U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

85–232PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–827 

CLEAN AIR ACT AND JOBS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR 

SAFETY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS AND THE NEW 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 17, 2011 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex officio) 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS AND THE NEW ECONOMY

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 17, 2011 

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

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 3 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 5 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 7 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 8 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 110 

WITNESSES 

Somson, Barbara, legislative director, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) .... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Reports: 

Driving Growth: How Clean Cars and Climate Policy Can Create 

Jobs, Natural Resources Defense Council, United Auto Workers 

and Center for American Progress, Alan Baum, The Planning Edge 

and Daniel Luria, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center ....... 17 

Our Projects, DOE, Loan Programs Office .............................................. 36 

DOE,The Recovery Act: Transforming America’s Transportation Sector, Batteries and Electric Vehicles, Wednesday, July 14, 2010 ........ 39 

Homrighausen, Richard P., mayor, City of Dover, OH ......................................... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Allen, Paul J., senior vice president of Corporate Affairs and chief environmental officer for Constellation Energy ............................................................. 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Montgomery, W. David, Ph.D., vice president, Charles River Associates ........... 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Yann, James A., managing director, Alstom Power ............................................. 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

(1) 

CLEAN AIR ACT AND JOBS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS AND THE NEW ECONOMY, Washington, DC. 

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

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

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety) 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Barrasso, Sanders, 

Boozman, Baucus, Lautenberg, Cardin, Merkley, Vitter, Sessions, 

Alexander and Johanns. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Good morning, everybody. Happy St. Patrick’s 

Day. Welcome to you all. What a beautiful day. What a great day. 

St. Patrick is smiling on us today and you could not ask for a 

lovelier day to hold this hearing. 

We appreciate the effort of all of the witnesses to be with us 

today. I am especially delighted to be co-chairing this hearing with 

my colleague, Bernie Sanders. 

Today’s hearing is focused, as you know, on exploring the link between the Clean Air Act and the economy. Senators will have about 

5 minutes for their opening statements and then we will recognize 

our panel of witnesses. Following the panel statements, we are 

going to have a couple of rounds of questions, maybe two rounds 

of questions, of roughly 5 minutes each. 

The Government, as some of you have heard me say before, I 

think Government has many roles to play. I think one of the most 

important roles we have to play is to try to provide what I call a 

nurturing environment for job creation, job preservation. 

In my State, and frankly in any State in this Country, if we have 

companies who are successful, they are playing by the rules, they 

are being good corporate citizens, they are making money, paying 

taxes, hiring people to work, people coming out of college and universities, out of high schools, off of welfare rolls, off of unemployment rolls, in my business, if you have all of that going for you, 

the rest is pretty easy. The role of Government is not to be the lap 

dog for business, but to try to provide a nurturing environment for 

job creation. 
2 

For the last 40 years, EPA has tried to do its part to enable the 

Federal Government to play that critical role. EPA has sought to 

foster economic growth while ensuring that Americans are protected from life threatening pollution including air pollution. 

In 1970, President Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act. This 

Act established a framework, as we know, to curb, among other 

things, our air pollution. This law was so successful that over 

200,000 lives were saved between 1970 and 1990. 

In 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush built upon 

President Nixon’s legacy with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990. That is the Act that gave us the clean air laws that we live 

with today. 

Lately, some have sought to make the claim that the Clean Air 

Act has raised costs for consumers and hurt our economy. But on 

closer analysis, the facts tell a somewhat different story. 

For example, since 1990, electricity rates, adjusted for inflation, 

have stayed constant in the United States while our Real Gross Domestic Product has grown by some 60 percent. At the same time, 

we have saved thousands of lives, tens of thousands of lives, and 

we have ensured that our children, along with their parents and 

grandparents, can breathe cleaner, healthier air. 

For 2010 alone, cleaning up soot and smog saved over 160,000 

lives. That is over twice the number of people who live where I live 

in Wilmington, DE. At the same time, our Country saved some $1.3 

trillion in healthcare costs by savings lives, reducing asthma attacks and reducing sick days. Put another way, Clean Air Act benefits outweigh the costs by a margin of 30 to 1. Talk about return 

on investment. It just does not get a whole lot better than that. 

These clean air regulations help us save billions of dollars on 

public health costs while providing a multitude of opportunities for 

good paying American jobs. According to recent reports, clean air 

regulations that will be promulgated later this year are expected 

to create as many as one-half million new jobs over the next 5 

years, jobs that come at a crucial time as our economy continues 

to recover and begins to grow. 

These are American jobs in engineering, American jobs in design 

as well as in manufacturing, installing and operating pollution control and clean energy technology that is made in America and sold 

all over the world. 

In closing, let me just leave us all with a quote from Harry Truman. President Harry Truman once said, and I am going to paraphrase what he said, he said that the only thing that is new in the 

world is the history we have forgotten or never learned. 

In closing, I want to invite my colleagues to take a little time to 

actually drill down on what I believe are the facts with regards to 

the Clean Air Act. I believe that once they see the facts, they will 

come to realize that moving our country forward cannot mean 

going backward, certainly not on clean air. 

That having been said, I want to recognize Senator Sanders, and 

then we will move to our Republican colleagues. 

Good morning, Senator Sanders. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

Government has many roles to play. Among them, few are as important as creating a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. It is not government’s job to be a lap dog for business; however, at the end of the day, if businesses large and small are making money, playing by the rules, being good corporate citizens, paying taxes and hiring people, the rest for somebody in my business is pretty easy. 

For the last forty years, the EPA has tried to do its part to enable the Federal 

Government to play that critical role. The EPA has sought to foster economic growth 

while ensuring that Americans are protected from life threatening pollution, including air pollution. 

In 1970, President Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act. This Act established 

a framework to curb our air pollution. This law was so successful that over 200,000 

lives were saved from 1970–1990. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush built upon 

President Nixon’s success with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. That Act 

gave us the clean air laws we have today. 

Lately, some have sought to make the claim that the Clean Air Act has raised 

costs for consumers and hurt our economy. But on closer analysis, the facts tell a 

different story. 

For example, since 1990, electricity rates—adjusted for inflation—have stayed 

constant in the United States, while our real gross domestic product has grown by 

60 percent. At the same time, we have saved thousands of lives and ensured that 

our children—along with their parents and grandparents—can breathe cleaner, 

healthier air. 

For 2010 alone, cleaning up soot and smog saved over 160,000 American lives. 

That’s over twice the number of people who live in my hometown of Wilmington, 

DE. At the same time, our country saved $1.3 trillion in health care costs—from 

lives saved, less kids getting sick with asthma and less sick days. 

Put another way, the Clean Air Act benefits outweigh the costs by a margin of 

30 to 1. Talk about a return on investment. It just doesn’t get much better than 

that. These clean air regulations help us save billions of dollars on public health 

costs while providing a multitude of opportunities for good-paying American jobs. 

According to recent reports, clean air regulations that will be promulgated later 

this year are expected to create as many as 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years, 

jobs that come at a crucial time as our economy continues to recover and begins to 

grow. These are American jobs in engineering and design, as well as in manufacturing, installing and operating pollution control and clean energy technology that’s 

made in America and sold all over the world. 

In closing, I’d like to leave you with a quote from President Harry Truman, who 

once said, ‘‘The only thing new in this world is the history that you don’t know.’’ 

Let me invite my colleagues to take a little time and actually drill down on what 

I believe are the facts with regards to the Clean Air Act. I believe that once they 

see the facts, they will come to realize that moving our country forward cannot 

mean going backwards on clean air rules. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you to all our panelists for being here today. 

Much of what Senator Carper just said I certainly agree with. 

This issue that we are dealing with today is important for several 

reasons. No. 1, I think it is important to rebut the argument that 

protecting the lives of the people of our country and the children 

through clean air somehow is detrimental to our economy. Second 

of all, the point must be made that as we move toward clean air, 

and do our best to make our air as clean as possible, our water as 

clean as possible, I believe that, in fact, we end of creating a substantial number of jobs. 

Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues, or at least many of 

them, do not agree with that approach and are bringing forth legis-
4 

lation which I think is very, very unfortunate and would do very 

serious harm to our country. 

As I think many people know, the Environmental Protection 

Agency just this past week has announced a new standard to clamp 

down on mercury and arsenic and other hazardous pollution from 

powerplants. This standard will save, we believe, some 17,000 lives 

every year. One of the points to be made, and Senator Carper 

touched on this, everybody knows that there has been a very vigorous debate about healthcare in the United States of America. 

We are concerned about the issues of obesity, we are concerned 

about drug addiction, we are concerned about tobacco. If you are 

concerned about keeping people healthy, out of the hospital, premature deaths, you are also concerned about the quality of air that 

our children are breathing and all of us are breathing, as well as 

the water we are drinking. It is a health-related issue. 

As I mentioned, the EPA has announced a new standard to 

clamp down on mercury and arsenic. This standard will save some 

17,000 lives every year, as well as thousands of heart attacks, hospital visits, asthma attacks and cases of bronchitis. 

At the same time, the Political Economy Research Institute at 

the University of Massachusetts has found this standard, coupled 

with another standard meant to reduce pollution that travels from 

powerplants to downwind States, and I have to tell you, I take this 

personally in my State of Vermont. I visit schools very often. When 

you go into a school, you go in and see the school nurse and you 

say, how are the kids doing? Then she talks about the amount of 

asthma that exists in my State and our kids are breathing air that 

comes from the Midwest, not from the State of Vermont. We take 

that kind of personally. 

In any case, the University of Massachusetts has found that the 

new standard, coupled with another standard meant to reduce pollution that travels from powerplants to downward States, including 

those in the Northeast, will create nearly a million and a half jobs 

over 5 years. Meanwhile, a study by Navigant Consulting Company 

in 2005, 2012, found air pollution will eliminate 360,000 jobs in 

downwind States. 

This is what the big polluters do not want the American public 

to know. They have claimed for decades that the Clean Air Act kills 

jobs and destroys the economy. But the truth is that pollution is 

what kills people and kills jobs. 

As Political reported in an article entitled Does Industry Cry 

Wolf on Regs, industry lobbyists predicted, quote, a quiet death for 

businesses across this country if Congress passed the Clean Air 

Amendments to reduce acid rain pollution in 1990. They were proven wrong, as a chart that we have shows, our economy grew by 210 

percent since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. We created 

nearly 60 million jobs and at the same reduced air pollution 63 percent. 

Let me just conclude. We are engaged here in a mammoth struggle, and that is whether we continue the progress, not enough, but 

what progress we have made in cleaning up our air and trying to 

make sure that our children do not come down with diseases which 

are absolutely preventable, at the same time, as Senator Carper 

just indicated, we have the opportunity to create a number of pollu-
5 

tion control devices which can create good paying jobs as we keep 

our air clean. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. All right, who is the Ranking Member here? 

Senator, do you want to go first? Who would like to go first? 

Senator BOOZMAN. What I would like to do is ask unanimous 

consent, in the interest of time, to put a statement on the record 

and then yield to my Ranking Member, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. Is there any objection? I did 

not hear any. All right, thanks. 

Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Mr. Chairman, and I think that Senator 

Boozman and I both have the same problems in two other committees, so I will have to make a statement and have to be leaving. 

But I do want to thank these great witnesses for showing up. 

You have a good group here and I appreciate the fact that you have 

held this. 

I think we all embrace the significant air improvements that we 

have had from the Clean Air Act. Yesterday, on the floor of the 

Senate, I went back and kind of relived the history of this. There 

is, somehow, when people think that perhaps you are against some 

of the overregulation that is out there that you are against the benefits of the Clean Air Act, when in fact it has been a huge success. 

So, that is something that I think is very good. 

