and finds out 

where the nearest emergency facility is. 

Industry lobbyists have already succeeded in delaying these 

measures for more than a decade, and children are paying the 

price. Further delay is simply reckless. The bottom line is, rules 

and regulations aren’t making our children sick—pollution is. 

But clean air isn’t just good for health, it is also good for business. And for those who disagree, I say come to New Jersey and 

look at PSE&G, an outstanding power company. They cut emissions of mercury and acid gases by 90 percent or more, and they 

created more than 1,600 jobs. We have to look at what the positives 

can be here, and not just throw up our hands, oh, well, it is going 

to cost too much, and thousands of people will be out of work. 

Thousands of people, maybe millions, will be healthier. 

PSE&G proves that improving the health of our air can improve 

also the health of our economy. Don’t just take my word for it. The 

CEO of PSE&G wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the EPA 

rules will provide certainty to move forward with large, job creating 

investments to modernize America’s electric power infrastructure. 

Action is long overdue, and I know that we can have clean air, 

healthy families, and a strong economy. I think that these new 

standards are the way to do it, and I look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses. 

7 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

At a roundtable on the Clean Air Amendments that Senator Carper hosted recently, former EPA Administrator Bill Riley, who was 

with the first President Bush, said the following: ‘‘Congress doesn’t 

matter to most of these environmental debates; it is all EPA and 

the courts.’’ He was referring to the so-called stalemate here in the 

Congress. 

And that stalemate exists. Senator Carper and I have been trying to pass a law that regulates mercury from coal-fired power 

plants in a reasonable way since 2003, ever since I came to the 

Senate. But depending on the political balance here, the environmentalists are waiting for a better rule from EPA, and the industry 

is trying to delay, and those are generalizations, but they are about 

right. So we have no results, so we leave it to the EPA and the 

courts. And then we complain about the rule. 

If the rule is defective, if this rule is defective, the way to deal 

with that is not to kill the rule, we have to change the law. I think 

generally speaking we ought to provide a clear performance standard and then err on the side of giving utilities a reasonable amount 

of time to do it at a low cost, so it can be done. But that is not 

what we are doing here. 

But if we look at the law, this rule is clearly within the law. Utilities have known since 1990 that they would have to get mercury 

out of coal plants. That is what the law says you have to do. It specifically mentions mercury. The law that was written in 1990— 

more than 20 years ago—also says that the EPA must come up 

with a rule to do it. The law also says that after EPA has a rule 

the utilities have 3 years to comply with it, with some allowance 

for 3 more years if States and the President agree. That is all in 

the law. That is not in the rule, that is in the law. 

And it also says that utilities have to use the maximum achievable technology, in other words, the best technology available. That 

is also in the law. So if we don’t like the rule, we will have to 

change the law. 

We also know that mercury is a particularly nasty element. It is 

bad. When it gets into the water and is ingested by fish, it turns 

into very toxic stuff, and it can very dangerous to small children 

and to fetuses, and child-bearing women are advised not to each 

much fish as a result of that today. We also know that a lot of it 

comes out of our coal-fired power plants. 

My own view is that we need to rely on coal for a long time in 

the United States. But there is no excuse for operating coal plants 

that don’t have pollution control equipment on them for sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury. If we put that pollution control equipment on 

plants, and some plants would close, primarily because they are too 

old and because natural gas is so cheap today, but if we put that 

on plants then probably we would still be using coal for 30 to 40 

percent of our electricity while we struggle to figure out what to 

do about carbon that comes out of the coal plants. 

8 

We know what to do about sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury. And 

as I have been saying since 2003, we ought to get on with it and 

do it. Many utilities have, particularly the unregulated utilities. 

They have seen this coming for 20 years; they saw that the Bush 

administration had a rule on mercury in 2005. The court invalidated that in 2008, and then the court told the EPA to write a rule 

on mercury. 

So we have the Congress telling EPA to write a rule on mercury, 

the courts telling EPA to write a rule on mercury. They have now 

written a rule on mercury that is within the law, and if we want 

to change the rule, we have to change the law. 

My preference would be that utilities would have a certain 6 

years in order to implement the new pollution control equipment. 

The way the rule is written, based upon the law, is that they have 

to do it within 3 years. And then the State can give the utility 1 

more year under the EPA guidance and the law. And then the 

President can give another 2 years. 

If I were a utility executive I would want a certain 6 years in 

order which to make a decision about, am I going to close the plant 

down, or am I going to buy the equipment. 

The last thing I would say, we have heard for several years that 

there is no question but that there is technology available to control mercury. It has been there. So for 20 years utilities have 

known they have to do this. It is within the law to do it. The only 

question about this, it seems to me, in terms of the rule, is that 

it would be better if we had 5, 6, 7 certain years. That was more 

like what we did in the Carper-Alexander legislation. But that 

would require change in the law. It couldn’t be done by killing the 

rule. 

So I look forward to the testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I think 

it is important to keep in mind exactly what the law requires, 

which is the Congress’ responsibility and what the EPA has done 

in promulgating the rule at the direction of the Federal court. 

Senator CARPER. I just want to make a minor correction to the 

statement of the Senator from Tennessee. The Clean Air Roundtable that he talked about was one actually we co-hosted. I did not 

host it. And we have worked together on these issues for a long 

time. It has been my pleasure to do so. 

Senator Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I applaud the work of my colleagues on this and the fact that 

this has been in the works for over 20 years. These standards 

which EPA has been instructed both by Congress and by the courts 

to produce will provide enormous health benefits for millions of 

Americans and protect children and adults from dangerous air pollution. 

It is estimated they will prevent 90 percent of the mercury in 

coal-burning power plants from being emitted into the air, reduce 

88 percent of the acid gas emissions from power plants, reduce 41 

percent of the sulfur dioxide, and reduce fine particulate matter by 

19 percent. Those have a significant health impact. 

9 

There is no reason why almost all oil- and coal-fired plants can’t 

comply with these new standards. The technology is available, and 

it is the right thing to do to protect public health. The EPA has 

estimated the health benefits associated with this new rule to be 

$37 billion to $90 billion in 2016. That is a dollar number, but the 

real-life impact that families will observe will be the impact on premature deaths, heart attacks, chronic bronchitis, asthma, respiratory symptoms, and so forth. 

So I look forward to the testimony, and thank you for the work 

of my colleagues. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Let me welcome our first witness this morning, Gina McCarthy. 

Ms. McCarthy, as many of us know, is the EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. Gina has also been doing 

a terrific job since she joined the EPA 400 years ago. Probably 

seems that long, doesn’t it? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Ms. McCarthy, you will have 5 minutes to read 

your opening statement. If you go way over that, I will rein you in. 

Try to stay fairly close to that. The full content of your written 

statement will be included in the record. Please proceed. 

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

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Barrasso, members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify before you today. 

Last December EPA finalized the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. These standards, required by the Clean Air Act, are the first 

national standards to protect American families from power plant 

emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants such as arsenic, 

acid gases, nickel, selenium, and cyanide. These long overdue 

standards will help make our children and our communities 

healthier. 

MATS will eliminate 20 tons of mercury emissions and hundreds 

of thousands of tons of acid gas and toxic pollutants each year. The 

control equipment that reduces these toxic emissions will also reduce fine particle pollution. As a result MATS will help protect 

children and adults from the effects of exposure to toxic air pollutants, save thousands of lives, and prevent more than 100,000 heart 

attacks and asthma attacks each year. 

We project that the annual benefits associated with MATS in 

terms of public health are $37 billion to $90 billion annually. And 

they will far outweigh the annual projected costs of $9.6 billion. 

Technologically we know how to achieve these standards. MATS relies heavily on available pollution prevention control equipment 

that is already in use and installed in more than half of the Nation’s coal-fired power plants. These standards are also affordable. 

EPA projects that electricity prices on average will rise 3 percent 

as a result of MATS. With MATS and the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule combined, the rates are projected to stay well within the 

range of normal historical fluctuations. 

10 

In addition, the updated standards will support thousands of 

good jobs for American workers, who will be hired to build, to install, and operate control equipment. We already see examples of 

that job growth happening as a result of this rule. 

My staff recently was told by a plant owner in Tennessee that 

manufactures pollution control equipment that they now expect to 

hire an additional 100 people to manufacture control equipment 

that is going to be used for compliance with the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards. Furthermore, the country can achieve these reductions while maintaining a strong, reliable electric grid. Several 

EPA and Department of Energy analyses conclude that MATS will 

not adversely affect capacity reserve margins in any region of this 

country. 

A January 2012 Congressional Review Service report reached 

similar conclusions. 

There are liability concerns we heard were largely tied to concerns that 3 years was not enough time for compliance. Well, we 

have addressed that concern. Sources will generally have 4 years, 

until the spring of 2016, to comply with MATS. And reliability-critical units may have an additional year, until 2017. 

Let me explain. All power plants will have at least 3 years. That 

is the latest compliance date available under the Clean Air Act. 

But in addition State and local permitting authorities can grant an 

additional year under certain circumstances. And EPA has recommended that this 4 years be broadly available to sources that require it for a wide range of activities, including completing technology installations, constructing replacement power, upgrading 

transmission lines, maintaining reliability, while other sources 

complete their compliance activities. 

My staff and I have already begun and will continue to reach out 

to States to help develop a clear, straightforward process for requesting and granting this extension. 

Additionally, EPA has provided a well defined pathway for reliability-critical units to get an additional year beyond the 4 years, 

using a pathway that was set forth in a policy memorandum from 

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. While we 

don’t foresee any problems in the country maintaining a reliable 

electric grid as a result of our rules, the President has also issued 

a memo which was released at the same time as the MATS rule, 

reminding EPA, DOE, and FERC to work together to ensure that 

they address any potential localized reliability concerns that might 

arise. 

My staff and I have been and will continue to work with the organizations that have responsibility for maintaining the Nation’s 

electricity grid to ensure that we address any problems that arise. 

We are also working to help power plant owners understand their 

responsibilities. 

Over the last weeks and months we have had extensive meetings 

with both our environmental regulators as well as the power plant 

industry. We will continue that outreach effort moving forward. 

In summary, EPA’s final MATS standard will reduce emissions 

of toxic air pollutants from power plants and will lead to healthier 

communities and a safer environment. For 40 years we have been 

able to implement the Clean Air Act, we have been able to grow 

11 

the American economy, and we have been able to keep the lights 

on. MATS will not change that. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 

12 


25023.001
13 


25023.002
14 


25023.003
15 


25023.004
16 


25023.005
17 


25023.006
18 


25023.007
19 


25023.008
20 


25023.009
21 


25023.010
22 


25023.011
23 


25023.012
24 


25023.013
25 


25023.014
26 


25023.015
27 


25023.016
28 


25023.017
29 


25023.018
30 


25023.019
31 


25023.020
32 


25023.021
33 


25023.022
34 


25023.023
35 


25023.024
36 


25023.025
37 


25023.026
38 


25023.027
39 


25023.028
40 


25023.029
41 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much for that testimony and for 

the leadership that you continue to provide. 

I am going to ask you a series of yes or no questions. I don’t normally do this, but I am going to do it in this case, and if you would, 

just answer these yes or no. 