I think that some of my colleagues and the Obama EPA believe 

that more regulations, even if draconian, necessarily mean more 

benefits and more jobs. I think, as David Montgomery of CRA 

International has shown from his written statement that it is just 

simply wrong. You do not have to take his word for it or my word 

for it. 

But the testimony of Mayor Homrighausen, did I say that right? 

That is a tough one. Homrighausen. Well, all right. I want you to 

know that I used to have a hard job, too. I was the Mayor of a 

major city and, you know, if you are Mayor, there is no hiding 

place like there is up here. So if they do not like the trash system, 

it ends up in your front yard. Right? Well it did in mine. 

So, anyway, I would say this. When I was Mayor of Tulsa, the 

major problem that I had was not prostitution, it was not crime, 

it was unfunded mandates. That is what we are looking at right 

now. As someone who has been considered many times in the ranking system as the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate, I 

have always said that in some areas I am a pretty big spender, national defense, infrastructure, something that we should be doing 

in our Committee, and I know that Senator Carper agrees with 

that, and unfunded mandates because these things are very, very 

expensive. 

So, we invited the Mayor today because, as he writes his testimony, he is from coal country, straight from the heart of the industrial Midwest. There are 950 commercial, industrial and institutional businesses in Dover. So, the Mayor knows first hand that illconceived regulations can put jobs at risk. In other words, there is 
6 

a cost to what EPA is doing and it is to be borne in East Central 

Ohio and in communities just like it across the Nation. 

I would say this, that, hopefully, help is on its way, Mayor, because we introduced yesterday the cumulative, the bill to have one 

place where you do a cumulative effect on the costs of these things, 

not just on business and industry but on our communities around 

the country. 

All too often we have tried several times through the EPA to get 

the cumulative effect of all of these different things whether it is 

the various MACT bills or such things as ozone and others, what 

the cost actually is, not of each one individually but the cumulative 

costs of all of them. That is what we want to find out. I think we 

need to know what those costs are. That was introduced by Senator 

Johanns and myself yesterday. It is called the Comprehensive Assessment Regulations in Economy or CARE Act. 

Now, I do not know where you are right now, whether you in 

your State, in your community, are out of attainment now in terms 

of ozone, perhaps you will cover that in your opening statement, 

and what would happen if you were to find yourself out of attainment. So, all of these things are very significant that we need to 

address. 

We also, I have to mention the Inhofe-Upton Bill, which is referred to in the House as the Upton-Inhofe Bill, and it is pending 

right now, it is a regular order on the Floor, and it is one that, 

hopefully, gets a vote on, but it is one that would keep more burdensome regulations from our cities and towns and our States by 

returning the regulation of CO2 to the Congress where we believe, 

and most Democrats would agree with me on this, it belongs, so 

that we can relive the EPA from that burden. 

So, hopefully we will have a chance to get a vote on that sometime, hopefully today, and if not, as soon as we get back. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I want to thank all of the witnesses for attending today, and thank you, Sen. Carper and Sen. Sanders, for holding this hearing. 

I think we all embrace the significant air quality improvements achieved by businesses and other regulated sources under the Clean Air Act since 1970. I think we 

also agree that we want clean air progress to continue. Now here’s where we disagree: on the extent, on the pace, and on the tools we use to achieve future success 

in reducing real pollution. 

My colleagues and the Obama EPA believe that more regulation, even if draconian, necessarily means more benefits and more jobs. As David Montgomery of CRA 

International will show, this is simply wrong. But you don’t have to take my word 

for it, or even David’s: just listen to the testimony of Mayor Homrighausen from the 

city of Dover, Ohio. 

You see, we invited the mayor today because, as he writes in his testimony, he’s 

‘‘from coal country,’’ straight from ‘‘the heart of the industrial Midwest.’’ There are 

950 commercial, industrial, and institutional businesses in Dover. So the mayor 

knows first-hand that ill-conceived regulations can put jobs at risk. In other words, 

there is a cost to what EPA is doing—and it will be borne in east-central Ohio and 

in communities just like it across the heartland. 

I should note that the mayor is also the director of the city’s municipal electric 

system, Dover Light and Power. From what I’ve read, Dover Light and Power is 

under siege as it faces an overlapping mess of unrealistic EPA mandates. If they 

are not tempered by reality, Dover will have fewer jobs, fewer businesses, and higher electric rates. 
7 

Now, the mayor is very proud of Dover’s environmental record, and he wants to 

make greater progress in reducing pollution. But his point is well-taken: EPA is 

doing too much, too fast. One point on which I’m sure he’d agree is that EPA has 

no idea of the cumulative economic impact of its regulations covering industrial boilers, coal-fired powerplants, coal ash disposal sites, and manufacturing facilities; it 

has no idea of their impact on Dover’s jobs, Dover’s local revenues, and Dover’s factories. 

Well, Mr. Mayor, help is on the way. Yesterday, Sen. Johanns (R-Neb.) and I introduced the Comprehensive Assessment of Regulations on the Economy, or CARE 

Act. The bill puts the Department of Commerce in charge of a Federal panel, comprised of several departments and agencies, which would conduct a cumulative economic analysis of all the rules you’re concerned about. The panel must look at impacts on jobs, agriculture, manufacturing, coal, electricity, and gasoline prices—all 

of the things that you and mayors like you care about. 

Help also comes in the form of the Energy Tax Prevention Act, also known as 

‘‘Upton-Inhofe.’’ It would stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the 

Clean Air Act. Both this bill and the CARE Act will help put a stop to the Obama 

administration’s harmful cap-and-trade agenda directed squarely at Dover, Ohio and 

the heartland of America. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Inhofe, thank you so much. 

Senator Cardin, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. First, let me thank our Chairman, Senator Carper, for his real leadership on the area of air quality. We thank 

you. The legislation that you filed, I think, is an extremely important bill and we do look forward to coming together in response to 

Senator Inhofe. 

I am glad to hear that we all support the Clean Air Act and 

Clean Water Act. I would hope that the common level we would all 

agree on is good science. Not what one side or the other says of 

science, but what good science takes us to. If we do that, then I 

think we can find a common ground here to make sure that the 

public health is protected and that our environment is preserved 

for our future generations. That is what I think we all really need 

to try to come together on. 

I find some of the amendments that are on the floor and some 

of the bills to be threatening. Everyone is entitled to their own 

opinions, but we do need to have a common set of facts and I think 

good science helps us get to that point. 

I really took this time to thank the panelists for being here, and 

particularly Paul Allen, who I know very well from Constellation 

Energy. Paul, welcome to our Committee. Constellation Energy is 

one of Maryland’s leading, it is Maryland’s leading energy provider, 

and Paul Allen has been a very active Maryland person in this regard. Constellation Energy is engaged in a variety of environmental stewardships and clean energy initiatives and as Constellation’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs and Chief Environmental Officer, Paul Allen is in the center of these important 

programs. 

In looking at your resume, I now know why you have been so 

passionate in this. Mr. Allen started his career working for Senator 

Dodd. So, that was a good way to get started in understanding 

good policy. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that Maryland’s experience 

as a downwind State motivated the Maryland Legislature and Gov-
8 

ernor O’Malley to take firm, decisive actions to reduce mercury, 

SOx and OX emissions in our State by implementing the toughest 

powerplant emissions laws on the East Coast, the Healthy Air Act 

enacted in July 2007. It established the ambitious timetable of 3 

years for Maryland’s powerplants to meet a new set of robust clean 

air standards. 

I must tell you, they are doing that. We are on target of meeting 

those standards. It has been the work of Constellation Energy and 

other major providers in our State that we have been able to do 

things that have achieved these reductions, which is going to be 

good for the health of Maryland and good for the health of people 

who live downwind from Maryland. It is not just our State. 

In the process, it has created a lot of jobs in our State. A lot of 

jobs have been created as a result of the implementation of these 

policies. Constellation Energy, at the Brandon Shores coal-fired 

plant, the project invested $1 billion and nearly 4 million man 

hours of labor from the Baltimore building and construction trade 

unions. This included 26 months of work of 2,000 skilled construction workers. 

I point this out because I do think this is a win-win situation. 

We are creating jobs and providing cleaner air for the people of our 

State and leaving a cleaner environment for future generations. 

I do not think we can turn the clock back. I really do think we 

need to move forward aggressively in this area. The State of Maryland is showing that we as a country can do a lot more. I know 

that Senator Carper and his work in Delaware has also shown 

similar actions, Senator Sanders of Vermont and all of my colleagues. 

So I think the States are showing us that we can do a better job 

nationally with the Clean Air Act and we can provide cleaner air 

for the people of our community and I look forward to hearing from 

the witnesses. 

But I, like Senator Inhofe, need to apologize. I have an amendment that I am going to be offering on the Small Business Bill before the Senate, so I am going to have to excuse myself. 

Senator CARPER. We are glad you are here. Thanks very, very 

much for your comments and your leadership. 

Senator Alexander, Lamar Alexander. Good morning, Lamar. 

Happy St. Patrick’s Day. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I forgot my green 

tie this morning. 

Welcome to you all. Thank you for coming. 

This is an important topic upon which a lot of us have been 

working for some time. Senator Carper and I, and I commend him 

for his leadership, have introduced over the last 6 years clean air 

legislation that last year, I believe, had 15 co-sponsors, an equal 

number of Republicans and Democrats and one Independent. The 

fundamental was, while we were arguing over what to do about 

carbon, let us go ahead and deal with SOx, NOx and mercury. That 

was the thesis we had because we have differences of opinion on 

carbon, on how to do it, and what to do, etcetera. It is a new big 
9 

subject for most Members of Congress and, for the country, even 

relatively new. But SOx, NOx and mercury are not new and we understand the dangers in all three and the bill that we had introduced requires a 90 percent reduction in mercury, which I believe 

science shows can be done at a reasonable cost. 

So, I look forward to working with Senator Carper on clean air 

legislation and hope that in this Congress that it will be enacted. 

Now, on the subject of costs, some say we deliberately need a 

high cost energy strategy. There is much talk about putting a price 

on forms of energy to discourage it. I am opposed to that. I think 

we need a low cost clean energy strategy. There are ways to do 

that. As Senator Carper said, what we have seen with the regulation of sulfur and nitrogen pollutants from coal plants since 1990, 

that has not added significantly at all to the costs of electric bill, 

or at least electricity has stayed stable in its costs. 

So, once we figure out ways to get rid of pollutants that damage 

our health, and we are sensible about it and use common sense, we 

can use those new inventions and technologies to improve the 

cleanliness of our air without adding significantly to our costs. 

Of course, we could just say ah-hah, we have a new invention 

here, let us impose it by next week and we could run the costs way 

up and there would be great damage to that. The damage would 

be that it would make it harder and more expensive to create jobs. 

I am aware that in new inventions there is always some new 

jobs. We have some of that in Tennessee. I am glad to see the presence of Mr. Yann who is here from Knoxville. Alston has a presence 

in Chattanooga and Knoxville. They make pollution control equipment which is being used by TVA and others and they manufacture 

gas and steam turbines for nuclear power, which is 70 percent of 

our clean electricity today in the United States. So, I welcome 

them. 

But what we want to do is make sure that we make it possible 

for them to come to Tennessee because in my experiences as Governor, recruiting industry, one of the most important aspects is lots 

of cheap, reliable, clean electricity. For example, the ALCOA plant, 

smelting plant that my father worked at in my home county is 

closed now because of a dispute between ALCOA and TVA over 

electricity costs. 

The auto plants which have come to Tennessee and now are 35 

percent of all of our manufacturing, look every day at costs. If costs 

go up too much, they go to Mexico or they go overseas. Electricity 

and power is one of their costs. 