The first is, did it take the EPA 10 years after the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to list coal- and oilfired utilities as sources that should be regulated under Section 

112 of the Clean Air Act for their air toxics emissions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Second question is, was this listing based on 

numerous health studies as directed by Congress? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Did these studies determine that coal-fired 

power plants are the No. 1 source of mercury emissions in this 

country? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. In 2005 did the EPA try to circumvent its legal 

duties to regulate coal- and oil-fired power plants under Section 

112 Air Toxics program by establishing a cap and trade program 

for mercury? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Some would characterize it that way, yes. 

Senator CARPER. In 2008 did the U.S. Court of Appeals, I think 

for the District of Columbia, determine the agency, EPA, could not 

create a separate cap and trade program for mercury and had to 

in fact regulate coal- and oil-fired utilities under the Section 112 

Air Toxics program? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. And finally, do you believe the Mercury and Air 

Toxics rule meets previous court decisions and meets EPA’s legal 

responsibilities as Congress intended in 1990? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I do. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

And now for some essay questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. One of my colleagues believes the EPA has 

overestimated the health benefits from the Mercury and Air Toxics 

rule. Can you explain how the EPA estimated benefits and may 

have underestimated health benefits, rather than overestimated 

them? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. EPA has used sound science as well as peer-reviewed methodologies and gone through an extensive transparent 

peer review process to evaluate the health impacts associated with 

this rule. Unfortunately, the data and methodology associated with 

really calculating the costs associated with many of the toxic emission reductions that will be achieved by these rule we can’t calculate effectively. We have calculated what we could for mercury 

reductions related to IQ loss, but we know there are many developmental issues associated with exposure to mercury. And we certainly know that there is a vast number of benefits that we have 

yet to calculate, the result of reductions in acid gases, toxic metals, 

arsenic, cadmium. 

But what we also know is that there are co-benefits associated 

with reductions of particulate matter that are associated with the 

42 

control technologies that are installed as a result of this rule. We 

have calculated all those benefits, and we know that the costs associated with this rule are for every dollar that you spend, you get 

$9 in return for health benefits. The benefits significantly outweigh 

the costs. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

In your testimony, you mentioned that—like we did more than 

two decades ago during the debate of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990—we are hearing claims today that the EPA’s rule 

will lead to potential adverse impacts on electrical reliability. Despite the numerous studies that conclude that the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards will not impair reliability, people continue to 

argue that the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard will cause blackouts. 

Can you explain to us today what substantive changes the EPA 

made to the compliance requirements of the rule and also what the 

EPA has done to the compliance framework to ensure electric reliability and maximum flexibility? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. EPA received extensive comment on this rule 

and made a number of changes between proposal and final on the 

basis of data received that allows more flexibility in this rule and 

that we believe enhances the ability of compliance to happen in a 

cost-effective way. 

We have also directly addressed the issue of reliability. We have 

the 3-year window that is available to the Federal Government to 

provide for compliance. We have been very forward leaning in 

terms of advising States to issue that fourth year, not just for technology installations on that unit, but to maintain the reliability of 

the electricity supply. We also have issued an administrative order 

and a policy that—I am sorry, I should say a policy that outlines 

an administrative order that will allow an additional year to comply, bringing us to 2017 in order to comply with these rules. 

We do not believe that that additional time is necessary, and the 

good news is many of the utilities are now agreeing with us. For 

example, Southern Company just announced that they are going to 

be able to achieve compliance much less expensively than anticipated. 

Senator CARPER. Southern Company? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And by 2016. 

Senator CARPER. Really? Well, that is good to hear. Thank you 

so much. 

Senator Barrasso. 

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

Ms. McCarthy, you state in your testimony that EPA’s analysis 

resulted from the utility MACT rule, the coal-fired power plant operators will ‘‘choose to retire less than one-half of 1 percent, or 

about 4.7 gigawatts.’’ And then that the EPA predicts that the 

amount of coal-fired power plants that will close as a result of the 

cross-State air pollution is about 4.8 gigawatts. 

Were those predictions made using models, or how do you come 

up with the numbers? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They were made using our integrated planning 

model, yes, and information provided by other Federal agencies. 

43 

Senator BARRASSO. Because in reality, many more coal-fired 

power plants have announced closures, and that totals about 25 

gigawatts, which is more than EPA’s model has predicted. So more 

closures are likely on the way. Were you aware of the additional 

closure announcements before you testified to these numbers? Why 

is the EPA so far off on the predictions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually think we are not far off in the predictions associated with the impacts of this rule. There are many 

reasons why power plants are closing. Many of the announcements 

that you are reading today were actually announced many years 

ago. There is a change in the energy world as a result of natural 

gas prices, low demand. And many of the small coal units are inefficient, they are not being called on to supply electricity generation. 

And a decision is being made on a business case about not upgrading those facilities. 

Senator BARRASSO. Has the EPA ever done a cumulative impact 

analysis on all of the proposed rule that are going to place burdens 

on coal-fired power plants, the cumulative of coal ash, cooling 

water intake structures, climate change, cross-State air pollution 

as well as mercury reduction? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually have done—our analysis, our economic analysis of the MATS rule consider the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The other rules that you have identified have yet to 

be finalized. 

Senator BARRASSO. So there has not really been a cumulative 

analysis of the impact of all of these on our communities and coalfired power plants and jobs around the country. You are going to 

take them one at a time in spite of the fact that you are working 

on all of them. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There have been studies released that claim to 

look at that cumulative impact. But it was done on the basis of the 

rule not being completed, and in many cases done in a way that 

we wouldn’t agree was economical. 

Senator BARRASSO. But not EPA studies? The EPA has not studied it cumulatively? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have not, that is correct. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK, thank you. 

I just want to give you a chance to respond to some of the written testimony of our second panel. Mr. Robert James, of the city 

of Avon Lake, Ohio, has stated that because of the Avon Lake 

power plant closing, the city is going to lose millions in tax revenue; $4 million a year is expected to be cut from their public 

schools budget each year. He stated many of the health and welfare 

programs for the students may need to be eliminated. He also stated there will be cuts to emergency medical services, including the 

firing of a paramedic who is funded by those tax revenues. He 

states that this will have a direct impact on the health of Avon 

Lake residents. 

Has the EPA considered the health implications to the public of 

lost tax revenue for emergency medical services and schools in any 

of these cost-benefit analyses that you do? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we have looked at the health benefits, 

we have looked at the economic consequences associated with our 

44 

rule, consistent with the guidance that is provided to us and the 

methodology that has been peer-reviewed. 

Senator BARRASSO. But not these specific consequences, because 

it seems to me that the costs are real, and the benefits truly are 

unknown. I have read your assessment, and it just seems that the 

costs are very real to all of these communities around the country. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe we have calculated benefits that far exceed the costs. And those benefits are real. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, we will see how that plays out. 

When a plant shuts down in a town, the power often must be replaced somehow. And for those plants not shut down but retrofitted, the retrofits cost money, too. The fact is, retrofitting or 

building a new power plant or transmitting power from somewhere 

else almost always means paying more for the power. 

Folks across America are already suffering from high gas prices. 

So after the EPA’s new rules are in effect, how much is it going 

to cost to turn on the lights and keep them on, relative to beforehand? I don’t know if you have looked at specific communities and 

what this is going to cost in terms of the needs in communities 

around the country. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have done a national analysis, and we have 

looked at the different energy regions. And our assessment is that 

the average increase at its height of cost would be 3 percent increase in retail price of electricity. 

Senator BARRASSO. Three percent, OK. 

You talk about the fact that families should never have to choose 

between a job and healthy air, that they are entitled to both. As 

of now, I count 57 plants closing across 20 States because of the 

Clean Air rules coming out. It is estimated 29,000 plant workers 

are going to lose their jobs. EPA has put those workers and the 

families on the unemployment line in the middle of a recession. In 

the EPA’s analysis, what kind of future is in store for those newly 

unemployed folks, their children, their depends who are not given 

the option to keep their jobs and healthy air? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, our analysis, in all due respect, doesn’t 

come out with those same numbers. We believe that this actually 

produces 46,000 construction jobs, as well as 8,000 long-term utility 

jobs. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCarthy, thank you for your testimony. We looked at the 

situation, after 10 years of delay by polluters, this EPA has set an 

historic standard to cut mercury pollution. Unfortunately, there is 

an effort underway here in the Senate to overturn these life saving 

standards. And if we are forced to wait another 10 years for limits 

on toxic air pollution, how many Americans might suffer health 

consequences and even die prematurely as a result? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we have estimated that the benefits associated with this rule are about 11,000 premature deaths avoided 

each year, up to hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, heart 

attacks, over a half a million lost work days would be avoided with 

45 

this rule. We are talking about very significant health benefits associated with this rule at very significantly lower costs. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The discussion we are having here is 

something that has to be looked at squarely. What we are saying 

is, look, it is not worth saving all those lives because it is going to 

cost so much. But if you look into the eyes of your child or children, 

or those adults who suffer severely from asthma, just one of the 

diseases that can possibly arise as a result of exposure to mercury 

and the other toxics, it is discouraging to hear what is not being 

said, but is being heard. And that is, all those lives are not worth 

the inconvenience and the money that we would have to spend, 

even though we are going to recapture it in spades, as they say. 

So this is a very difficult discussion, and I am alarmed. I come 

out of a strong business career, and I know what it is like to take 

a chance and make investments on the promises of tomorrow. And 

so it ought to be here. We ought to be able to look at families who 

come in with asthmatic children and say, worry not, we are going 

to do something to prevent your kid from losing his ability or her 

ability to participate normally with other children. It is money, 

don’t you understand that? It is money. No, it is life. And we are 

kind of moving that aside. 

We know that children are especially susceptible to the effects of 

air pollution. How do you take the unique vulnerability of children 

into account when developing pollution standards? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we know that mercury is a potent 

neurotoxin that causes a wide range of developmental problems, 

beyond what we have been able to calculate, IQ loss. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Have you heard that being challenged at 

all, people saying, no, you are wrong? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I have not. I have heard it being basically 

inferred that if we can’t put a cost number on it, then it doesn’t 

count. There are learning and attention difficulties associated with 

exposure to this potent neurotoxin. And there are many other effects, particularly in children. And in fact the CDC estimates that 

tens of thousands of babies are born in the U.S. every year with 

high enough mercury levels to put them at risk for one or more of 

these developmental problems. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. These are the invisible results that occur? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. These are the results that we can’t calculate, but 

we know are happening. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Almost 8 years ago New Jersey set pollution limits that are nearly identical to EPA’s new national standards. Our utilities have cut mercury pollution by 90 percent, contrary to industry claims that we are hearing now, and hear, our 

lights are still on and electricity rates are stable. Did EPA look at 

the experience of New Jersey and other States when developing 

these standards? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We did. We understand that there have been approximately 18 States that have gone out to try to address these 

issues aggressively on the toxic side. We want to congratulate New 

Jersey. In fact, what we have identified is there is a 20-year-old 

power plant in New Jersey that has set the pace for new construction and standards for new facilities because they are already 

achieving the new source standards associated with toxics. 

46 

So we know this can be done. The technology is available, it is 

cost-effective, it is in use at over half of the coal facilities that are 

out there today. We can achieve these reductions cost effectively 

and provide these children a healthier future. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I can tell you this, that we in New Jersey 

don’t like throwing our money away. We don’t have enough, but we 

like it less when it affects children and a family, when we hear 

about a child that is disabled as a result of an asthmatic condition. 

Thank you very much, Ms. McCarthy. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Lautenberg, thanks very much. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCarthy, I keep thinking that if Congress in its wisdom 

had passed Senator Carper’s and my bill in 2003 when we first introduced it, this would all have been done 4 or 5 years ago. We 

have this ping-pong match that really keeps Congress from doing 

its job. 

My only concern about the rule is the amount of time that utilities have to comply with it. And I want to make sure I understand 

what you’re saying about that, what the law and EPA rules are 

and what the options are. 

It would seem to me—my general attitude toward environmental 

rules is we ought to come up with a good performance standard, 

and then we ought to give the people who are affected by it plenty 

of time to get there. I think of the rule that got rid of sulfur in diesel fuel. I think that took 10 years from the beginning of the Clinton administration all the way to the end, but it got the job done. 

If I am not mistaken, it was something like that. 

And in the process new engines were invented, and the truckers 

supported it and bought the more expensive engines because it 

saved them money on fuel efficiency. So there was enough time for 

everybody to make the adjustment in a reasonable way, and the air 

is a lot cleaner in the Great Smoky Mountains because the big 

trucks aren’t using that kind of fuel. 

So in this case you are saying that the law is that every utility 

who tries to follow this rule about mercury and other use has at 

least 3 years by law, right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Three years. The fourth year the State has 

to approve, is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But if a State does approve a fourth year 

based upon reliability or some other issue, then they are 4 years. 

So if I am a utility executive, and I think the State will agree with 

that, that is 4 years. 

Doesn’t the President have the opportunity to add 2 years to that 

by executive order? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There is a provision in the law that has never 

been used that provides an opportunity for the President to do 

that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, wouldn’t it be a good idea for him to 

use it? In this case, I mean, the last version of the Carper-Alexander bill in effect would give 5 years. You have mentioned the 

47 

Southern Company said they have now learned they may be able 

to do it a little more rapidly. But why wouldn’t it make more sense 

across the country to say, we are going to get this done, we don’t 

want to go to court about it, the President issues an executive 

order and says, the State can give you 1 year and I am going to 

give you 2 more, so Mr. and Ms. Utility Executive, put the pollution control equipment on your plants. You have 6 years to do it 

if you don’t close the plant. 

Why wouldn’t that be a better, more certain way to deal with 

this issue and maybe other issues? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, you are asking a question that is a little bit over my pay grade. But let me bring it down. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But you are very experienced. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. Your advice would be useful. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would just say that I think that the difference 

between the analogy with sulfur and this is that we already have 

these technologies available and in use today. These facilities have 

been on notice and have made their own businesses—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, that is true of the unregulated facilities. Most of them have gone ahead and done it. But the regulated 

facilities have a harder time going to their State commissions and 

getting approval for an additional cost before there is a final rule. 

So now there is about to be a final rule, unless Congress acts to 

overturn it. And there may be a reliability issue, we don’t know. 

Why would we even risk that? Why don’t we just say to the utilities, OK, you have lots of decisions to make, you have several considerations, you have 6 years to get this done? 

And the problem I am thinking about is that even if you put out 

policy guidance and memos, TVA or the Southern Company or any 

utility might get a citizen lawsuit. They might get hauled into 

court. If they had an executive order, they wouldn’t. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we have not identified issues or circumstances that would warrant more than the 3-, 4-, or the 5-year 

certain pathway that we have provided. The President made it very 

clear in his memo that reliability is a significant concern. We are 

addressing those issues. I just don’t see that there is a problem 

that need to be fixed. You are deferring health benefits by—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, we have been deferring them for 10 

years, because the environmentalists and the utilities keep pingponging it back and forth, one trying to delay and the other trying 

to take an extreme view. I would much rather see us give a certain 

amount of time to the utilities, and if you err on that side, at least 

you will get it done. Otherwise, your rule may get hauled into 

court, and then we have another 3 years of delay just like we did 

with the last rule EPA did. And you don’t get certainty that way, 

either. But if utilities saw you had 6 years, and it was certain, and 

your risk of a lawsuit was a lot less, you might get a quicker and 

better environmental result. That is what I am suggesting. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly appreciate what you are saying, but 

we just don’t believe that there are circumstances that require time 

beyond what is already provided. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But the President could, if he wished, add 

2 years to the 4 years that utilities now can get. 

48 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There is a provision in the law that requires it 

that relates to national security, yes. We do not believe, and we 

have not recommended that there is any need to take any action 

beyond what we have already accommodated in the law and that 

Congress has provided to us, as well as the policy for the administrative order that grants an additional year. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Before you leave us, I am going to ask unanimous consent that a 1-page document that I just shared with Senator Alexander be made a part of the record. It is a document 

which indicates that Southern Company, which I think previously 

had thought they could not comply with this regulation by 2016, 

now believes that they can, and not for more money, but actually 

for less, I think for about a third less. That is what we call in my 

business better results for less money. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

49 


25023.255
50 


25023.256
51 


25023.257
52 


25023.258
53 


25023.259
54 

Senator CARPER. With that having been said, thank you for your 

testimony, for your good work and that of your team. We look forward to continuing to have this dialogue and working with you. For 

our colleagues who weren’t able to join us this morning, they will 

have the opportunity to present questions to you for—how long? 

For 2 years. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is added to the 400 I have already been 

here? 

Senator CARPER. There you go, starting to stretch out. 

Two weeks, and we would ask that you respond promptly. Thank 

you so much. Have a good day. 

And with that, we will ask our second panel of witnesses to join 

us. 

Good morning, everyone, welcome. Nice to see you all. On this 

panel we are pleased to have joining us Dr. Robert Summers, Secretary of the Environment for the State of Maryland, whose University of Maryland Terrapins women’s basketball team is the only 

team this year to defeat the University of Delaware women’s basketball team, which plays Kansas tonight in the second round of 

the NCAA women’s basketball playoffs. So hopefully we will be 

able to keep it down to one loss tonight; we will see. Welcome, all 

that notwithstanding. 

Dr. William Lambert, Director of Epidemiology and Biostatistics 

for the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at 

Oregon Health and Science University. Where is that located? 

Dr. LAMBERT. [Remarks made off microphone.] 

Senator CARPER. OK, good, welcome. 

Mr. Rob James, member of the Avon Lake City Council of Avon 

Lake, Ohio, suburb of Cleveland. He explained to me when I tried 

to give him my Ohio State cheer, he explained to me he is not a 

Buckeye. We are glad you are here, nonetheless. Welcome. 

Mr. Harry Alford, President of the National Black Chamber of 

Commerce. It is nice to see you again, welcome, thank you for joining us. 

And Vickie Patton, all the way from Colorado, I believe, General 

Counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund. Great to see you 

again, thank you joining us. 

I am going to ask each of you to try to limit your statements to 

about 5 minutes. The full content of your written statements will 

be included in the record. We will let our neighbor from the neighboring State of Maryland, who shares the DelMarVa peninsula, 

lead off. 

You are recognized. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. SUMMERS, PH.D., SECRETARY OF 

THE ENVIRONMENT, STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SUMMERS. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Barrasso, and honorable members of the Committee. I am Bob 

Summers, Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and share Maryland’s 

positive experience with the early installation of air pollution control technologies required by the 2006 Maryland Healthy Air Act, 

55 

technologies that will now be required on many of the Nation’s 

coal-fired power plants by the Federal Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards. 

Achieving compliance with Federal ambient air quality standards 

and reducing levels of mercury and other air pollutants has been 

particularly challenging for Maryland because so much of our air 

pollution is the result of transport from upwind, out of State 

sources. Our monitoring data shows that on the worst air quality 

days up to 70 percent of Maryland’s ozone pollution is the result 

of transport. Without reductions from upwind sources, Maryland 

will not achieve compliance with Federal ambient air quality standards for ozone or with future, more stringent fine particle standards that are needed to protect public health. 

In addition, the Chesapeake Bay program estimates that up to 

one-third of the nitrogen that pollutes Chesapeake Bay and its rivers comes from the air. The same is true for mercury deposition. 

Most of Maryland’s lakes and reservoirs are subject to fish consumption advisories for mercury. Mercury emissions from upwind 

sources account for more than 70 percent of the mercury deposition 

in Maryland. This is why Federal regulatory initiatives to reduce 

regional emissions are vitally important to improving Maryland’s 

air and water quality. 

We are confident that the MATS rules can be implemented without risk to reliability of our electricity supply because Maryland 

successfully implemented the Healthy Air Act and required steep 

cuts in emissions from our coal-fired power plants through the installation of the same controls that will be required to achieve compliance with MATS. 

The Maryland Healthy Air Act is now fully implemented and has achieved its goals. State generators invested approximately $2.6 

billion in new control technologies and achieved dramatic reductions in power plant emissions. Mercury emissions were reduced by 

90 percent, SO2 by 80 percent, and NOx by 75 percent, direct particulate matter by 60 percent, and hydrogen chloride by 83 percent. 

These are not estimates or projections; they are based on actual 

monitored emissions at our plants. The controls work extremely 

well and in almost all cases have resulted in even lower emission 

rates than were originally projected in 2006. The construction and 

installation of the controls also boosted Maryland’s economy. The 

effort resulted in the creation of approximately 90 new permanent 

jobs, and during the peak construction period more than 3,000 jobs, 

including high skilled architects, engineers, steamfitters, pipefitters, millwrights, master electricians, boilermakers, heavy equipment operators, and carpenters. 

The regulations implementing the Act were not finalized until 

2007, resulting in a relatively short lead time for the power plants. 

NOx controls were operational in less than 2 years, and SO2 and 

mercury controls were operational in less than 3 years. Because 

implementation of the Healthy Air Act was occurring at the same 

time that many power plants in the east were installing NOx and 

SO2 controls to achieve compliance with the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule, Maryland’s generators expressed serious concerns that sufficient labor and materials would not be available to complete construction prior to the compliance deadlines. 

56 

Similar to the provisions in MATS, the Healthy Air Act allowed 

emergency extension of compliance deadlines to address any issues 

related to reliability or the availability of equipment or labor. Significantly, no compliance deadline extensions were needed or requested. All of the necessary controls were installed in time, and 

the emission reductions occurred as expected. 

Maryland worked very closely with our power plants to facilitate 

a smooth implementation process and timely compliance with the 

emission limitations. This was a key reason for our success. 

In closing, I would like to quote Paul Allen of Constellation Energy, one of our State’s largest power companies: ‘‘These systems 

work effectively and result in dramatically lower emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and acid gases.’’ We know 

from experience that constructing this technology can be done in a 

reasonable timeframe, especially with good advance planning, and 

there is meaningful job creation associated with these projects. We 

commend EPA for moving forward with MATS. We look forward to 

further improvements in our air quality as implementation of the 

new standards reduces upwind transport of emissions into Maryland. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify regarding 

these important air quality issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Summers follows:] 

57 


25023.030
58 


25023.031
59 


25023.032
60 


25023.033
61 


25023.034
62 


25023.035
63 


25023.036
64 


25023.037
65 


25023.038
66 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Secretary, thanks a lot for what you said 

and for what you have done in Maryland. 