Even the polysilicon plants which have come to make the materials for solar, big expensive plants that hire a few hundred people, 

each of them, we have two in Tennessee, use 125 megawatts of 

power. That is not going to come from solar panels. That is not 

going to come from windmills. That is going to come from nuclear 

power, coal power or natural gas. Those are the only forms of electricity that we have right now that can produce large amounts of 

reliable, clean energy at a cheap cost. 

So, it is very important that we go ahead and find ways to reduce 

the air pollution that we have. So I look forward to working on 

clean air in this Congress with Senator Carper and others. I want 

to emphasize that I would like to do it at a reasonable cost. I look 
10 

forward to reviewing the EPA’s new mercury regulation to see 

whether it meets that standard and I thank the Co-Chairmen for 

their leadership in having this hearing. 

Senator CARPER. We thank you for being a part of it. Senator Alexander and I have been wingmen on the issue of cleaner air, particularly when it comes to SOx, NOx and mercury for, as he says, 

a number of years. 

I come from a State, as does Senator Sanders, where sometimes 

we feel we live at the end of America’s tailpipe. We have a bunch 

of States to the west of us who generate electricity by burning, in 

many cases, coal, nothing against coal, we need coal, we need really 

clean coal actually, but put bad stuff up in the air and it just blows 

our way and we end up breathing it. 

It is especially frustrating, Lamar mentioned the time he served 

as Governor and I was a little bit after him, but it is very frustrating when we are trying to meet our clean air requirements to 

stay in compliance with the guidance of the regs and so forth, and 

for us, I could literally have shut down Delaware to try to meet, 

to be in attainment on some of this stuff, and we still would have 

been out of attainment because the folks out to the west of us were 

putting dirty stuff in the air and it came our way. It is just not 

fair. We had to compete with these folks in terms of electricity 

costs. They are making cheap electricity, a lot of times created by 

coal, and we, it is just not fair. 

I am a big believer in the Golden Rule, treat other people the 

way we want to be treated. But what we want to do is make sure 

that happens in this instance. 

All right. Long introductions now for our panel members. 

Paul Allen, you were sort of introduced in a left-handed way by 

Ben Cardin. Are you the same Paul Allen who founded Microsoft? 

Is that you? 

Mr. ALLEN. [Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator CARPER. Maybe you had the mail or again you will get 

the wrong dinner check to go to the wrong Paul Allen or, in your 

case, the right one. Just wanted to check. 

All right. Barbara Somson. Is it Somson? Yes, Barbara Somson, 

Legislative Director of the United Auto Workers. Welcome. We 

used to have a lot of auto workers in Delaware. UAW represented 

Local 1183 at Chrysler and 435 at GM. The GM plant is coming 

back to life and we are going to be starting, late next year, to build 

a bunch of cars by Fisker, beautiful, beautiful luxury cars that get 

80 miles per gallon. I suspect they are going to be built by some 

of your folks. That is good. We are looking forward to that. 

All right. Now, we have here a guy from Dover. Dover, of course, 

is our capital. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I used to spend a lot of time in the capital of 

Ohio, Columbus. I was a Buckeye, Ohio State. I have actually driven through your city a time or two. So, we are glad the other 

Dover, the Mayor of the other Dover, is here. My understanding is 

that you pronounce your name Homrighausen? 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Homrighausen. 

Senator CARPER. Hausen, hausen. Has anybody ever mispronounced your name? 
11 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. No. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. OK. Just checking. Mayor of Dover, welcome. 

Again, Ben has already given Mr. Allen a pretty good introduction. We are happy that you are here, Mr. Allen. 

Next we have Mr. David Montgomery, Vice President of Charles 

River Associates. There is a Charles River that runs right through 

Boston, made famous in song. My son, Christopher, just graduated 

from school up there, used to run right along that river. We did it 

many times together. It is nice to have you here. 

Finally, James A. Yann. Yann, right? Vice President, no, Managing Director of Alstom Power. We are happy to see you and welcome one and all. 

Your entire statements will be made part of the record and if you 

would like to summarize, you may feel free to do that. But, actually, try to stick to about 5 minutes. If you run a little bit over, 

that is OK. But if you run a lot over, that is not OK. I will reign 

you back in. 

Ms. Somson, why do you not lead these guys off, OK? 

Thanks, and we are glad you are all here. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA SOMSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE 

& AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA 

(UAW) 

Ms. SOMSON. Thank you very much, Senator Carper, and thank 

you to Senator Sanders, also, for inviting the UAW to share our 

views on the jobs impact of the Clean Air Act. 

I speak from our experience representing workers in both the 

auto and heavy truck industries. What our experience shows is 

that EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles 

under the Clean Air Act is good for our industries and good for 

America jobs. 

We view the regulation of mobile sources as a win-win that produces oil independence for our Nation, a cleaner, healthier environment for ourselves and our children, and an increased number of 

jobs in the auto sector. The simple equation for how this job creation works is that new technology required to meet the tailpipe 

emission standards represents additional net content on each vehicle, and bringing that additional content to market requires more 

engineers, more managers, more construction and production workers. 

The UAW’s membership is concentrated in the vehicle and vehicle component sector. The recent crisis in this sector has had a devastating impact on jobs. Six hundred and thirty-five thousand U.S. 

auto jobs have been lost since the year 2000, despite a rebound of 

72,000 jobs since mid-2009. 

To reverse this trend and to assure that cars of the future are 

made in the USA, the UAW and allies in the environmental and 

business communities began building support for Federal policies 

to increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

from the light-duty vehicle sector, and at the same time promote 

U.S. auto employment. Our work helped enact legislation that sup-
12 

ports the domestic manufacturing of advanced technology vehicles 

and their key components. 

Provisions in the Energy Independence and Security Act and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act have encouraged and leveraged billions of private dollars into the domestic auto industry 

and have helped create tens of thousands of auto industry jobs here 

in the United States. 

For example, nearly 40,000 jobs are, or will be, supported by the 

five loans made to date under section 136 of EISA. Included are 

jobs at Ford and Nissan facilities, and at the new innovative startup that Senator Carper referred to, Fisker in Delaware, and also 

Tesla in California. More section 136 loans are expected this year, 

adding to the number of auto jobs. 

The Recovery Act supported the establishment of 30 new electric 

vehicle battery and component manufacturing plants in the United 

States. The construction of these facilities has already put many 

construction workers back on the job and many thousands of permanent production jobs will be created when all of these plants 

reach full capacity. 

The success of these job creation policies is depending in large 

measure on the regulation of tailpipe emissions under the Clean 

Air Act which provides regulatory and market certainty for manufacturers of advanced technology vehicles. 

Absent continued Federal regulation by EPA and NHTSA, the 

UAW is concerned that we might repeat the troubled history that 

preceded the Obama administration’s one National Program in 

2009. Without such Federal regulations, we could experience another period of lawsuits, political warfare and public campaigns 

that would distract the industry’s attention and divert it from the 

clear and certain path it is on now. 

The UAW and the automakers strongly supported the National 

Program that runs from 2012 to 2016, and we are currently all 

working with EPA and NHTSA on the 2017–2025 standards. The 

UAW does not wish to see this work disrupted. 

In conclusion, the 1 million active and retired members of the 

UAW are also citizens who are affected by the environment in 

which we live and raise our families. We are concerned about the 

effects of human-induced climate change for ourselves and future 

generations. 

The benefits to human health and welfare flowing from the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act are substantial 

and they have positive economic effects. The UAW believes strongly 

that the regulation of tailpipe emissions under the Clean Air Act 

will help bring about these benefits while also creating jobs and 

helping to ensure a smooth and stable recovery for the auto industry. 

I thank you for considering our views. 

Senator Carper, I ask permission to substitute a corrected 

version of our written testimony, which we submitted by email, to 

the record. 

Senator CARPER. Without objection. 

Ms. SOMSON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Somson follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much for your presence and for 

your testimony. 

Mayor, one question I have for you, Mayor Homrighausen, are 

you Irish? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. No, I am not. 

Senator CARPER. Just checking. All right. But you are recognized 

and we welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. HOMRIGHAUSEN, MAYOR, CITY 

OF DOVER, OH 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Wilkommen. 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Good morning. My name is Richard P. 

Homrighausen and I am the Mayor of the city of Dover, OH, the 

inland Dover. Dover is located in the heart of the industrial Midwest and I believe our experiences are shared by a great number 

of small to mid-sized municipalities across the region. 

In addition to providing traditional city services, Dover owns and 

operates its own municipal electric system. We are a city with a 

population of just under 13,000, but have over 950 businesses ranging from mom and pop stores to Fortune 500 companies. A key factor in attracting and retaining these businesses is our local utility 

and the generation within our City limits. During the 2003 Midwest blackout, the lights stayed on in Dover. 

Providing reliable and affordable electricity is an important mission for the city of Dover. But it has come with its challenges. Lately, most of these challenges are from new and proposed Clean Air 

Act regulations. The city of Dover gets its electric supply from units 

directly owned by the City, some jointly owned units, as well as 

electricity purchased through our membership in American Municipal Power, or AMP, which has helped diversify our power supply 

portfolio. 

Even with the planned diversification of our electric energy, 

Dover remains highly dependent on Midwest, coal-fired generation 

and the cornerstone of the City’s electric system is the City-owned 

16 megawatt coal-fired base load powerplant. Dover’s other local 

generation resources include both natural gas and diesel generators. Together with our coal plant, our on-site capacity means we 

can meet approximately 37 percent of our electricity locally. 

Unlike large investor-owned utility companies, Dover does not 

own a fleet of large powerplants that we can selectively control or 

shut down in response to new emissions control requirements. We 

have limited response options to such regulations. Put simply, the 

cumulative impact of EPA’s rulemakings could put us in the position of deciding to either spend millions of additional dollars on 

plant upgrades or shut down our local generation. Neither option 

is acceptable to us. But to protect our community, the latter decision is one we especially hope to avoid. 

Despite Dover’s ongoing investments in our local generation, we 

are struggling to keep up with the rapid pace of new EPA rules. 

Each has a significant impact on us, and the cumulative effect is 

potentially devastating. Compliance with three final or pending 
48 

EPA rules alone is expected to cost the city of Dover millions of dollars. 

I commend Senator Inhofe for introducing the CARE Act to require a review of the total costs of major EPA regulations. Jobs are 

at risk. The loss of additional high-paying manufacturing jobs in 

local communities already suffering under the current economic 

downturn would be devastating. 

The unemployment rate in Tuscarawas County for January 2011 

was 10.7 percent, up from 9.8 percent the month before and well 

above the national average. While Tuscarawas County is currently 

in attainment for all criteria pollutants, some neighboring counties 

are not as lucky. It could be only a matter of time, or wind currents, before our home county could also be subject to the economic 

development limitations that come with non-attainment status. 

Such non-attainment limitations would have major impacts, especially on our chemical and plastic industries which employ hundreds of workers. 

We are particularly concerned about the unknown costs associated with compliance with yet-to-be-determined regulations to control greenhouse gases. While EPA has touted the benefits of carbon 

capture and storage for coal-fire generation, this technology is not 

commercially available and would certainly be uneconomical on a 

plant our size. 

Increased energy efficiency is one way to reduce emissions. However, in order to make energy efficiency a viable option, EPA needs 

to address the current New Source Review Rules that prevent electric utilities from modifying the existing plants to improve efficiency. 

Given huge uncertainties and potential costs associated with 

greenhouse gas regulation, I applaud Senator Inhofe for introducing the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 to preclude EPA 

from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead, any climate change policy should be developed by Congress 

and must balance environmental goals with impacts on consumers 

and the economy. 