For those of us literally in some cases have to breathe the pollution that was put up in the air in Maryland that blows our way, 

we especially are grateful for the work you have done and for expediting it. 

We have a special guest here from Oregon, and I believe Senator 

Merkley would be pleased to introduce him. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is with great pleasure that I welcome Dr. William Lambert 

from Oregon to our panel today. Dr. Lambert is an associate professor at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, 

where he has conducted groundbreaking work quantifying the frequency and magnitude of exposure to toxic chemicals in communities and workplaces. 

Dr. Lambert has a longstanding interest in exposure to airborne 

pollutants and related health effects. His research has contributed 

to how we understand exposure-response relationships and our susceptibility to carbon monoxide, environmental tobacco smoke, silica, 

and uranium dust and other toxic chemicals. He is also studying 

the effects of pesticides on children. 

Before coming to Oregon Health Sciences University, Dr. Lambert held a number of positions at the University of New Mexico, 

including professor in the Department of Family and Community 

Medicine at the School of Medicine, as principal investigator for the 

epidemiology and cancer control program at the University of New 

Mexico Health Sciences Center, and professor in the Department of 

Internal Medicine at the School of Medicine. 

I am delighted that Dr. Lambert is here today to testify, and I 

look forward to his remarks. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Lambert, before you testify, is any of that 

true? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. It is pretty impressive. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. LAMBERT, PH.D., DIRECTOR, EPIDEMIOLOGY AND BIOSTATISTICS TRACK, OREGON MPH 

PROGRAM; HEAD, DIVISION OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. LAMBERT. Good morning and thank you, Senator Merkley, 

thank you Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 

members of the Committee. 

I really appreciate this invitation to present to you on public 

health matters related to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

rule. I believe that my experience as a researcher and teacher contribute, but also importantly, it should be noted that for 8 years I 

have served on our State’s Science Advisory Committee on Air 

Toxics. 

I will start my testimony by stating that the central tenet of the 

Clean Air Act is the protection of public health, specifically the protection of the most susceptible sub-groups of the population with an 

adequate margin of safety. It is precisely this principle—the protection of our most vulnerable citizens—that the recently finalized 

67 

MATS is designed to meet, by scrubbing mercury, acids, and fine 

particulate matter from the emissions of power plants. 

Who are the most vulnerable and how are they affected? Pregnant women, fetuses in children in the womb, even very small 

amounts of mercury damages the developing baby’s brain and nervous system and impairs their ability to think and learn. These 

health effects are manifest as permanent deficits, leading to reduced success in school and eventually lower earnings. In childhood, exposure to acid gases in outdoor air pollution impairs lung 

growth and function and predisposes children to asthma. 

Another vulnerable group are seniors and those with chronic 

medical conditions. They are affected by acid aerosols and fine particulate matter, which worsen emphysema and chronic bronchitis 

and are associated with heart attacks, hospitalizations, and premature deaths. Vulnerable groups may also be defined by high risk 

of exposure such as subsistence fish consumers and sport fishers 

who are exposed to methyl mercury accumulated in fish. 

Further, minority and low income populations disproportionately 

live in areas with higher levels of outdoor air pollution. 

Compounding their health risks is access and utilization of health 

care, allowing health effects to progress to more advanced stages 

before treatment. Viewed in total, these are serious health effects 

that are spread across broad segments of the U.S. population and 

more commonly affect minority and low income groups. 

The scientific evidence supporting benefits for health is strong. 

Relative to other compounds and pollutants, the scientific evidence 

for the toxic effects of mercury on the brain is strong, and similarly 

very strong evidence exists for the toxic effects of fine particulate 

matter and acid gases on the lungs and heart. We have good data 

from well conduced epidemiologic studies on human populations as 

opposed to relying solely on data from animal toxicology that then 

must be extrapolated to humans with uncertainty. 

For mercury, the subtle changes in neurologic function are observed in multiple locations and populations. This consistency increases our confidence that the changes can be attributed to exposure to mercury in the womb. For acid gases, ozone, and fine particulate matter, damage to lung growth and lung function of children and in adults, emergency room visits, and premature deaths 

have been observed in multiple U.S. cities using various scientific 

approaches. The combined health effects of reduction of mercury, 

other metals, acid gases, and fine particulate are substantial. 

In the EPA’s quantitative risk assessment, a small shift in average IQ is forecast in 2016 for an estimated quarter-million children 

exposed to mercury in the womb. Moving the average IQ level of 

such a large number of exposed children is challenging and will 

take many years. But this prediction indicates a good start is possible, and there is likely a greater benefit for reductions in the 

upper part of the distribution of most highly exposed children. 

The health benefits from the reduction of mercury emissions 

should not be considered in isolation but rather in combination 

with reductions in other toxic compounds which will be scrubbed 

along with mercury from stack emissions. EPA estimates very large 

co-benefits with thousands of avoided cases of chronic lung diseases 

and heart attacks, hospitalizations, lost school and work days. The 

68 

economic valuation of the total avoided health effects ranges in the 

billions. 

In conclusion, the under-appreciated wisdom of the Clean Air Act 

is simply this: by providing protection for the most vulnerable, we 

broadly provide protection to all Americans. Mercury, fine particulate matter, and acid gases associated with the burning of coal 

present a clear hazard to the health of the public, particularly 

fetuses, children, and the elderly. By reducing exposures to these 

toxics, we provide protection to large cross-sections of the American 

population. The scientific evidence to support the exposures and 

the health damages to the population is extensive. 

The Utility MATS final rule was developed over years with considerable thoughtfulness and input from technical experts. To public, industry, and lawmakers, this rule should be allowed to move 

to implementation for the protection of the public health. 

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lambert follows:] 

69 


25023.039
70 


25023.040
71 


25023.041
72 


25023.042
73 


25023.043
74 


25023.044
75 


25023.045
76 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Lambert, thanks so much. Thanks for coming all the way from Portland to be with us today. 

And sitting right here next to a fellow from Avon Lake, Ohio, 

where Rob James is a member of the city council. 

Do they call you Councilman James? 

Mr. JAMES. Mr. James is fine, or Councilman James. 

Senator CARPER. Councilman James, we are happy you are here. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROB JAMES, AVON LAKE CITY COUNCIL, 

WARD I, AVON LAKE, OHIO 

Mr. JAMES. I would like to thank Chairman Carper, Ranking 

Member Barrasso, and the other members of the Subcommittee for 

inviting me to testify today. My name is Rob James, and I am a 

member of the Avon Lake City Council. 

Avon Lake is a beautiful community of nearly 23,000 residents 

on the shores of Lake Erie, approximately 20 miles west of Cleveland. Although I am currently an attorney in private practice, I 

previously served as an assistant attorney general to the Ohio attorney general, where I represented the State of Ohio and its agencies, including the Ohio EPA. 

My work as an assistant attorney general included enforcing environmental laws and regulations and ensuring that the natural resources of Ohio were protected. However, I am here today because 

I think it is important that Congress understands the impacts of 

environmental rules, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, on 

local communities like Avon Lake. 

On February 29th of this year GenOn Energy, Inc. announced 

that it would close the coal- and fuel-oil fired electric generating 

plant in Avon Lake in 2015. The Avon Lake Generating Station is 

capable of generating 734 megawatts, providing baseload electric 

capacity and load following capability to the grid as well as essential peaking capacity and black start capability. This facility plays 

an important role in providing reliable and affordable supplies of 

electricity. 

The reasons behind the closure are clear. GenOn stated that the 

closure was a result of the rising costs associated with EPA’s regulations and the fact that overwhelming costs associated with complying with the rules could not be recovered by continuing to operate the facility. While some may celebrate the closure of these 

types of facilities based on broader policy objectives, the loss of 

power plans has a very real impact on the communities in which 

they are located. These are not just abstract costs. 

The most immediate impact on people will be on the 80 people 

employed by the Avon Lake facility. The type of quality jobs at the 

Avon Lake plant are increasingly hard to find in our country, let 

alone in Ohio and the greater Cleveland area. But this is more 

about than just the jobs of the people employed at the plant. Instead, it is about the ripple effect that harms an entire community. 

In present dollars, closure of the Avon Lake generating facility will 

cost the city of Avon Lake over $77,000 in income taxes and at 

least $268,000 in property taxes per year. 

This loss does not just represent the loss of general revenue used 

to fund the city and its programs. Significantly, a sizable portion 

77 

of taxes collected from the facility is used to fund Avon Lake paramedics, firefighters, and emergency medical services. This loss of 

nearly $50,000 from the EMS budget, which is the amount that 

will be lost from the closure, will reduce the EMS operating budget 

by half and may represent the loss of one paramedic. Undoubtedly, 

this will have a direct impact on the health of Avon Lake residents. 

Even more concerning is the impact the closure will have on the 

Avon Lake school district. At present, Avon Lake schools collect 

$2.4 million in utility taxes alone and another $1.5 million in real 

property taxes from the facility. The potential loss of $4 million 

each year will have an unimaginable effect on Avon Lake schools. 

Not only will the loss of revenue directly impact the ability of the 

schools to provide a high quality of education for all students, 

many of the programs offered by the school for students with the 

greatest needs will be lost. 

Indeed, many of the health and welfare programs for the students my need to be eliminated. For instance, the loss of the Avon 

Lake power plant would force the school district to end no-cost programs to help children and teens who are struggling with depression, anxiety, ADHD, and the effects of trauma or abuse, among 

other programs. 

In addition, consumers in northeastern Ohio are likely to pay 

more for their electricity. This Committee in the past has heard 

from Catholic Charities of Cleveland, a group on the front line of 

addressing high energy costs. It testified that the loss of power 

plants would have a devastating effect on the people of Ohio and 

our country, particularly the poor and the elderly. 

Unfortunately, other communities in addition to Avon Lake are 

suffering from the cost of the MATS rule. In Ohio alone, nine other 

power plants have announced that they will close, representing a 

loss of 5,870 megawatts. Additional losses will also be felt outside 

of Ohio. In each of these communities and all the other locations 

where plants are closing, it will be harder to pay for the schools, 

hospitals, and basic services that will keep communities vibrant 

and healthy. 

As the debate over the MATS rule continues, I hope that Congress will keep in mind communities like Avon Lake. While the 

need for environmental regulation is important, EPA must understand the consequences of its regulations on our communities. 

Places like Avon Lake need affordable and reliable electricity, a 

strong educational system, and opportunities for our economies to 

rebuild and grow. The U.S. economy is struggling to recover, and 

northeastern Ohio is at the center of this struggle. We know that 

we can have clean air, good jobs, and reliable electricity, but only 

if polices are implemented based on sound analysis and with full 

consideration of the real costs of the choices made by regulators. 

It is my hope and belief that there is still time to change the debate and apply environmental regulation in a responsible manner 

before more unnecessary damage is done. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:] 

78 


25023.046
79 


25023.047
80 


25023.048
81 


25023.049
82 


25023.050
83 


25023.051
84 


25023.052
85 


25023.053
86 


25023.054
87 


25023.055
88 


25023.056
89 


25023.057
90 


25023.058
91 


25023.059
92 

Senator CARPER. Councilman James, very nice to meet you, and 

welcome you to the Committee. Thank you for coming and for your 

statement. 

I would ask unanimous consent that it be published in the record 

an article from earlier this month from the Sun News that begins, 

Avon Lake Mayor Greg Zilka Sees Opportunity, Not Just Gloom, 

in the news that GenOn Energy will shutter the Avon Lake Power 

Plant in April 2015. I would just ask unanimous consent that this 

be made a part of the record. No objection. 

[The referenced article follows:] 

93 


25023.060
94 


25023.061
95 

Senator CARPER. With that, Mr. Alford, very nice to see you 

again. Welcome. Thanks for coming back and joining us. You are 

welcome to proceed for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HARRY ALFORD, PRESIDENT/CEO, 

NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to Ranking 

Member Barrasso, Senator Barrasso, and to the other distinguished members of this very important Subcommittee. 

My wife and I founded the National Black Chamber of Commerce 

back in 1993, based on a need of there being a national voice for 

the Black business community. At the time we founded the Chamber, according to the Census Bureau there were 300,000 Blackowned businesses in the United States, doing about $38 billion a 

year in annual revenue. Today I am happy to report there are more 

than 2.1 million Black-owned businesses doing over $138 billion a 

year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 

We have evolved to be the largest Black business association in 

the world. I am happy to say that we are spinning out a sister organization to take care of the international policies out there. 

I have an affinity for clean air and a big appreciation for the 

Clean Air Act. I grew up in Los Angeles, California, the area of 

Ventura County. And I know what smog, I know what dirty air is. 

Los Angeles had dirty air beyond any comparison to mankind. 

It was hard, it was hard playing football, eyes running, skin 

burning, you can’t take a full breath but you know the only way 

you are going to get a college education is to get a scholarship. So 

you played through it anyway. All the while, someone 250 pounds 

is trying to break your back. 

We got through that. L.A. started to get its act together, thanks 

to the Clean Air Act. Today it thrills me to fly into LAX and to see 

the clear skies. We get it. Other cities in the United States did, too. 

But I went to Mexico City, and there was that black smoke 

again. I went to Sao Paulo, Brazil and there was that black smoke 

again. Last November I went to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and there 

it was, just like Los Angeles back in the 1960s and 1970s. The 

point I am making, we can pay the pain here in the United States 

and do all the things we should be doing. But unless there is a 

global solution and a global coordination, it is all for naught. It is 

all for naught. And that is why we were successful in defeating the 

Kyoto Treaty, and I am glad to say that we convinced this body to 

vote 97 to 1 against it. Because China, India, Brazil, and other nations, Indonesia, were rapidly developing with reckless abandon. So 

what good does it do for the United States to retreat, to retract 

when others are moving ahead? 

The NACS issue, we were successful there. I am happy to say, 

cap and trade was defeated, thanks to the U.S. Senate. But somehow, cap and trade is sneaking back. It is coming in little forms, 

and one of those forms is called MATS. 

There is so much at risk, so very much at risk. Coal mines, I 

count 32 utility plants, 1.4 million jobs, and pricing increases going 

sky high. What is going to happen to Corey Walker, who has a limousine service in Decatur, Illinois? What is going to happen to the 

people he employs? Gas is sky high already. We are looking at the 

96 

end of the rope. We are suffering, and we don’t need another hammer on our head. This MATS is going to take a lot of my constituents out. 

Like Anna Henderson in Atlanta, Georgia, HA Office Furniture, 

when the schools, when Coca-Cola, when Lockheed Martin, some of 

her prime customers, will retract, in buying new furniture, adding 

to their existing assets. What is going to happen to Arnold Baker, 

Baker Ready-Mix, in New Orleans, Louisiana? Here is a guy who 

was knocked down from Katrina, went down to two employees and 

one truck. Today he has 70 trucks and over 200 employees. Price 

of utilities and gasoline is going to kill his business. 

I could talk about millions. Silver Gallery in a mall in Jackson, 

Mississippi. People aren’t going to buy costume jewelry any more. 

So this family owned business is going to be out of whack, it is 

going down. So that is where we are. Unless we have some global 

solutions and start looking at this thing from who is paying the 

cost. Because a disproportionate amount of that cost is going to the 

African-American community, and we cry foul. We will do everything we legally can to fight this rule. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alford follows:] 

97 


25023.062
98 


25023.063
99 


25023.064
100 


25023.065
101 


25023.066
102 


25023.067
103 


25023.068
104 


25023.069
105 


25023.070
106 


25023.071
107 


25023.072
108 


25023.073
109 


25023.074
110 


25023.075
111 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Alford, thanks very much for your presence 

and your testimony today. 

I am pleased to present Vickie Patton, who has joined us from 

the Environmental Defense Fund. 

Welcome; thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF VICKIE PATTON, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Ms. PATTON. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Barrasso, members of the Committee. 

On February 16th, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency 

published long overdue protections for our families and for our children to address the most toxic air pollutants in our communities 

from the largest single sources of mercury and acid gases and arsenic. It is not surprising that over 800,000 Americans submitted 

comments strongly encouraging EPA to take this action. And it is 

based on a very strong foundation; a number of States across our 

country have adopted mercury pollution control standards, long before EPA took action, States such as Delaware and New Jersey and 

Colorado and Oregon and Illinois and Maryland and Montana have 

led the way in establishing a strong State policy foundation to help 

us solve these problems. 

We are incredibly grateful for the entrepreneurs, the innovators 

across American who help deliver smart solutions to help us solve 

these problems, companies like ADA Environmental Solutions in 

my home State of Colorado, which has kind of pioneered the advances in mercury pollution control technology. In 2009 the General Accounting Office said our Nation has solutions to mercury, we 

can achieve a 90 percent reduction of all coal types, in large part 

due to the innovation of companies across America. There are 

power companies who have been leading the way and preparing for 

these standards for many years. And they show us that this can 

all be achieved. 

There are also just concerned citizens who have lent their voices 

to this issue and helped encourage policymakers to carry out what 

are long overdue protections. It is all about voices across America 

working together to solve big problems. 

There has been a lot written and a lot said about the Mercury 

and Air Toxics Standards. But I would like to focus on the standards that were actually adopted and the standards that are actually in place, and what has been said about those. When the Environmental Protection Agency completed its work on these standards, the American Public Health Association, the American Lung 

Association, the American Heart Association, the League of United 

Latin American Communities, the NAACP, the Consumers Union, 

Small Business Majority, voices across America said thank you 

very much, Administrator Lisa Jackson, for leading the way and finally ending this delay in protecting Americans from this very serious toxic air pollution. 

There are a number of power companies that have responded to 

these standards since they were in fact adopted. Xcel Energy, one 

of the Nation’s largest investor-owned utilities with service territory across the Midwest and the Southwest, said, we are well positioned to comply. There are a number of companies, power compaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:28 May 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25023.TXT SONYA
112 

nies, major power companies who have said, we are well positioned 

to comply. It includes rural co-ops, it includes municipal utilities, 

it includes independent power producers. 

Duke Energy, on February 16th, briefed investors, and it said, 

we are adjusting our estimations of the costs. They are going to be 

on the low side of what we have previously sort of communicated 

to the public. As you indicated, Senator Carper, the Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, issued some analysis on March 15th, just a few 

days ago, indicating that Southern Company is prepared to comply 

by 2016, within the 4 years that EPA has provided for with its 

adaptive compliance framework. 

One of the biggest detractors and critics of this rule has been 

American Electric Power. It has been sort of long, sort of critical 

of EPA’s efforts here. Well, on February 10th, the President and 

CEO of American Electric Power briefed investors, and Nick Akins 

said that, in Ohio, the cost of compliance will be a small fraction 

of what we previously predicted. Instead of $1.1 billion, it will cost 

$400 million for us to comply in Ohio. He also indicated that he 

could count on his hand, a single hand the units that might need 

additional time to comply. And his executive vice president, Mark 

McCullough, indicated EPA’s final rule are much more manageable 

than we previously have indicated. 

This is not surprising. The time-tested history of the Clean Air 

Act has been delivering cleaner, healthier air at a small fraction of 

the predicted cost. We have seen this time and time again. It is a 

great American success story. 

And Senator Carper, we are here today in many respects due to 

your steadfast leadership. On behalf of moms across America, you 

have challenged Americans to work together to find solutions to 

this very serious problem. You have helped remind us that this is 

not a red State issue, this is not a blue State issue, these are 

shared American values in protecting our children’s health. You 

have helped us realize these final standards that give meaning to 

the Clean Air Act’s vision that every child be raised in a community, in a home free of the most toxic pollutants in our environment, so they can realize their full potential. 

Thank you for all you have done. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Patton follows:] 

113 


25023.076
114 


25023.077
115 


25023.078
116 


25023.079
117 


25023.080
118 


25023.081
119 


25023.082
120 


25023.083
121 


25023.084
122 


25023.085
123 


25023.086
124 


25023.087
125 


25023.088
126 


25023.089
127 


25023.090
128 


25023.091
129 


25023.092
130 


25023.093
131 


25023.094
132 


25023.095
133 


25023.096
134 


25023.097
135 


25023.098
136 


25023.099
137 


25023.100
138 


25023.101
139 


25023.102
140 


25023.103
141 


25023.104
142 


25023.105
143 


25023.106
144 


25023.107
145 


25023.108
146 


25023.109
147 


25023.110
148 


25023.111
149 


25023.112
150 


25023.113
151 


25023.114
152 


25023.115
153 


25023.116
154 


25023.117
155 


25023.118
156 


25023.119
157 


25023.120
158 


25023.121
159 


25023.122
160 


25023.123
161 


25023.124
162 


25023.125
163 


25023.126
164 


25023.127
165 


25023.128
166 


25023.129
167 


25023.130
168 


25023.131
169 


25023.132
170 


25023.133
171 


25023.134
172 


25023.135
173 


25023.136
174 


25023.137
175 


25023.138
176 


25023.139
177 


25023.140
178 


25023.141
179 


25023.142
180 


25023.143
181 


25023.144
182 


25023.145
183 


25023.146
184 


25023.147
185 


25023.148
186 


25023.149
187 


25023.150
188 


25023.151
189 


25023.152
190 


25023.153
191 


25023.154
192 


25023.155
193 


25023.156
194 


25023.157
195 


25023.158
196 


25023.159
197 


25023.160
198 


25023.161
199 


25023.162
200 


25023.163
201 


25023.164
202 


25023.165
203 


25023.166
204 


25023.167
205 


25023.168
206 


25023.169
207 


25023.170
208 


25023.171
209 


25023.172
210 


25023.173
211 


25023.174
212 


25023.175
213 


25023.176
214 


25023.177
215 


25023.178
216 


25023.179
217 


25023.180
218 


25023.181
219 


25023.182
220 


25023.183
221 


25023.184
222 


25023.185
223 


25023.186
224 


25023.187
225 


25023.188
226 


25023.189
227 


25023.190
228 


25023.191
229 


25023.192
230 


25023.193
231 


25023.194
232 


25023.195
233 


25023.196
234 


25023.197
235 


25023.198
236 


25023.199
237 


25023.200
238 


25023.201
239 


25023.202
240 


25023.203
241 


25023.204
242 


25023.205
243 


25023.206
244 


25023.207
245 


25023.208
246 


25023.209
247 


25023.210
248 


25023.211
249 


25023.212
250 


25023.213
251 


25023.214
252 


25023.215
253 


25023.216
254 


25023.217
255 


25023.218
256 


25023.219
257 


25023.220
258 


25023.221
259 


25023.222
260 


25023.223
261 


25023.224
262 


25023.225
263 


25023.226
264 


25023.227
265 


25023.228
266 


25023.229
267 


25023.230
268 


25023.231
269 


25023.232
270 


25023.233
271 


25023.234
272 


25023.235
273 


25023.236
274 


25023.237
275 


25023.238
276 


25023.239
277 


25023.240
278 


25023.241
279 


25023.242
280 


25023.243
281 


25023.244
282 


25023.245
283 


25023.246
284 


25023.247
285 


25023.248
286 


25023.249
287 


25023.250
288 


25023.251
289 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for those kind words. 