While some see natural gas as the fuel that will be used to replace lost coal capacity, it certainly cannot provide full replacement 

in the near term. In the long term, increased demand will lead to 

increased prices. Our use of regional coal for electricity generation 

has enabled us to effectively contribute to the national economy 

and create and maintain jobs. When 50 percent of our Nation is 

powered by coal, it would be foolish to shut coal out as a resource 

option. 

All of us share a concern about the environment. As a local official, I want to make sure that the Dover of tomorrow is even better 

than the Dover of today. The Clean Air Act has resulted in huge 

improvements in air quality that have benefited all of us. 

But environmental regulations must be tempered by economic realities. Unfortunately, EPA’s recently issued proposed rules are creating a regulatory train wreck for electric utilities that use coal. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Homrighausen follows:] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Mr. Allen, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL J. ALLEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF 

CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER FOR CONSTELLATION ENERGY 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you very much. 

Let me begin by saying that Constellation Energy operates a 

highly-diversified portfolio of electric generating facilities, about 

12,000 megawatts of installed capacity. In addition to five nuclear 

units, our other generating assets include coal-fired capacity, natural gas plants, wind, solar, biomass and hydroelectric generation. 

All of our generating assets are merchant plants. We believe 

strongly in competitive markets where we need to be a low-cost 

provider in order to prosper. 

Because of our broad involvement in so many aspects of the energy equation, we recognize that the central challenge for our industry is balance in the three imperatives of energy, affordability, 

reliability and sustainability. We believe that in solving this equation, clean air safeguards can and must be compatible with the 

first two imperatives. 

We know that meeting this challenge requires clear, commercially-feasible rules for environmental performance and significant 

capital investment. Of course, many jobs are entailed in implementing those investments. To illustrate, I will briefly describe our 

experience at Brandon Shores, a powerplant in Maryland where we 

have constructed a state-of-the-art air quality control system. 

Brandon Shores is a very large powerplant, two 640 megawatt 

coal-fired units, has a highly efficient turbine closed cycle cooling 

towers, electrostatic precipitators that remove over 99 percent of 

particulates contained in the flue gas, selective catalytic reduction 

and other equipment for nitrogen oxide reduction, achieving a 90 

percent reduction in NOx. We beneficially re-use 85 percent of the 

coal combustion fly ash by making it into concrete. 

In short, Brandon Shores was a highly efficient, well functioning, 

environmentally sound electric generation source before the State 

of Maryland, under Governor Bob Ehrlich, passed its Healthy Air 

Act in 2006 which was finalized by the O’Malley Administration, 

as you heard Senator Cardin say, in July 2007. 

Working with the Maryland Department of the Environment, 

Brandon Shores now meets all of the requirements of that law, 

which are perhaps the most stringent and most plant-specific requirements in the country. The Healthy Air Act aimed to make 

deep reductions in nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions and 

aimed to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2013 from a 

2002 baseline. 

To accomplish these further reductions, Constellation constructed 

an additional, even more comprehensive air quality control system 

at Brandon Shores consisting mainly of a Flue Gas Desulfurization 

System, commonly called a wet scrubber, plus a Pulse Jet Fabric 

Filter, commonly called a bag house, with sorbent injection. 

The new scrubber installation and other environmental controls 

have the capability to remove at least 95 percent of existing sulfur 
64 

dioxide, 90 percent of existing mercury, and the NOx controls are 

already in place and at the new targets of the Healthy Air Act. 

Construction of this scrubber entailed building a new, single 400- 

foot emissions stack with two flues, capping the two existing stacks 

so that all flue gas must exit through the scrubber. We constructed 

hydrated lime and powder activated carbon injection systems for 

sulfuric acid mist and mercury removal. 

One of the really unique features of our project is the use of 

brown water from a neighboring municipal waste treatment plant. 

Of course, many hundreds of feet of the air duct work was built 

and connected to massive fans, pumps and motors. 

Groundbreaking for the construction phase of the project began 

in June 2007. Construction was completed in September 2009, 

about 26 months. The total cost was approximately $885 million. 

We have spent more than $1 billion in air pollution control equipment for our portfolio of coal-fired powerplants in Maryland. 

At peak construction, 1,385 personnel were employed on the site. 

These were skilled craft and construction workers including boilermakers, steamfitters, pipe fitters, operating engineers, millwrights, 

iron workers, electricians and master electricians, as well as carpenters, teamsters and laborers. We worked closely with the building trades and other unions to accomplish this job in good time and 

with an outstanding safety performance and we met the regulatory 

timeline. 

Over the course of the 26-month construction phase, we used approximately 4.3 million man hours and that equates to about 1,600 

job years. These are the hours worked by the contract employees 

that built the project. It does not reflect the manufacturing jobs associated with the technologies and equipment that our team assembled. 

The manufacturers of the cranes and vehicles deployed on the 

site, the manufacturers of the many large and small components 

from booster fans, pumps and pump motors to ball mills, electronics, wiring, steel, concrete, and specialty tile for the flue gas 

stack certainly employed many thousands of individuals to make 

these goods and operate the companies that form the supply chain 

for this kind of infrastructure. 

Combined with the men and women of Constellation who operate 

our powerplants, the engineers and physicists and the BGE linemen and pipeline technicians, the customer care and service representatives and the internal teams who support these skilled individuals, we create the jobs that are the backbone of the grid. Indeed, these are the jobs and careers that help form the backbone 

of the American economy. 

It is this experience, and the empirical evidence of man hours 

hired and paid, emissions measured and lowered, megawatts successfully produced and marketed that give us the confidence that 

we, and our sister companies in the electric power industry, can 

continue to deliver affordable electricity with the great reliability 

that all consumers depend upon while also meeting the air quality 

requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act. 

I have run over a little. Thank you very much and I will be 

happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much for that testimony and I 

look forward to asking you some questions. 

Mr. Montgomery, you are No. 4, actually our clean-up hitter. Go 

ahead. 

STATEMENT OF W. DAVID MONTGOMERY, PH.D., VICE 

PRESIDENT, CHARLES RIVER ASSOCIATES 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Johanns. 

I would like to provide some perspectives on jobs by focusing on 

the macroeconomic impacts that were described in EPA’s second 

prospective cost-benefit analysis that was just released a few days 

ago. 

To me, the most important point is that EPA’s macroeconomic 

study directly contradicts claims that are being made about green 

jobs. The relevant scenario of the EPA study unambiguously finds 

that increased spending on pollution controls will have overall negative economic effects. If EPA had reported its model results for 

labor markets, I am confident that this scenario would also have 

revealed lower wages and lower total worker compensation. 

My first recommendation would be that Congress instruct the 

EPA to provide it with these model outputs to see what its analysis 

actually has to say about wages and jobs. 

The green jobs studies and the other witnesses today have described the jobs associated with making and using pollution controls. I have a quarrel with how they have described that. 

The EPA macroeconomic model asks the logical next question, 

the right question, which is what the workers filling these jobs 

would have been doing otherwise. EPA’s analysis finds that they 

would have been producing, in productive jobs producing other 

goods and services so that, on balance, the Clean Air Act regulations, by directing them into producing pollution control, lowered 

GDP from what it would otherwise be and lowered real income for 

U.S. consumers. 

EPA then creates another case in which it actually adds more 

workers based on its, actually the other parts of an analysis of 

health effects, and destroys jobs in the healthcare industry and, in 

this scenario, it finds because of the increased labor force that 

there is an increase in GDP and an increase in employment, but 

it is not because of creating job opportunities, it is because of putting more healthy people in the economy who find jobs doing the 

normal productive kind of activity. 

The third point I would make is that it should be obvious that 

the EPA study provides no information about the likely costs of 

new regulations, be it mercury MACT or greenhouse gases. No 

matter what it says, no study of past regulations can logically be 

used to justify new ones. 

It has also been suggested that environmental regulations will 

enlarge the U.S. pollution control industry. There is nothing in the 

EPA study to support this. I suggest that if Congress wants an industrial policy, EPA is not the agency that is capable of creating 

it. 

EPA regulations create a demand for such equipment, but they 

make it less likely that it will be made in the United States. There 
72 

is a global market for pollution controls. Lots of other countries are 

expecting exactly the same thing, that they will create pollution 

control industries that will be exporting their goods. Countries like 

China can offer the materials and equipment much more cheaply 

because they are free of the costs of U.S. regulation. EPA cannot 

prevent this with the kind of border measures that were included 

in last year’s cap and trade legislation. 

Finally, I would suggest that the prospective study does not show 

that the Clean Air Act toolkit is the best way to approach greenhouse gases or any other emerging environmental issue. As far as 

greenhouse gases go, the virtually unanimous opinion of economists 

is that regulating greenhouse gases with Clean Air Act tools will 

not be cost effective, and I will return to that at the end. 

I have not found many areas in the macroeconomic analysis in 

EPA’s report that cannot be traced back to its input assumptions 

about direct costs and benefits. I think the most important is that, 

for the past several years, EPA has consistently failed to provide 

a satisfactory account of how particulate matter and ozone are 

causally related to mortality. I think this puts in question its calculated mortality reductions that provide over 93 percent of its direct benefits in 2010. Without these assumptions about health benefits, the macroeconomic benefits, even in its cost in health case, 

go away. 

There are several other methodologies that I think need to be reviewed critically, including those that EPA used to estimate other 

benefits, other air quality benefits, a systematic bias downward in 

its cost calculations, and a flaw in the macroeconomic modeling, I 

think, makes it estimated unreasonable economic gain for the petroleum industry. 

I believe that if the cost-benefit analysis were redone to address 

these biases in the costs and benefits, it would probably come out 

showing that the costs and benefits are of about the same scale. 

This suggests that it is very important to break out, as EPA was 

instructed to do, the costs and benefits of the individual programs 

in order to see which are providing a positive cost-benefit effect and 

which a negative cost-benefit effect. That is really important for 

thinking about future regulations and where future regulation can 

provide economic benefits and where it is not likely. 

So, let me just end quickly, I know I am out of time, on greenhouse gases. 

I believe, and so do many other economists, that imposing, that 

using the Clean Air Act toolkit to regulate greenhouse gases would 

impose unnecessary costs and would have next to no health benefits for the United States. 

Before I am accused of ignoring the science, I believe it is mainstream science to admit that greenhouse gases are different from 

other criteria pollutants and the United States can have only a 

negligible impact on the global effects, and, therefore, can only 

have negligible health benefits for the United States. 

These are the kinds of problems that can only be fixed by Congress. Congress can get us off the road toward ineffective and thus 

unnecessary regulations by removing greenhouse gases from the 

Clean Air Act and adopting a uniform no exceptions carbon tax 

with 100 percent of the revenues returned to the people. I would 
73 

encourage you to think about this because the optimal policy is 

really quite simple and abundantly clear. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Montgomery follows:] 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Montgomery, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Yann. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. YANN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

ALSTOM POWER 

Mr. YANN. Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Carper and Chairman Sanders for this opportunity to address the potential for job creation under the current proposed regulatory regime set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under 

the Clean Air Act. 

Alstom is a global leader in the power generation, rail transportation infrastructure and power transmission and distribution industries. Our company sets the bench mark for innovative and environmentally friendly technologies. Today, Alstom equipment can 

be found in more than 50 percent of U.S. powerplants, while globally it generates more than 25 percent of the world’s electricity. 

Alstom is also the world’s largest air pollution control company. 

Alstom employs more than 93,000 people in 70 countries and had sales of approximately $30 billion in 2009–2010. In the United 

States, Alstom employs about 6,000 full-time permanent employees 

in 47 States and the District of Columbia. This number can nearly 

double when accounting for workers hired for civic projects. 

Alstom continues to grow and invest in the United States. Last year, we inaugurated a $350 million steam facility in Chattanooga, 

TN, and this summer we are opening a new wind turbine manufacturing facility in Amarillo, TX. 