I would ask that Ms. Patton be granted an additional 5 minutes 

to continue. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. No, thank you so much. There is an old saying, 

flattery won’t hurt you if you don’t inhale, so I am not breathing 

up here. 

All right, let’s go to questions. I think I get the first couple of 

questions, and then will yield to Senator Barrasso. 

My first question is to our neighbor from Maryland, Secretary 

Summers. In your testimony, you discussed Maryland’s experience 

with a similar State regulatory initiative, the Healthy Air Act. You 

mentioned that the implementation of the Healthy Air Act was 

happening at the same time that many power plants in the east 

were installing controls to achieve compliance with the EPA’s 

Clean Air Interstate Rule. It sounds like Maryland’s generators expressed similar concerns that we are hearing today; is that correct? 

Mr. SUMMERS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

It sounds like the labor and materials were available and none 

of your companies needed a lot more time; is that correct? 

Mr. SUMMERS. None of them needed more time. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Did Maryland experience blackouts as a result of this law? Did 

you have blackouts in Maryland because of this law? 

Mr. SUMMERS. No. 

Senator CARPER. Did Maryland experience electricity price 

spikes? 

Mr. SUMMERS. No price spikes, either. 

Senator CARPER. Why do you think that was the case? 

Mr. SUMMERS. Well, I think that as the quote I read from Paul 

Allen indicated, that these things work very well and could be implemented in the proper timeframe. And it did not cause any of the 

impacts that had been predicted. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

A question for Ms. Patton and for Dr. Lambert, if I could. Some 

of my colleagues have questioned the reasoning of cleaning up mercury. They have questioned why we would spend money in this 

country to clean up this neurotoxin when other countries are contributing to mercury in the atmosphere. Could each of you take 

maybe a minute apiece to discuss how cleaning up mercury from 

our largest source—that is coal-fired power plants—can have a beneficial impact on citizens’ health? Do you believe that cleaning up 

mercury from our coal plants is worth the investment? 

Ms. PATTON. Senator Carper, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American Nurses Association, took the unusual step on 

Friday of filing a motion to intervene in defense of these standards. 

They are so important to human health. The National Academy of 

Sciences has issued an extensive report documenting the serious 

impacts of environmental exposure to mercury on our children’s 

lives. Scientists estimate that over 400,000 children are born each 

year exposed to levels of mercury that impedes their ability to 

thrive and to grow. 

290 

ADA Environmental Solutions, this is a company in Littleton, 

Colorado, it has pioneered one of these mercury control technologies. It provides over a third of the bookings for mercury controls now in America. It announced its fourth quarter earnings 

were at 174 percent, dramatically up. It is hiring new people. 

And guess where ADAES is headed to? It is headed to China. It 

is going to be delivering advanced, made in America mercury control technology to China. It is going to be growing jobs in my home 

State of Colorado. And who is one of its major investors? Arch Coal. 

And in 2002, when Arch Coal first joined up with ADAES, thenSecretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said, I commend Arch Coal, 

you are helping to show the way how we can deliver clean air, 

healthy air in America through lower emissions. 

So there is just an enormous amount of work that people are 

doing to address these serious problems, and they are all quite serious. But with American innovation we can solve them, and in fact, 

we are. And we will be selling that technology to China. 

Senator CARPER. Arch Coal? 

Ms. PATTON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Now, that is a surprise. 

Dr. Lambert, same questions, please. 

Mr. LAMBERT. Thank you, Senator. 

Mercury is a persistent compound in the environment. The continued addition of mercury to the environment will lead to accumulation. It has long half-life, and it will persist and become remobilized and create exposures up the food chain through fish to 

humans, and particularly affect children. 

It is true that in the western United States long range transport 

across the Pacific from Asia does bring mercury to our coast, where 

it falls out, particularly in the Northwest, due to our wet climate. 

In the Northwest we don’t have a lot of coal-fired plants. So the 

balance, or the budget there, looks different than other parts of the 

country. If you look in the Northeast, a large part of mercury pollution comes from outside States, and as the situation in Maryland, 

upwind transport is very important. So it is important to control 

from our local sources and additionally work toward global controls 

over time. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. My time has expired. 

Dr. Barrasso. 

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

Mr. Alford, welcome back to the Committee. I want to hear your 

comments. I saw your written testimony, you said when electricity 

rates rise, so does the cost of doing business, putting investment, 

economic growth and jobs at risk. You further said that the rules 

are a cost increase, which crowds out other expenditures. 

Earlier today, Ms. McCarthy was here, and she seemed to have 

an opposite view. She said that he updated standards are going to 

support thousands of good paying jobs for workers, hire to build 

and install and operate the equipment to reduce emissions. Does 

the EPA’s new restrictions create a big boon for business, and 

should the Government be placing these restrictions on many of 

our industries, as she has stated? Can you explain why you believe 

she is wrong, her strategy is completely wrong? 

291 

Mr. ALFORD. Well, they are always wrong. EPA, any time they 

start analyzing cost and benefits, it is very far from reality. I think 

this is no exception. I think it is really insulting to say that we are 

going to put a bigger expense on you, and it is going to improve 

you economically. 

I am looking at the economic crunch, the way they are going 

about it. Now, I am all for a good, clean environment. But let’s do 

it in a good, logical fashion to where we don’t have to take as much 

pain as they want to give us. If I have a sore elbow, don’t cut my 

arm off. Let’s sit down and work this thing out. 

Senator BARRASSO. As an orthopedic surgeon, I would focus on 

the elbow. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. You heard the testimony from Mr. James, 

kind of along the same line. So I would ask, are the members of 

your organization seeing what is happening in Avon Lake happening in other communities? Specifically, are those negative impacts that are happening in a town like Avon Lake happening nationwide, where school district budgets are going to be hurt, and 

children are going to be hurt, and emergency services for the sick 

and elderly are not going to be available because of the tax revenue 

that goes away and because of these regulations? I thought you 

might have an opinion on that. 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, a big ripple effect. It hurts. The saying goes 

with us, when the mainstream gets a cold, we get pneumonia. We 

are always the first to be fired and the last to be hired. It is always 

a struggle. 

So they don’t analyze it like they should. Where these coal plants 

are, these utility plants are right now, it is in about 55 percent of 

the African-American business population. We, the African-American businesses, are strongest in the Southeast and then again, 

upper Midwest. So if you take a string and a pin and stick it in 

Nashville, Tennessee, and then go about 4 inches on a map, 6 

inches on a map with that pin, in that circular part, that is the 

Black business community of the United States. And that is exactly 

where these plants are located. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. James, can I ask you a little bit, you stated that 80 people 

would be laid off at that coal-fired power plant at Avon Lake, and 

that their chances of easily finding work at the same pay and benefits—I am just curious what your thoughts would be on finding 

similar work at similar pay in the same community once the layoffs 

occur. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Very difficult. As you know, Ohio has had a difficult struggle in 

this economic recession, as a traditional manufacturing economy. 

Many of the jobs that the State of Ohio had in the 1970s and 1980s 

are gone, have been shipped away to other countries or moved 

away. So to replace those 80 direct jobs will be very difficult, finding work either in Lorraine or Cleveland. 

If I may, it is more than just the 80 jobs. Certainly there has to 

be a multiplier effect of those 80 jobs, the people that shop and go 

out to dinner in Avon Lake. There is going to be additional secondary and tertiary loss of jobs because of those 80 jobs. 

292 

Senator BARRASSO. You also talk about emergency medical services, budget has to be cut because revenue is not coming in, there 

is a loss of income taxes and a loss in property taxes that fund 

paramedics, ambulances, training and education of paramedics. 

What are the impacts of that going to be in terms of the overall 

health availability and care for the people in that community? 

Mr. JAMES. Certainly there will be some direct health impacts, 

if the facility were to close. Some of the property taxes that are collected from the facility is used to fund our paramedic and firefighters. Without those paramedics and firefighters, I think there 

is a risk that Avon Lake wouldn’t be able to adequately service its 

23,000 residents, send ambulances to them in enough time, take 

them to the hospital, tend to them on an emergency basis. That 

will certainly have a health impact. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you think that is happening in other communities that have the same impact? 

Mr. JAMES. I am certain of that, Senator. There are at least 9 

other communities, 10 other communities in Ohio that are facing 

the exact same problems. 

Senator BARRASSO. And Mr. Alford, you are seeing this nationwide; is that correct? 

Mr. ALFORD. Absolutely, sir. And another important point, in African-American communities, we are looking at 35 percent to 40 

percent unemployment. The only way you are going to cure that 

unemployment is to create jobs and create businesses. So I think, 

No. 1, let’s find a way to provide a paycheck. We will worry about 

the healthy after that paycheck starts coming. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

And I think, Senator Lautenberg, you are next. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am not a doctor, but my father died 

when he was 43, working in the mills. His brother died when he 

was 52, and their father died at 56, when they were working in the 

mills in Patterson, New Jersey. The uncle who had a tavern lived 

to be 102, and I am not advocating more drinking. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But I am saying that that environment, 

those jobs that my dad had and my uncle, my grandfather, in the 

final analysis, helped kill them. And Mr. James, believe me, and 

Mr. Alford, I do sympathize with the condition that arises and displacement as changes are made. The question is, do you ever invest 

today for better results tomorrow? 

According to the Clean Air Task Force, 2010, the Avon Lake 

plant was responsible for 29 premature deaths, 440 asthma attacks, 23 emergency visits as a result of asthma and 47 heart attacks, in the year 2010. It was no bed of roses before changes were 

made. And as a consequence, as we look around the country. 

In 1986 I wrote a law to stop smoking in airplanes. It hurt the 

cigarette companies but it permitted people who couldn’t fly before—work in the air cabins, attendants and so forth—to finally do 

it. And we reduced the level of smoking across the world. Forgive 

the vanity, but it made a difference in how people treated cigaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:28 May 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25023.TXT SONYA
293 

rettes. It was a huge loss to the cigarette companies. They are still 

doing very well, unfortunately. 

So what I say, or I raise the question, I ran a big company, very 

big. Three of us started—the company has 45,000 employees today. 

The company is ADP. They do the labor statistics, I was the founder of that, one of the three founders of that. 

So when I had a CEO, I looked at whether we would invest here 

or invest there. And maybe at first there were some costs involved. 

But the benefits long run had to be considered. So I ask you, Mr. 

James, Mr. Alford, is there any time at all that you bury your head 

a little bit—and I don’t like people out of work, particularly in the 

minority communities. I lived in those communities as a child. And 

to say OK, we have to make an investment here. 

And what we hear from Ms. Patton and others, that the cost of 

change is grossly exaggerated by the proponents of status quo. Is 

there anything that we ought to do here, Mr. James? What do you 

think we ought to do about this? 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. I certainly understand and respect your point. As you may have heard, I spent a 

number of years as an assistant attorney general enforcing environmental laws. I certainly appreciate and respect their need. But 

at the same time, those laws need to be narrowly tailored to address specific issues, like mercury. It would be my understanding 

that the MATS rule goes beyond just narrowly tailored regulation 

to address mercury. 

So my response to you is that if environmental regulation can be 

balanced, if power companies can be provided enough time and the 

regulations can be narrowly balanced, I think we can achieve both 

appropriate environmental regulation as well as protecting the jobs 

and support that these kinds of facilities can provide to local communities. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I think that it would, to me at least, would 

sound a little better balanced if you said we should continue to pursue cleaning mercury out of our system. We should pursue clean 

air altogether. We should try to reduce the number of cases of asthma, premature deaths. If the death is in your family, you don’t look 

and say, what the hell are we spending all this money for. 

Mr. ALFORD. I agree. I absolutely agree with you, and I agree 

with Mr. James, it should be narrowly tailored. But I think the 

pain shouldn’t be disproportionately given without further looking 

or analyzing—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am not a pain advocate. 

Mr. ALFORD. A member of mine just sent me a picture from the 

Park Hyatt Hotel in Shanghai. He had a view of the window there, 

and he is standing by the window. He is up about 120 floors. You 

couldn’t see beyond two blocks in downtown Shanghai. 

There is a new coal mine opening in China every week. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Alford, I am pressured by the clock 

here. We have a mean Chairman. He will ring the bell. 

Mr. ALFORD. Yes, sir. I will close by saying, we need to address 

those issues, true. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, and I look at those issues, that is a 

major focus of mine. In the State of New Jersey, the most crowded 

State in the country, we have a section of the State that is very 

294 

well off, and we have five of America’s poorest cities in our midst. 

When I see them in a HeadStart program or something, I really 

feel good. 

I am a professional grandfather; you may have detected that. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. I think that brings us pretty close to the close 

here. I don’t believe Senator Alexander is going to be able to come 

back and ask questions of this panel. 

Sometimes when we conclude a hearing of this nature, I like to 

come back—we always ask our witnesses to give an opening statement, I am going to ask each one of you to take maybe 1 minute, 

or more than 1 minute, just to share with us some closing thoughts 

that may have been generated by virtue of this conversation, what 

others have said, the questions that have been asked. 

Secretary Summers, why don’t you take a minute, and we will 

conclude with Ms. Patton. 

Mr. SUMMERS. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I guess I would just say, these systems work very effectively. We 

have direct experience in Maryland. We have upgraded six coalfired power plants, 13 units in those plants. They are all doing very 

well today. We have other plants that are proposed to be built in 

Maryland today. So the implementation of this law, our Healthy 

Air Act, which is essentially the same as what we are discussing 

today, MATS, has been very successful in Maryland. 

We have heard about all of the health effects, Maryland by virtue 

of being downwind from almost everyone except for Delaware, I 

guess, has some of the worst air quality remaining in the country. 

And we need these upwind sources to install the same kind of controls that we put into place. We believe that it is actually a boon 

for the economy. It has been in Maryland. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Secretary Summers. 

Dr. Lambert. 

Mr. LAMBERT. Thank you, Chairman Carper. 

We are blessed in the United States with clean air in many 

ways. We have seen tremendous improvements in air quality. I 

grew up in Los Angeles, and I have seen what was described. I 

have been to Mexico City, I have been to other places where the 

pollution remains a challenge. 

But our challenge here in the United States, even though you 

cannot see this pollutant, it is an insidious poison, it is in the air. 

And we have talked about how it affects children and pregnant 

women and fetuses. We get a wonderful co-benefit by scrubbing 

mercury out: all these other pollutants travel with it, which results 

in broad benefits for many Americans, particularly our seniors and 

those with pre-existing diseases like asthma. 

The scientific evidence is not debated. There are big benefits to 

reducing cardio-respiratory diseases from these additional pollutants. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Dr. Lambert. 

Councilman James. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

My understanding of the MATS rule, the USEPA has looked at 

mercury and then looked at a number of co-benefits from the reduction of mercury, whether it is the reduction of other kinds of pollutVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:28 May 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25023.TXT SONYA
295 

ants, such as PM, and other additional co-benefits, such as perhaps 

several thousand transient jobs, several thousand permanent jobs. 

I am not an expert; I am not sure if those statistics are true. 

But what it does seem to me is that USEPA failed to take into 

account the co-costs of the mercury rule, the MATS rule, the costs 

that are associated with the loss of income tax and property tax, 

the loss that is associated with jobs and having vibrant communities. 

So I would ask you, I would ask the USEPA, as you are exercising your authority, as you are exercising your discretion, that 

you consider the co-costs of your rulemaking, of your authority. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Alford. 

Mr. ALFORD. I want to encourage this Subcommittee to have 

more hearings and more discussions. We applaud your efforts so 

far and we encourage you to continue on. 

I think like Maryland is suggesting to the upwind States to do 

a better job of environmental stewardship, the United States 

should do a better job of convincing other nations to do so, also. Do 

we trade with these culprits? Do we give financing or gifts to these 

culprits? I don’t think we should. We should be a little harder. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you, sir. 

Ms. Patton. 

Ms. PATTON. On February 29th, 2012, GenOn filed a 10K statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission 

in which it indicated it had not made a final decision about the closure of the Avon Lake facility. 

Senator CARPER. When? 

Ms. PATTON. On February 29th. 

Senator CARPER. Really? 

Ms. PATTON. It indicated that it was considering a number of factors, including factors entirely unrelated to the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards that would ultimately inform its final judgment 

about the future of that plant. 

Senator Carper, we have models in our country of communities 

working together to meet these challenges. In my home State of 

Colorado, the State’s leading power company worked together with 

Republican members of the general assembly, with Democratic 

members of the general assembly, with labor, with the American 

Lung Association, with concerned citizens. And it fashioned a plan 

that is exactly what Senator Lautenberg described. And that is the 

plan to deliver cleaner, healthier air for millions of people across 

the Colorado front range. 

And some of those transitions involved closures, closures of 

aging, high emitting, inefficient coal plants that were commissioned 

well before the Denver Broncos became an official charter member 

of the American Football League. And we are transitioning to a 

21st century, clean, modern energy infrastructure. And we are 

doing it working together as a community in a way that will deliver cleaner, healthier air, a steady flow of electricity cost effectively. There are lots of great models out there in America of people 

working together to meet these challenges. 

Thank you, sir. 

296 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. 

I really thank you all for being here and being part of this conversation with us. These are important issues, not just for States 

like Maryland and Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and all the 

way up the East Coast who live in what we call the end of America’s tailpipe. We love living in Delaware; it is a great place to live. 

But 90 percent of our air pollution literally comes from places outside of our State that we are unable to control, which as you might 

imagine is a source of great frustration and why we have been anxious to see the level of emissions from other States to be reduced. 

During one point in our hearing today I leaned over to Senator 

Barrasso, and I said, isn’t the U.S. the Saudi Arabia of coal? And 

he said, yes. I said, isn’t the U.S. on its way to becoming the Saudi 

Arabia of natural gas? And he said, yes, I think so. Then he told 

me that Wyoming is the Saudi Arabia of coal. I was born in West 

Virginia, and we are very proud of the fact that we produced a lot 

of coal there and provided a lot of electricity for folks around the 

country. Having said that, we also know now that burning coal, if 

we are not careful, if we are not smart about it, we can create enormous health problems for folks who happen to be downwind from 

us. 

While we are making progress, I like to say, if it isn’t perfect, 

make it better. And we can do better still. 

I remember, Senator Lautenberg, about 7 or 8 years ago, after 

my first term here, I remember being visited by oh, gosh, 8 or 10 

CEOs from different utilities around the country. One fellow was 

from one of the utilities in the southern part of our country, sort 

of a curmudgeonly old fellow. We had been meeting for about an 

hour, wrapping it up, and he said, OK, Senator, here is what you 

all need to do. He said, you need to tell us what the rules are going 

to be—this was with respect to air pollution—tell us what the rules 

are going to be, give us some flexibility, give us a reasonable 

amount of time, and get out of the way. That is what he said. I 

will never forget those words. 

I thought that was pretty good advice for us then, on that issue, 

and it is good advice for us today. 

Mr. Alford, you said in your response to one of our questions, I 

believe, maybe during your testimony, I think you said essentially, 

relieve us from this hammer on our head with respect to the regulation that EPA is promulgating. While I am concerned about a 

hammer on anybody’s head, I am also even more concerned about 

the mercury in our bodies and in the bodies of child bearing women 

all over this country. I think we can be smart, to avert the hammer 

on our heads. And if we are smart, we can do that and reduce the 

fear and the reality of what happens when women of child bearing 

age with elevated levels of mercury give birth to babies. 

We always learn things at these hearings. For me, one of the 

most interesting take-aways was the news that Southern Utility 

believes now, given the changes to modifications that EPA has 

made to their original proposed regulation, that they will be able 

to comply with this regulation as it has finally been promulgated. 

And they can do so for about one-third less cost than they had previously expected. I think as Ms. Patton said in her testimony, AP, 

big utility in the Midwestern part of our State, that they expect 

297 

they are going to be able to comply at about one-third the cost of 

what they originally anticipated. That is very encouraging news. 

So here we are, we are coming to the end. 

Senator Lautenberg, go ahead, please. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. He is a generous man, also; he wasn’t just 

mean, our Chairman. 

A couple of questions. Secretary Summers, has Maryland experienced any electricity reliability problems as a result of the MACT 

pollution standards? 

Mr. SUMMERS. None at all. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Lambert, the standards set pollution 

limits on mercury from power plants for the first time. Based on 

your research, can you explain how mercury and other toxic air pollution affects the health of children? Is there a general rule? 

Mr. LAMBERT. The most sensitive system is the developing brain. 

So it is loss of memory, learning disabilities, attention deficits. 

These are permanent, life-long consequences for disturbance of 

early brain development. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And Ms. Patton, in 1990 Congress directed 

EPA to set mercury air toxic pollution standards by the year 2000. 

I am pleased that these standards are being implemented; Americans have waited far too long for clean air. Why were these important standards delayed for such a long time, in your judgment? 

Ms. PATTON. Senator Lautenberg, there has been, it is a tragic 

delay, right, because the costs are imposed on our children’s health. 

And the tragedy is that we have made in America solutions to meet 

these challenges. And the delay has been due to polarization, it has 

been due to agencies taking shortcuts that are inconsistent with 

the law and fly in the face of science. But today we now have, finally, long overdue, in place vital standards to protect our children’s health, to protect our families’ health. And we cannot afford 

for the delay, the costs are borne by our children. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And I close, Mr. Alford, I understand your 

frustration and why it is that as we see African-American development, business owners and professionals and so forth, that we 

ought not to make the load any heavier. But the question is, is a 

little bit heavier load right now worth the savings in life and 

health that we have in the future? 