We are here today to specifically address the subject of potential 

job creation in the air pollution control industry, its supply chain 

under the current rules affecting the industry, most notably the 

Clean Air Transport Act and other rules referred to as HAPs 

MACTs. 

The actual amount of equipment to be installed is a complex 

question which depends on the timing of each of the rules, including possible greenhouse gas regulation, as well as fuel availability, 

pricing and many other factors. We leave it to others to explore and 

finalize the application of these factors. 

However, leveraging our knowledge of typical air pollution control projects applying a range of technologies and estimates provided by industry experts, we can offer insight into the typical employment requirements for a nominal 500 to 600 megawatt unit. 

Let us start with wet flue gas desulfurization, or scrubbers as 

they are commonly called. A standard scrubber project will require 

in excess of 50,000 engineering, procurement, project management 

and support hours, which may increase as much as 50 percent including hours for the owner and the owner’s engineer. 

The typical scrubber is field erected and requires more than 

2,000 tons of fabricated steel delivered to the site. This steel represents more than 40,000 man hours of production. The largest single source of manpower is the actual erection of the scrubber, 

which requires a wide variety of trade crafts. This typically lasts 

over 30 months and employs some 700 craft people on average during that period. 

Scrubbers consist of a large number of components including 

pumps, demisters, spray nozzles, electrical equipment, wiring, con-
85 

trols, emission monitors, crushers/ball mills, conveyors, weighing 

devices and so on. It should be noted that almost all of this equipment can be procured from sources in the United States. 

In total, a wet flue gas desulfurization project will provide the 

equivalent of about 775 full-time jobs over the three plus years of 

the project, not including jobs involved in delivery of the materials 

and equipment to the site. Estimates such as those provided by 

ICF to the public of some 60 gigawatts of new FGD projects required under its rules could translate into approximately 100 

projects over a five to 6 year period, representing 77,000 direct job 

years. 

Based on studies by ICF and others, it is anticipated that the nitrogen oxide control market will be less than half the size of the 

sulfur oxide market. These projects, while less complex from a 

process point of view, can be more complex from an installation 

view. Following similar logic to that above, it is anticipated that 

work with nitrogen oxide control projects would result in about 

35,000 to 40,000 job years over the same period. 

Since the HAPs MACT was released yesterday, we have not had 

time to adequately determine actual requirements. It is our general 

belief that some number of fabric filters will be required. Given the 

diverse offerings for collection of mercury and other metals, the 

number of fabric filters required may be in the range of 70 

gigawatts. Applying the same job creation logic, this could spur the 

creation of approximately 50,000 job years over the same five to 6 

year period. 

The last area which will create jobs is the supply of reagents to 

these systems. These include ammonia, lime, limestone and activated carbon, among others. It is estimated by the Institute of 

Clean Air Companies that this market will increase by about $400 

million annually to support the operation of the equipment installed. 

In summary, it is expected that these regulations will create the 

opportunity to create more than 150,000 job years over a span of 

five to 6 years for implementation alone. This does not include jobs 

created by sub-suppliers of components, transportation, commodities, suppliers and the indirect multiplier that is normally associated with supporting direct jobs. Estimates of industry associations 

put the total market in the range of $4 billion annually until compliance. 

We would like to thank the two subcommittees for this opportunity to provide this information. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yann follows:] 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Yann, thank you so much for wrapping us 

up here. 

Good testimony and enlightening testimony and, in some cases, 

the testimony, I almost wish we could let the witnesses ask questions of one another. We ought to find a way to do that. 

Let me just start off by saying that Delaware is, it does not include, in our State, we do not include the Chesapeake Bay. But 

tributaries from Delaware, including Nanticoke River, actually lead 

to the Delaware Bay, excuse me, to the Chesapeake Bay. As it 

turns out, there are tributaries from maybe half a dozen or so 

States that actually, whose waters end up in the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay has been struggling for a long time with 

sedimentation, all kinds of nutrients and so forth that have led to, 

that are killing parts of, vast parts of the Chesapeake Bay. There 

is just not much going on there in terms of life. 

The folks in the Chesapeake who make their living off of, as 

watermen, do not much like this. They have called on their elected 

officials to work on the rest of us to try to clean up our runoff so 

that they will have, actually, a Chesapeake Bay that will be alive 

and vibrant and provide livelihood for them. 

There are a couple of rivers that flow into my State from Pennsylvania. We use those rivers for, the water, when it gets to Delaware we use it for drinking water. We treat it, but use it for drinking water. There is a great concern about what the folks who live 

upstate from us in Pennsylvania are putting into what ultimately 

becomes our drinking water. 

In our Dover, DE, we end up breathing the air that brings with 

it pollution from Dover, OH. It brings pollution from Tennessee and 

Indiana, West Virginia, Virginia, and we end up having to breathe 

that stuff. We end up having to reduce our emissions in order to 

try to be in compliance with Federal environmental guidelines. We 

end up having to put extra pollution devices on our own utilities 

in order to reduce emissions. A lot of the stuff that we are breathing here comes from outside of our State. 

Jim Inhofe and I spend about a half an hour together every 

Thursday in the Capitol in a bible study group that is led by our 

Chaplain, Barry Black, who is a retired Navy Admiral, a good guy. 

He is always reminding us to one, try to ask, how does your faith 

guide you in what you do? The other thing, he is a big, as Jim 

knows, Chaplain Black is a big believer in the Golden Rule. Treat 

other people the way we want to be treated. He likes to say the 

Golden Rule is the CliffNotes of the New Testament. 

I just want to ask you, in thinking of those example, our waters 

contributing to the pollution problems that they have in the Chesapeake, upstream water pollution that comes down and we end up 

having it in our drinking water, and the air that we breathe in 

Dover that is polluted by places as far away as Dover, OH and further west than that. 

How does that, how is that consistent with the Golden Rule? 

Mayor? 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Well, in Dover’s example, we have always 

had a strong commitment to being good stewards of the environment. We were the first municipal electric system in the United 

States to install gas-fired co-burners to clean up our emissions on 
91 

startup when we fire up the coal. We also have the ability to cofire with gas. With the price of gas, we do not do that. We have 

switched to a different coal that allows us to burn cleaner. 

We have installed a $6.15 million bag house which I do not think 

we bought from Alstom. But our opacity is next to nil. We have a 

very clean operation. We do what we can to do our part to clean 

up the environment and that has always been our commitment 

ever since I have been Mayor since 1992. We do it consistently. We 

are always looking at ways to clean up any problem areas that we 

might have. 

So, I understand that you are getting some kind of transport 

from other areas of the country but I would doubt very much that 

it is coming from Dover, OH. 

Senator CARPER. Well, I hope not. We compete for jobs. We have 

a former Mayor up here and a couple of recovering Governors and 

we compete for jobs every day against other States and against the 

rest of the world. 

Among the two driving factors for creating a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation, one of them is the cost 

of power, the cost of electricity, and the other is the cost of 

healthcare. I would just suggest to you that when we are trying to 

compete with States that get much cheaper utility costs because 

they burn dirty fuels and create pollution for us, and we have to 

increase our utility costs in part to try to control emissions, and 

then we end up paying higher healthcare costs. It is just not fair. 

It is just not fair. 

I would just ask you to keep that, when the folks in Dover, OH 

are thinking about your pollution and what to do in terms of reducing your emissions, I hope you will keep in mind that there are 

folks in other Dovers that end up having to breathe the stuff, end 

up having to pay higher healthcare costs. We have thousands of 

kids that are not in school today because of the asthma, because 

they cannot breathe the air, and it is just not fair. I would just ask 

you to keep that in mind. 

The great thing about this situation we are in is that it actually 

can create jobs. Mr. Montgomery, you seemed to suggest it does 

not. Maybe these folks are working on air pollution control devices 

and installing them in places across the country, but they could 

find other work. The unemployment rate in the construction industry is 21 percent today. The folks that are doing the work that 

helps reduce these emissions, they are going to say, well, we are 

not going to reduce SOx, NOx and mercury emissions today, we 

want you to go and find other work, you would be gainfully employed. 

The unemployment rate is over 20 percent and it might be easy 

to sit here today in Washington, DC. in this hearing and say, well, 

they could find work someplace else. Well, if they could find work 

someplace else, I suspect they would be doing it. 

I will come back to, if I can, to Ms. Somson. I was very much 

involved in the CAFE legislation, trying to come up with something 

that the auto industry could live with and that was fair to the rest 

of us as well. 

Talk to us, if you will, and in CAFE we basically came to a bipartisan agreement. Ted Stevens, remember Ted Stevens? A big player 
92 

in all of this for us at the end in getting us to a situation where 

in CAFE 2007 we said by 2020 overall fleet average energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, will be 36 miles per gallon. 

We still had a problem, though, because there was a question of 

are we going to have a California standard? Are we going to have 

separate standards for different States? The current Administration got involved and said, let us just try to not have a bunch of 

different standards, let us just have one standard, 36 miles per gallon, we are going to have it by 2016. 

The auto industry bought in, UAW bought in. Just talk to us 

about why that makes sense, why that is a good idea. 

Ms. SOMSON. Well, thank you for giving me that opportunity and 

I will point out that under the EPA NHTSA One National Program 

that runs from 2012 to 2016 we will be at 35.5 miles per gallon by 

2016. So, we moved that up considerably. 

The auto industry is one where planning has to be done years 

and years in advance and the investments are enormous capital investments. They need the certainty of what is going to be demanded of them in order to develop, to do the research and development, to do the retooling of the facilities, to train workers, to get 

the equipment. They need that years out. Five years, which is the 

authority that NHTSA has, is actually not even an ideal time for 

how long ahead we have to be planning. 

We definitely need one national standard and not a patchwork 

of different regulations for different parts of the country. It would 

be way too difficult to be manufacturing and selling and keeping 

track of things in different States. 

But if I can take this opportunity to just play off a little on what 

Mr. Montgomery said. I am not an economist and I am not going 

to speak to job growth, green jobs in other parts of the economy. 

But the job growth that we have seen here that I testified to here 

today, these are jobs that would not be in this country otherwise. 

Up until a year ago, there was really only one facility in the 

United States that was making the components for advanced technology vehicles and that was the White Marsh facility in Maryland 

and it was making them for trucks. So, the advanced vehicles, the 

vehicles of the future and their components, were all being imported. Priuses are imported. All of the engines and the power 

trains for the high-tech vehicles that are assembled here in the 

United States, all of them were being imported from Japan or Italy 

or Germany. 

We are now seeing, because of some of the things I testified 

about, the growth of these 30 new plants. We will actually be able 

to make the components, not just assemble from parts that are 

coming in from outside the United States. But these are truly new 

jobs because of the requirements that the industry knows they 

have to meet because of the one national standard. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. We have been joined by 

Senator Barrasso. Jim, our friend from Nebraska has not had a 

chance to say anything today. Should we go to him first? What do 

you think? 

Senator INHOFE. [Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. Senator Johanns, please proceed. 
93 

Senator JOHANNS. Very, very nice of you, but go ahead. I am 

ready to do questioning when it gets to be my turn. You are always 

the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for offering me that 

courtesy, but let us just keep on going. 

Senator CARPER. Fair enough. All right. Jim, who should we go 

to next? Do you want to go to Senator Barrasso? What do you 

think? 

Senator INHOFE. You are the Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. All right. John, when you are ready. 

Senator BARRASSO. Can we just do questions as well or can we 

do opening statements? 

Senator CARPER. Well, you can do either one. 

Senator BARRASSO. But you have been asking questions? 

Senator CARPER. Well, we have done opening statements and 

now we are doing questions. 

Senator BARRASSO. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this. 