Mr. ALFORD. Savings of life, poverty brings far worse health than 

mercury coming out of a coal plant or a utility plant. Violence, 

crime, these kids that I see are far more likely to get a bullet in 

the head than asthma. And that is the reality of it. And that is because of the economic consequences of bad policy and practices, 

much of which comes from this Capitol Hill. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, but we shouldn’t, because of other 

problems, decide that we don’t want to solve this problem. That is 

where I disagree with you. 

Mr. ALFORD. Prioritize, is what I am saying. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

And Mr. James, you have had a barrel full of experiences in your 

career, and we can disagree on a particular subject. But I don’t see 

you wanting to say, well, let’s perpetuate the exposure to mercury 

and all those things. 

298 

So thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. And Ms. Patton, 

I have an active interest in the State of Colorado. I have two 

grandchildren, a son, and his wife who have made their lives living 

in Edwards, Colorado. 

Thank you all. This was an excellent hearing, Mr. Chairman, 

and my compliments to you for getting the exposure that we wanted here. 

Senator CARPER. Before we adjourn, I will just add one quick 

P.S. One of the previous administrators at EPA was the former 

Governor of our neighboring State, New Jersey. And that is Christy 

Whitman, good friend. 

I hear Senator Lautenberg talking about his children and the 

love and affection he has for them. I am reminded of what Christy 

Whitman told me several years ago when she told me that she had 

become a grandmother for the first time. She said, grandchildren 

are one of the few things in life that are not overrated. Not 

overrated. 

With that, the members of the Committee will have 2 weeks to 

submit any additional questions. We would ask that you respond 

promptly. 

Again, we are grateful to all of you for being here today and for 

participating in what I think was quite a good hearing. Thanks so 

much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. Thank you also to our witnesses for coming to testify this morning. 

These standards are an important step for protecting public health and improving 

the Nation’s economy. 

We are all aware of the health impacts air pollution has on our most vulnerable 

populations: children, the elderly, and our poorer populations. Air pollution threatens those with asthma and respiratory problems and results each year in 12 million 

lost work days, 14 million lost school days, and 5,000 deaths. 

Air pollution also leads to cancers and neurological, developmental, and reproductive problems. 

Mercury, of which power plants are the single largest source of mercury emissions 

in the United States, causes serious developmental problems in children and infants. 

The deposition of mercury into inland and coastal waters impacts our fisheries 

and introduces another pathway by which our kids, and anyone who fishes, can be 

exposed to mercury. 

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards can help us better protect our kids, our 

citizens, and our waters. 

In 2006 Maryland responded to concerns about air pollution by enacting the 

Maryland Healthy Air Act. The Healthy Air Act sought to reduce Mercury, SOx, and 

NOx emissions by implementing the toughest power plant emissions law on the East 

Coast and setting an ambitious 3-year timeline. 

Within 3 years Maryland saw reductions from a 2002 baseline of 90 percent in 

mercury, over 80 percent in sulfur dioxide, and over 70 percent in NOx. 

Maryland’s ambitious approach did not harm the State’s economy. In fact, energy 

companies reported substantial economic benefits from implementing the new 

standards. 

For example, the Brandon Shores coal-fired power plant generated nearly 4 million man-hours of labor from Constellation’s $1 billion investment. This included 26 

months of work for 2,000 skilled construction workers. 

299 

1Picket, Kerry. ‘‘Obama: Energy prices will skyrocket under my cap and trade plan,’’ News 

Busters. 3 November 2008 < http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/obama-energyprices-will-skyrocket> 19 March 2012. 

Unrepresented in this figure are the additional jobs in manufacturing and distribution associated with the production of technologies and equipment purchased 

by the plant. 

For these reason industry organizations like Ceres (pronounced Series) and the 

American Boiler Manufacturers Association as well companies like WL Gore, a 

major employer in Elkton, Maryland, that manufactures clean air technologies like 

baghouse hardware here in the United States, all support more clean air regulations 

that are more protective of public health. 

Constellation’s 12,000-megawatt Brandon Shores power plant, located near Glen 

Burnie, Maryland, is now one of the cleanest coal-burning power plants in the country and achieved this without substantial increases in utility rates. 

The controls required by Maryland’s Healthy Air Act are very similar to those required by EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. 

Maryland’s experience shows that an aggressive timeline is not only achievable 

but is also desirable. Plants are capable of meeting aggressive timelines, and the 

benefits are unparalleled. 

Air pollution controls protect public health and save billions of dollars in associated medical costs. And contrary to rhetoric claiming that these controls are job killing, Maryland’s experience demonstrates that implementing air pollution controls 

can create well paying jobs. 

Maryland’s experience also shows that we need a national standard to effectively 

address air pollution. Air pollution travels, and out of State impacts are felt no matter how much we control our in-State sources. 

Despite our stringent State clean air law and one of the cleanest power generation 

fleets in the country, 12 of Maryland’s 15 counties had 55 days or more last year 

during which ground-level ozone was at code orange or code red levels. Implementing national standards will help us better address pervasive air pollution 

threats. 

EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are a necessary step toward protecting 

our citizens’ health. The decision to promulgate these standards is not a political 

one, as our courts recognized when ordering EPA to issue these standards. 

It is time to leave behind the disingenuous debates and instead recognize the public health and economic benefits that these standards can help us achieve. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Chairman Carper, thank you for the hearing focusing on the new MATS, or Utility MACT, rule—the most costly rule in the history of the EPA and one that typifies 

President Obama’s war on affordable energy. I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here today. 

First, I’ll say that Republicans are for clean air. In fact, I championed one of the 

first bills to reduce mercury—the Clear Skies Act. That legislation struck a balance 

between environmental protection and economic development. Unfortunately, Clear 

Skies was killed by radicals in the environmental movement because it didn’t require reductions in carbon—in other words, it didn’t cause enough economic pain. 

In 2005, when the Bush administration issued mercury regulations under the Clean 

Air Act, they also fell victim to environmental groups’ court challenges. So today we 

would do well to remember that it is Republicans who first sought to reduce mercury, and it’s the environmental establishment that has stopped progress for more 

than a decade. 

We now debate EPA’s replacement regulations. But this time no attempt has been 

made to balance environmental protection and economic development. In fact, the 

Utility MACT rule is at the heart of the Obama administration’s war on affordable 

energy. Mirroring Obama’s cap and trade agenda, this regulation isn’t about saving 

lives or the environment. It’s part of a calculated effort to kill traditional forms of 

energy, like coal, to benefit Obama’s political allies. Backed by false claims and EPA 

propaganda, this regulation will fulfill Obama’s campaign promise of skyrocketing 

electricity rates. 1

Today we’re going to hear about the benefits of this rule ad nauseam. These 

claims are disingenuous and misleading. The rule is ostensibly designed to reduce 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP), namely mercury. But over 99 percent of the beneVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:28 May 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00305 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25023.TXT SONYA
300 

2 EPA, ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units,’’ page 683–4. http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/ 

20111216MATSfinal.pdf. 3 EPA, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards,’’ page 

ES–4. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf. 4 EPA, ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants . . . ,’’ page 664. 

5 ‘‘Potential Impacts of EPA Air, Coal Combustion Residuals, and Cooling Water Regulations,’’ 

National Economic Research Associates for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, 

September 2011. 6 ‘‘Impact of a Resolution of Disapproval Under the Congressional Review Act on an Agency’s 

Authority to Issue Subsequent Regulations’’ February 8, 2012. 

fits claimed by EPA are from reducing fine particle matter (PM) 2 —not mercury— 

even though PM is strictly regulated under other CAA programs, including the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5. Worse yet, nearly all of 

EPA’s alleged benefits occur at levels well below the NAAQS. 3 This means EPA is 

justifying the rule by cleaning up what it simultaneously defines as clean air—duplicity at its best. 

In fact, EPA’s analysis shows us that mercury is the only HAP where any health 

benefits can be quantified. These benefits are estimated to be $6 million per year— 

at the most. At an estimated cost of nearly $10 billion, the benefits are exceeded 

by approximately 1,600 to 1. 4 You can see the gulf between benefits and costs in 

this chart, which I request be entered into the record. 

This rule isn’t about public health. It’s about one thing—killing coal—as a gift to 

Obama’s political allies: the environmental movement and crony capitalists who 

profit through Government intervention. The Obama administration could not pass 

cap and trade, so it is using EPA regulations to back-door its global warming agenda. 

As we will hear from our witnesses today, working families will pay the price. Indeed, the plant being closed in Avon Lake, Ohio, is but one example of what is happening in cities and towns across the country as a result of EPA’s rules. In fact, 

as of today nearly 22 gigawatts (that’s the equivalent of approximately 50 mediumsized plants) operating in 20 States are slated to shut down, with more expected. 

These closures have been projected to increase electricity prices by as much as 20 

percent, sending a ripple effect though the economy that could kill up to 1.64 million 

jobs. 5 You can see the impact on retail electricity prices in this poster. I ask that 

both this poster and the underlying study be added to the record. 

EPA’s environmental allies blame the plants’ closing on natural gas prices and 

other market factors. But nearly every company closing plants has pointed directly 

at EPA’s rules as the reason. Admitting as much, Administrator Lisa Jackson said 

in a recent interview, ‘‘EPA’s role is . . . to level the playing field’’ so that coal-fired 

generation costs more relative to alternatives. This quote nicely captures EPA’s 

global warming agenda—use the power of the Government to destroy one sector of 

the economy so that others may profit. 

This regulation needs to be stopped. This is why I have introduced a resolution 

of disapproval which seeks to overturn Utility MACT. Contrary to claims, however, 

it doesn’t amend the Clean Air Act or keep the agency from regulating mercury. 

Rather, it would send the rule back to EPA to be rewritten in a manner consistent 

with congressional direction—namely, in a way that reduces emissions but that 

doesn’t unnecessarily kill jobs so that others may profit. 6

[The referenced material follows:] 

301 


25023.252
302 


25023.253
303 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 


25023.254
304 


25023.260
305 


25023.261
306 


25023.262
307 


25023.263
308 


25023.264
309 


25023.265
310 


25023.266
311 


25023.267
312 


25023.268
313 


25023.269
314 


25023.270
315 


25023.271
316 


25023.272
317 


25023.273
318 


25023.274
319 


25023.275
320 


25023.276
321 


25023.277
322 


25023.278
323 


25023.279
324 


25023.280
325 


25023.281
326 


25023.282
327 


25023.283
328 


25023.284
329 


25023.285
330 


25023.286
331 


25023.287
332 


25023.288
333 


25023.289
334 


25023.290
335 


25023.291
336 


25023.292
337 


25023.293
338 


25023.294
339 


25023.295
340 


25023.296
341 


25023.297
342 


25023.298
343 


25023.299
344 


25023.300
345 


25023.301
346 


25023.302
347 


25023.303
348 


25023.304
349 


25023.305
350 


25023.306
351 


25023.307
352 


25023.308
353 


25023.309
354 


25023.310
355 


25023.311
356 


25023.312
357 


25023.313
358 


25023.314
359 


25023.315
360 


25023.316
361 


25023.317
362 


25023.318
363 


25023.319
364 


25023.320
365 


25023.321
366 


25023.322
367 


25023.323
368 


25023.324
369 


25023.325
370 


25023.326
371 


25023.327
372 


25023.328
373 


25023.329
374 


25023.330
375 


25023.331
376 


25023.332
377 

Æ 


25023.333