I want to welcome all of the witnesses, including the Mayor of 

Dover, OH. I think you offered a great amount in your testimony. 

I have had a chance to review it in advance. 

We are here to talk about the claims of jobs growth that are 

going to come from massive Government regulations. The theory 

goes that by crushing red, white and blue jobs through the EPA 

regulatory meat grinder that that will actually in some way churn 

out green jobs. I just do not believe that. 

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal there is an article entitled, 

Food Stamps Surge in the West. The article talks about how, before 

the recession hit, Idaho and Nevada and Utah had some of the lowest rates of food stamp use in the Nation. It was a boom time in 

that region, and it is a region that has always prided itself on selfreliance and a disdain for Government handouts. 

But since the recession hit, these three States have the fastest 

growth rates in the Nation of participation in the Federal programs. My concern is that with additional rules and regulations 

that are in this region, with the EPA regulatory train wreck of regulations, that this is going to increase and continue to be a problem. 

When these EPA regulations hit, some of which came out yesterday, coal-fired powerplants are either going to close or make costly 

upgrades and pass those costs on to consumers. The New York 

Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post today all report 

that the cost to consumers is going to be anywhere between $40 

and $50 a year in increased electricity costs only related to that 

one regulation that came out yesterday. Now is the time that people are having to deal with paying at the pump, which is a significant impact on the quality of life of families all across this country. 

Last year around this time the Director of GE’s Smart Grid, I am 

sorry, the former Director of GE’s Smart Grid Initiative, wrote an 

editorial in the Washington Post entitled The Green Jobs Myth. In 

it, this individual states that a clean energy economy will not offer 

a panacea, but those who take great pains to tout the job creation 

potential of the green space might just end up including labor 

pains all around. 
94 

So, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate your being here. I know that you 

stated in your testimony that the benefit of having and maintaining local generation comes with significant costs and particularly 

compliance costs related to the ever increasing array of environmental regulations on our fossil fuels. 

You stated that these regulations would lead to direct job losses 

at your powerplant and I would just ask if you could explain that 

in terms of how these jobs would be lost. 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Well, Senator, if we are forced to go out of 

the coal business in generation, all of the 30 some jobs that we 

have at the powerplant would no longer be needed. We would go 

away from the boiler operators and the dispatchers to just maintaining the inflow of electricity from our inner connections with the 

EP and then the outflow going to our distribution system. So, we 

would lose the majority of those jobs in the powerplant, and all of 

the associated—— 

Senator BARRASSO. I was going to ask you about the associated 

jobs. 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. The associated jobs, from the coal suppliers, 

if you look at it, one calculation it would have a 52.5 job impact 

on just the city of Dover. 

Senator BARRASSO. Those jobs, would you consider them good 

paying jobs with benefits? 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. The lowest paid powerplant worker is, I believe, $23 with about 44 percent benefits. 

Senator BARRASSO. Are they going to be able to go right to green 

jobs at that same kind of pay? 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Not in Dover. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

One of the things you stated in your testimony was that the 

EPA’s rulemaking can put us in an untenable position of deciding 

to either spend millions of dollars on the plant upgrades necessary 

to assure compliance or to deal with these issues. The money that 

you will have to spend to comply with the EPA’s what I call train 

wreck of regulations, you know, where would that money go if you 

would not have to do and make those expensive changes? 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Well, that money could be spent on infrastructure for roads, water, wastewater, all of the city services that 

we provide, rather than spending additional moneys on compliance 

measures when Dover has stepped to the plate consistently and 

spent money on pollution controls that some of other municipal 

electric companies in the State have not done. 

We were the first ones, as I mentioned earlier, to put in gas 

burners to help with our generation. We also put in the bag house 

that nobody else has put in. So, we are doing our part to clean up. 

Who knows what is going to be coming down the pike later. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. 

Ms. Somson, I had a question for you. There was a Wall Street 

Journal article, a front page article, on Monday, March 14th. It 

was an article entitled, EPA Tangles with New Critic Labor. I 

know that you are representing the United Auto Workers here 

today. It said several unions with strong influence in key States 

are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency soften 
95 

new regulations aimed at pollution associated with coal-fired powerplants. 

It goes on to say that their contention, roughly half a dozen rules 

expected to roll out within the next 2 years could put thousands 

of jobs in jeopardy and damage the party’s, the Democratic Party’s, 

2012 election prospects. 

In fact, the article references a miner’s union study that says as 

many as 250,000 union jobs are at risk. The article says many of 

these jobs are in the utility, mining and railroad sectors and it says 

the heaviest impact will fall on rust belt States that have many old 

coal-fired plants as well as electoral votes. They talk about Ohio, 

particularly. 

So, in spite of your testimony, is it fair to say that unions are 

split on the issue of the job creating ability of regulations from the 

Clean Air Act? 

Ms. SOMSON. I think that there are, it is true that unions do not 

speak with one voice. I read that article. I know the mine workers 

have very justifiable concerns about how regulation would affect 

their industry. That does not mean that they are opposed to regulation. They just want to make sure that it is done right. I think that 

is also true for the transit unions that transport the coal. 

But I will note that there was at least one union that was mentioned in that article, the steelworkers, that is a part of a coalition 

that the UAW is also a part of called the Blue Green Alliance, 

which is environmental groups and unions trying to work together 

to see how we can do this in a way that is both good for the environment and good for jobs. 

The steelworkers did sign on to a statement that was put out by 

the Blue Green Alliance yesterday saying that we think we can get 

there, that we have to do it very thoughtfully, we have to be mindful of the impact on jobs for some sectors of the labor movement, 

but that working together and working carefully and taking 

everybody’s view into consideration, we can get there. We do not 

have to fail to regulate because of those concerns. 

Senator BARRASSO. But you are not disputing the figure by the 

miner’s union study that says as many as a quarter million union 

jobs are at risk? 

Ms. SOMSON. I am not in a position to really—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Inhofe, would you mind questioning 

now? 

Senator INHOFE. Would I mind? I do not mind at all. 

Senator CARPER. Go ahead. Thanks for your patience. 

Senator INHOFE. Since we are joined by both Senator Johanns 

and Senator Barrasso, I think it is worthwhile mentioning two 

other very significant pieces of legislation that have to do with the 

subject we are talking about. 

Senator Barrasso goes beyond my bill that I referred to in my 

opening statement having to do with the EPA’s regulations of 

greenhouse gases and he gets into all kinds of areas affecting the 

Endangered Species Act, the various MACTs that are out there, 

and I have joined him on these. 
96 

Of course Senator Johanns I mentioned in my opening statement. I have joined him on his bill that is going to require the EPA 

or a new commission made up of the Secretaries of Energy, I guess 

the five or six Secretaries already existing, as to what the cumulative effect is. Because we have been trying to get this from the 

Environmental Protection Agency for literally months because we 

have different amounts that come with each new regulation. 

Now, as far as the one that concerns me the most, and this is 

very timely because it is in the regular order on the floor of the 

Senate today, it is right now pending, and that is my bill that I 

refer to as the Inhofe-Upton Bill, and Upton refers to it as the 

Upton-Inhofe Bill, we have talked about that before, that would 

take away the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency 

in the regulation of greenhouse gases. 

I start off, in your opening statement, Mayor Homrighausen, you 

made the statement that you felt that the EPA was not equipped 

to regulate greenhouse gases. Would you like to elaborate anything 

on that statement? 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Yes, Senator. The process that has been 

touted for many years is to inject the gases into the ground and 

that really has not been perfected. AEP in Ohio has been doing a 

study project along the Ohio River. That has not been perfected. 

We just, there is a lot of uncertainty as to what you do with this, 

the greenhouse gases. What happens when it gets in the ground 

and will it affect our water supply? So many unanswered questions 

that I do not feel we are ready to go forward with that type of process without the questions being answered. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, what do you think, well, let me just go 

ahead. Dr. Montgomery, do you have any comment to make about 

that in terms of the capability to regulate greenhouse gases within 

the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, Senator, thank you for asking. 

I think the Clean Air Act toolkit is entirely inappropriate for 

greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases are a global problem, 

they are a problem which the United States can only have a minuscule effect on through actions that we take within our own borders. 

It is the perfect example, Senator Carper, of the Golden Rule that 

we, that by the time it really matters, most of the greenhouse gas 

emissions that effect us are going to be coming from countries like 

China. So, that is on, kind of, the benefit side. 

On the cost side, EPA has a very limited toolkit. Achieving the 

kind of emission reductions that were described last year in climate 

legislation as being required to put the world on a path toward stabilizing concentrations at levels that the international negotiations 

aimed for requires massive changes in our energy sector. They require changes in the decisions that just about every business and 

industry would be undertaking. The only way to mobilize that kind 

of a change is through a consistent and broad economic incentive. 

Bureaucrats in Washington or even in the EPA regions cannot 

know enough about the individual decisions that every business 

and household faces to get at them in any way that is not grossly 

intrusive and grossly inefficient. 

The tools in the EPA toolkit are so limited that what they do is 

produce highly burdensome regulations in the particular areas that 
97 

EPA can work with and do nothing in other areas so they add up 

to a grossly ineffective, I mean, one set of calculations I saw that 

MIT has done recently suggests that a regulatory approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions would cost six times as much as 

the cap and trade approach that Congress has already rejected. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, that is very significant, and I have documentation that it would be more. I have been using, and I used it 

on the floor yesterday, in talking about the cost of the EPA regulating greenhouse gases to the manufacturing sector, the power 

sector, and everybody else, I have continued to use what we originally got from the Kyoto Treaty. 

Now, granted that was a long time ago. But then each year after 

that, we failed, I might add that President Clinton never did submit that for ratification, but each year after that we had various 

cap and trade bills, in 2003, 2005, 2007 and then, most recently, 

the Waxman-Markey. In each case, we updated the cost. Originally 

it was, the Wharton School and MIT came out, along with CRA and 

others, and analyzed how much it would cost. It has actually remained at least the same by all analyses. 

Now, here we are in the midst of talking about how much, what 

we are trying to do to cut down the deficit and the debt, we are 

coming up with CRs that, we are talking about $1.4 billion or 

maybe even $60 billion, and yet the cost of this would be between 

$300 and $400 billion a year. I know we are just talking about 

greenhouse gases right now. Again, we have that documented and 

you just said that by regulation, it would actually be more than if 

we were to pass legislatively a cap and trade. 

Why would it be more by regulation than it would be by cap and 

trade? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. What a cap and trade system does with all of 

its potential defects is make sure that if it costs more in one sector 

to redo the economy, like transportation to reduce emissions by a 

ton than it does in another sector, like electric power to reduce 

emissions by a ton, trading can take place between those sectors. 

The market will adjust to it so that across the board in the economy for everyone who is regulated, the last ton of emission reductions has the same cost. 

When EPA exercises its authorities, they are under a set of requirements to apply MACT in one area, to apply BACT in another 

area, to apply a different set of tools in a third area, to completely 

ignore 25 other areas. So, you do not come close to equalizing impacts, equalizing the marginal costs across all sectors. 

In particular, it grossly overemphasizes very costly reductions in 

emissions in the transportation sector while leaving aside very 

much less costs in emissions in other places. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. One thing, and I also mentioned this yesterday on the floor of the Senate, is that I was praising the Clean 

Air Act and the amendments to the Clean Air Act, how successful 

they have been, how they have reduced pollutants. 

It was originally designed, though, to go after what I refer to, 

and were referred to at that time, as the six real pollutants, and 

it had nothing to do with CO2. That has had a remarkable success 

rate in bringing that down. I always like to say that because I 
98 

think it is significant. Regulation of CO2 is something that is different, however. 

Let me ask you, Mayor, one more time, I like to say Mayor because it is too hard to pronounce your name. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. I mentioned in my opening remarks that I had 

a hard job once. I was a Mayor, too. 

We know, you have talked about Dover. You have, what about 

the rest of the State? Do you talk to your counterparts, other Mayors? Are you just one, isolated area where unemployment is a problem as a result of some of these over regulations? 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Well, Dover is on the eastern part of the 

State where a lot of the auto industry and steel mills were. So, a 

lot of our unemployment has come from plants being shut down, 

autoworkers being put out of work. But a lot of my counterparts 

in the State also experienced a downturn in the economy because 

of loss of jobs from associated industries that have been affected by 

the economy. 

Now, they do not have some of the problems that Dover has because we are only one of five municipals in the State that still generates a portion of our electric need. So, the closest to us would be 

Orrville that also has a coal plant and they experience a lot of the 

downturn but, in their favor, they also have Schmucker’s and 

Smith Dairy. So, Schmucker’s is not going to go away. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, OK. Well, let me, I have been waiting for 

this to show up here. Senator Barrasso was talking about the jobs 

and about where the unions are in this. I would only mention, and 

ask if you disagree with this segment of the unions, in terms of the 

boiler MACT up to 800,000 jobs at risk, opposed by the United 

Steelworkers Union, the United Steelworkers believes the proposal 

will be sufficient to imperil the operating status of many industrial 

plants, in the union’s view, tens of thousands of jobs would be imperiled. 

The utility MACT, they talk about according to the Unions for 

Jobs and Environment, the UJE, an umbrella group for labor 

unions including the Teamsters’ Union, United Mine Workers, 16 

coal-fired plants in West Virginia, the top coal producing State east 

of the Mississippi River according to the EIA, 38 in Ohio, 32 in 

Michigan, 24 in Indiana, 21 in Pennsylvania, 21 in Wisconsin are 

at risk of shutting down because of the EPA rules. 

Now, I could go on and on but I am out of time. But I would only 

like to ask you, do you disagree with all of these union figures that 

we have been given by these unions? 

Ms. SOMSON. Are you speaking to me? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, of course. 

Ms. SOMSON. I cannot speak for other unions. I can refer, and if 

you like, I could offer to be included in their—— 

Senator INHOFE. Well, these are other unions. I think they are 

you, also, they include you, do they not? 

Ms. SOMSON. The UAW? I do not think so. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, OK, go ahead. 

Ms. SOMSON. I heard you mention the steelworkers union, but I 

am reading from a press release from yesterday made by Leo Girard, the International President of the Steelworkers and a Co- 
99 

Founder of the Blue Green Alliance, saying that the United States 

must be positioned to lead in the global economy of the 21st Century and thoughtful measures to reduce carbon emissions will spur 

the kind of economic growth needed to put the U.S. economy back 

on track. 

I will include in the record the press release and the two page 

statement that was made and joined by a number of unions saying 

that we should be regulating greenhouse gases, it just needs to be 

done in a very thoughtful way. 

But I would also like to add that the jobs that we are seeing, 

growing, we are regulated. The auto industry’s greenhouse gas 

emissions are already regulated by EPA with NHTSA. We have 

seen job growth and the majority of that job growth is in States 

like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois. That is the belt where the 

major components are made. 

Senator INHOFE. Right. No, I understand that—— 

Senator CARPER. Senator, Senator, wait. We are going to have 

another round. We will have another round. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I will not be here for another round and 

I wanted to just make sure that I have, in the record, these statements talking about the effects they are having on jobs and how 

the unions are responding to that. 

By the way, it is NHTSA, not the EPA, that is already doing the 

regulating. 

Senator CARPER. The Senator’s time has expired. You are welcome to come back for a second round. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you so much. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Johanns. 

Senator JOHANNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Let me just offer an observation. You are a good panel. The discussion that has gone back and forth here has been worth 

everybody’s investment of time and we appreciate you being here. 

Let me offer a perspective that will lead to a few questions. Soon 

after I arrived in the Senate a couple of years ago, and I was a 

Mayor also at one point in a previous life, but soon after I arrived 

in the Senate the Senate Ag Committee had a hearing on the impact of cap and trade on agricultural. Of course, if you impact agriculture you impact food prices. I guess that is obvious. 

Now, I have always maintained that the average citizen feels inflation most in two areas, at the gasoline station and at the grocery 

store, because the options are so limited. You must eat and you 

must gas up the pickup or the car to get to work and to get the 

kids at day care and whatever else is going on. 

I will never forget going through this and feeling in my mind 

how insufficient the study was, how inadequate the analysis had 

been. I remember in that hearing asking the question, well, how 

many acres of productive grassland or cropland do you anticipate 

going from productivity to planting trees? Gosh, they were struggling to answer that. 

The Secretary was there, the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom 

Vilsack, the Administrator, Lisa Jackson, was there, and I never 

really did get a good answer. Then, many weeks later, it came out 

that it was 50 to 60 million acres. I mean, it was stunning. Of 

course, if you take grassland, which we graze cattle on, or produc-
100 

tive cropland out of productivity, it is going to have an impact on 

prices and therefore an impact on the consumer. 

But at the end of kind of all of this I asked the Administrator, 

Lisa Jackson, a question, and it is on the record somewhere, to the 

effect of, if we do everything, describe for me the impact. She said, 

well, there would not be any. 

It dawned on me that global warming is called global warming 

for a purpose. It is not Nebraska warming, or Dover warming. It 

truly is a global issue that we are trying to come to grips with. I 

have traveled extensively as a former Secretary of Agriculture to 

places like China and India and you know, gosh, we could crush 

our economy, not have any impact. 

So, when the witnesses testify about the things that need to be 

done and yes, maybe jobs are created, but I think of Nucor Steel 

in Nebraska, they employ 1,000 people, of course they get tangled 

up in this, those are really high-quality jobs. We will not replace 

those jobs if they go to China. They just tell me point blank, Mike, 

our competition is in China. That is who we are competing with. 

All I want is an understanding of what is going on here. It is so 

easy to talk about green jobs, and this is going to happen to our 

economy, and that is going to happen, I just want solid analysis as 

to who wins here, because there probably will be some winners, 

and who loses. If it is the consumer at the grocery store that loses, 

that is very, very troublesome. If it is the person that turns on the 

light switch who loses, that is very troublesome. 

So, that is why I think this panel is so important. Because I listen and I hear differences of opinion from very, very smart people. 

That tells me that we have not gotten the right evidence to decide 

what are the costs and benefits. That is why Senator Inhofe and 

I have joined together to try to get an understanding. We all want 

to do the right thing, I believe, but we want to know what the facts 

are. 

So, let me, if I might, turn first to you, Mr. Montgomery, with 

that kind of backdrop. One of the things that has appeared to me 

in the analysis that has been done so far, and I have certainly not 

read every page and word of every analysis, but what I have studied is that there is tendency to project the upside, not very much 

good information on the downside. Is my perception on that accurate? What is your view of the studies and the research that has 

been done out there on that issue? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, Senator, I am afraid you are right. I 

think the recent EPA study clearly showed biases in this area and 

I am quite surprised because they took what I would say are the 

most optimistic estimates of the health benefits, translated them 

into a huge increase in the size of the U.S. labor force and claimed 

that would increase our GDP. Well of course it would. If there were 

more people out there working productively, the economy will do 

better. 

I believe they also in a number of ways made assumptions that 

were at the most optimistic end of the range on what the costs are. 

Now, that is not to say that they did not come up with a scenario 

that is possible, but it is at one end of the scale. Whenever we have 

tried to do an analysis like this, we try to balance this with the 

other end of the scale. I think there has been a history in these 
101 

EPA perspective reports of putting the very best possible face on 

the regulations. 

Again, and I agree with Senator Inhofe, many of them probably 

had regulations, many of the past regulations had benefits that far 

exceeded their costs. But others did not. It not going to help us to 

distinguish that. 

I think, in the case of climate change, we do see in the professional literature a pretty wide range. But we do not see it presented here in the debate in Washington. I think that the answer 

that you can get is that the best that science and economics can 

tell you, within a very broad range. But the Administrator is right. 

Science agrees that we are not going to get very much direct benefit for the United States out of anything we do here in the United 

States. 

It is a global problem and the magnitude of the costs and the 

benefits of seeing that global problem range from marginally worth 

doing, if you do it very carefully, and it is not worth doing at all 

if you do it badly, to those who are much more convinced of the 

potential disaster and the inefficiency of markets and opportunities 

for doing something, they would say that it is an easy job. But 

there is that huge range there and neither science nor economics 

is going to be able to lower it, reduce it very much, before you have 

to make decisions. 

Senator JOHANNS. I heard the testimony about how unions have 

a difference of opinion and I think that is a very fair statement. 

If you are in a coal mining region, you are going to look at this differently that if you are in another region. But that, I was not hearing so much union versus union as I was hearing there are truly 

regional differences here that have an economic impact. 

I do not now who I ask here, but is that also a piece of what we 

are looking at that you could hammer, for example, the Midwest, 

although this may turn out awful there is might be better in another part of the country? 

Mr. Allen. 

Mr. ALLEN. If I might. I mean, it is a fact that energy issues 

have always been largely regional in nature. It is a fact that if you 

are downwind, you have economic and health consequences that 

are a result purely of your location. 

I was so glad to hear you say, Senator, that you have authentic 

curiosity about the differences of opinion because, as good as this 

panel has been, and I think we have done our level best to give you 

good information, we have not had the opportunity to touch on 

some very important underlying facts here. 

In the business that we are in, which is largely national business, we operate in all of the competitive markets in the country, 

the drivers are really very much about underlying commodity 

prices. Right now, because of the Marcellus Shale and new technologies, natural gas prices are very low. Because we are actually 

exporting coal to China, coal prices are very high. Many of the job 

impacts that we have been hearing thrown around here have as 

much to do, probably much more to do, with those economic realities than they do with the layering on of new regulations. 

It is also important to recognize which plants the new regulations effect because very small coal-fired powerplants, under 25 
102 

megawatts for example, actually are not affected by the toxics rule 

that was proposed yesterday. 

So, you know, I just really, it is always a dilemma, I think, for 

policymakers to get a broad enough view of what really drives outcomes. If you are a business, you have to take all of those variables 

into effect. If you are a business that has, among other things, 

made a calculation that environmental policy needs to be rigorous 

and science based, and that implies certain things about what you 

need to do, probably should do, but need to do in order to comply 

with those regulations, and you make the investments, but your 

competitor is allowed not to or delays it, that creates a fundamental economic unfairness and, frankly, a distortion in the marketplace that is bad for everybody who needs to make particularly 

large capital investments. 

It affects the credit ratings, it affects the costs of capital in ways 

that hinder American competitiveness. So, we would like to see as 

thorough and as rich a debate as possible. But it is also very important not to over compartmentalize certain aspects of the economic 

equation. 

Senator JOHANNS. Yes. You know, I do not want to abuse the 

privilege of my time, but here is what I would say. What I am looking for is a rigorous analysis that will lead to a right policy choice. 

I must admit I think there is rigorous analysis going on out there, 

but here it tends to, I do not know, head off in this direction, if 

you are against this then you are against clean air and if, you 

know, and quite honestly it is not a helpful debate. It might be interesting to watch on television but it is not a helpful debate. 

Recognizing today that we are in a global environment, and we 

just flat are, if we do something that puts our job creators on their 

knees and they are trying to compete with somebody else, well they 

only have a couple of choices if that somebody else is overseas. 

They either go over there and create the jobs in China or India or 

wherever, or they do not survive. For them, it is as stark a reality 

as that. So, if we choose wrong here, the implications are very, very 

serious. 

That is what I think we need to focus on, is how do we get this 

right and, in the end, at the end of all of this, are we even going 

to have an impact? If we are not, we had better be factoring that 

in, too. 

With that, I want to say thank you to each of you. You know, 

one of the things, Mr. Chairman, that I always like about Mayors, 

they are direct and I always said that filling potholes and mowing 

parks was never a political venture. It just was work that needed 

to be done. I think Mayors are very direct and so Mayor, especially 

to you, thank you for being here today. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Johanns, thanks very much for your insightful questioning. Thank you very much. 

I want to go back to Mr. Yann, if I could. As you know, in this 

country we have been working on our air, cleaner air, for some 40 

years. This year, we have several clean air regs that are targeting 

our utilities, all of which are under court-ordered deadlines. 

Based on your past experience, do you feel that utilities can install the control technology that is needed to meet these new regulations in the timeframe required? 
103 

Mr. YANN. Senator, we have talked to a number of them and 

worked with them and everything is doable with a plan, and the 

plans are being developed. I think we need to be careful of any 

delay that could put a burden on that timeline and make it a more 

aggressive schedule. 

Senator CARPER. Say that again, about a delay—— 

Mr. YANN. Any delay would put a burden on this. 

Senator CARPER. OK, I understand. 

I remember, gosh, about five or 6 years ago representatives from 

about 10 different utilities came in to see me. They were from all 

over the country. Senator Alexander and I had been working on a 

full pollutant bill dealing with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and CO2 emissions and trying to see if there was some way 

we could set up a market system, a trading system, to harness 

market forces to reduce SOx, NOx and CO2 emissions, but not mercury. 

At the end of the conversation, this one guy from a southern 

based utility, I think it was a southern utility, but suddenly he 

said, talking to me, Senator, why do you not do this, you and your 

colleagues do this, tell us what the rules are going to be in terms 

of reducing emissions, give us a reasonable amount of time, give us 

some flexibility and get out of the way. That is what he said. I 

think that is pretty good advice. I still think that is pretty good advice. 

I want to go back to Mr. Allen, if I could. In your testimony, you 

shared with us the example of the Brandon Shores facility in Maryland. I believe you said your company installed technology to meet 

a 2006 State reg that took approximately, I do not know, 24, 25, 

26 months to install all of the technology and it was completed a 

year or two ago, maybe in 2009. Is that correct? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Do you believe this facility will meet recent 

EPA regulations of air toxics and SOx and NOx? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. As you know, we have seen several different job 

studies, I do not know, it is like dueling job studies going on here, 

we have seen several different job studies citing job creation with 

clean air regulations. How does your experience at Brandon Shores 

match up with some of these studies? Are they on target or are 

they off base? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I cannot speak to all of the studies. What I can 

say is that we have numbers that would be very similar to what 

I heard from Alstom in terms of what it takes to do the actual construction and installation of the equipment. 

It is harder for me to speak to the jobs in the supply chain. But, 

if you think about who the supply chain is, it includes Alstom, it 

also includes Nucor Steel that we heard Senator Johanns mention, 

it includes Lehigh Cement, which is a customer of Constellation 

Energies. It very importantly includes the heavy automotive industry that the United Auto Workers works in. 

So, the supply chain contains a great, great, great many jobs. 

Then there are the constructors, the Bechtels, the Flores, the Peter 

Kiewits of the country who we depend upon, the Washington International Groups and Shaw and others, and then the engineering 
104 

firms that Charles River consults to, the Stone and Websters and 

the Black and Veatchs and Babcocks and Wilcoxes and all of the 

rest of them. So, yes, it is essentially, an American industry. 

I want to say something else about the jobs associated because 

we know who the people are who build these facilities. They are, 

in fact, the same boilermakers and pipe fitters and engineers and 

steamfitters and laborers and teamsters and others who manage 

the outages and the maintenance of all of these facilities. These are 

people who have careers in doing the highly-skilled jobs that are 

associated with the electric power industry. 

So, that tells us two things. It tells us that they are there to be 

employed and it also tells us that they need the employment in 

order to pursue their careers. So, I guess I just, that is an important thing to consider when you are wondering about whether or 

not there are jobs associated with doing the fundamental work of 

operating the electric power system. It seems, I have always 

thought that the question sort of answered itself. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. I like those questions that answer themselves. 

I would come back to you, if I could, Mr. Yann. I have heard, I 

have been told that your company is on the cutting edge of carbon 

capture and storage technology. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. YANN. Yes, Senator, we currently have 12 projects that are 

either in engineering or testing of CCS projects around the world 

and are making progress in that arena. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Is your company seeing an uptake in interest in this kind of technology with greenhouse gas regulations in 

place? 

Mr. YANN. No, Senator, we are not. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Are you seeing a decrease in interest in 

this kind of technology with the new greenhouse gas regulations in 

place? Is the interest going up or down? 

Mr. YANN. I would say it is going down, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. So, you are seeing fewer utilities expressing an 

interest in this carbon capture and storage technology? 

Mr. YANN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Why do you think that is? 

Mr. YANN. Utilities are in a complex situation. You know, they 

are trying to serve us, the consumers of power, and trying to serve 

us as the people who are citizens of the United States. They are 

trying to work a balancing act. I think you said it very eloquently 

earlier, please tell us what to do, give us a reasonable time to do 

it, and we will go do it. 

Senator CARPER. Does the price of natural gas, the dramatic drop 

in the price of natural gas, is that playing a role here? 

Mr. YANN. It is complicating the issue. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Fair enough. Do you believe that efficiency, 

we talked about it, you know, and we are trying to get efficiencies 

in all of our mobile fleets and we are going to come close to doubling the requirements for energy efficiency within our mobile 

fleets by 2016. But do you think from efficiencies that we can create jobs? 

Mr. YANN. Senator, I do not think there is any silver bullet. 

There is a lot of silver buckshot. I think we have to take advantage 
105 

of every opportunity that we can to reach that solution. That is a 

part of it. 

Senator CARPER. All right. We will wrap up by, well, I am going 

to come back and recognize Senator Barrasso again and then come 

back and ask one follow-up question. I will telegraph the pitch 

right now. 

One of the things that I try to focus on here is how do we develop 

consensus. It is a pretty contentious place. We need to try to find 

consensus in a whole lot of areas, deficit reduction, in terms of 

healthcare, better outcomes, less money, what are we going to do 

about the infrastructure and transportation infrastructure, all 

kinds of things, and we need to develop consensus to really address 

these complex and difficult issues. 

One of the things I am going to ask you all to do, and it will be 

my last question, is given where you are coming from in your 

testimoneys, where do you think there is agreement among this 

panel? I am just going to ask everybody here. 

Where do you think you agree with respect to cleaner air, increasing jobs, decreasing, where do you agree? Where do you think 

that you agree that an action might be helpful to us as we try to 

find consensus on these issues? 

OK? That will be my last question. Think about that. Chew on 

that for a while and, in the meantime, Senator Barrasso is going 

to chew on you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, not really. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It really, I have 

to tell you, it is a privilege to work with this guy, an absolutely outstanding individual. 

Mr. Montgomery, if I could, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association has estimated that about 70 percent of gasoline 

diesel fuel could end up being imported from refineries in China, 

India, South America, Africa and the Middle East by 2025, about 

15 years from now, if the United States imposes inflexible, unilateral greenhouse gas controls under the Clean Air Act. 

To me, that is going to cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands 

of jobs. I believe that is going to increase the cost of energy in the 

United States. What is that going to do in terms of jobs in this 

country with those kind of increased costs related to those kinds 

of imports, but in terms of the reduction of production and then 

any additional impacts that you see? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Senator. I think there certainly 

are jobs that are associated with petroleum refining in the United 

States and if we do not do the refining here, those jobs will not be 

here. It is much like the coal mining jobs will not be here if the, 

if we retire 60 or 80 gigawatts of coal-fired generation because it 

is more economical to do that than to install pollution controls and 

operate it under the threat of greenhouse gas emissions. 

But the real loser is the American consumer. The fact is that in 

all of these cases, what we hear are descriptions of the jobs that 

the United Auto Workers care about, descriptions of the jobs that 

are provided by Alstom, description of the jobs that are involved in 

installing pollution controls at Constellation Energy, description, in 

some cases, of the benefits that a company will get because its elec-
106 

tricity will be lower in cost that someone else’s under the regulations. 

But the losses are occurring across the board in the economy because these are all increases in costs that are borne by the American consumer. The American consumer is not represented here in 

Washington by a specific spokesperson who can point to everything 

that is happening because it is spread broadly across consumers 

and across U.S. manufacturing. 

It is that increase in costs which means that essentially there is, 

that the consumer is bearing the cost of higher priced, I mean, 

when there is more labor involved in producing a car, that is a cost. 

That means the price of the new car is going up. That means either, I mean, there is more man hours per car but there are probably going to be less cars sold. We have seen that over and over 

again over the past couple of decades. 

If there are not cars sold, then people are spending more on cars 

and they have less money to spend on something else. That is what 

the effect is and that is the effect of the petroleum refineries going 

offshore as well. There is less for consumers, consumers have less 

real income, if you like, to buy things because they are paying for 

the higher costs of these environmental controls. Some are justified, some are not. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. All right, folks, I telegraphed my pitch. You are 

at the plate. It is a chance to hit one out of the park. 

Ms. Somson, do you want to go first? 

Ms. SOMSON. Certainly. Thank you, Senator. One thing I heard 

today that pleased me was that everybody is not just concerned 

about jobs but about good jobs and that good jobs are defined as 

high-paying jobs and jobs that provide benefits, which we see as 

pensions and healthcare. I am pleased that this is bipartisan and 

everybody on our panel seems to agree that that is a high value 

that we have to keep an eye on because, of course, we have a great 

concern about the loss of those jobs and the loss of the middle class. 

I think it is implicit that everybody cares about oil savings and 

that, of course, we are all better off if our vehicles, for examples, 

are more efficient. I would suggest an answer to Mr. Montgomery 

that, although it is true that the cost of the vehicle goes up, there 

are considerable savings to the consumer from the advanced technology vehicles. They pay less at the pump and that is money that 

they can take and spend elsewhere, which stimulates jobs. 

With respect to Mr. Montgomery saying that we would have 

fewer car sales if we were to have more regulations, I think, in 

fact, that the drop in car sales is because of the economy and the 

economy has led to such a high unemployment rate, so we are back 

again to jobs. 

So, if we all agree that we need jobs and good jobs, that we all 

benefit from oil savings and that we have some benefit, even if it 

might not be, we might argue over how great a benefit, to a 

healthier environment, I think everybody is really on the same 

page. If this led to having Congress, once again, take up comprehensive climate change legislation, we think that would be a 

wonderful thing. 
107 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. There is a lot of pent up 

demand for buying new cars, trucks and vans, and we have gone 

from a time a few years ago where we were buying in this country 

16 to 17 million units a year down to as little as 9 or 10 units. So, 

there is a lot of pent up demand. 

When the economy comes back, as the economy comes back, and 

people look at their old clunkers in their driveways and garages 

and out on the streets, well, one of the good things that is coming 

out of Detroit and other places too are far more energy efficient vehicles. So, hopefully, at a time when folks are looking for a new set 

of wheels, a lot of the sets of wheels that are available will be getting 30, 40, 50 miles per gallon, even 80 with that new Fisker and 

Chevrolet Volt. 

All right. Mayor. 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Thank you, Senator. I believe that we can 

all agree that we need to do what is in the best interests of the 

entire country in cleaning up our environment. But we also have 

to be very careful on what steps we take. You know, if the intent 

is to get away from burning coal, which is a very inexpensive resource, and move it toward natural gas or some other higher priced 

commodity, we have to be cautious because increased need will increase the costs of natural gas. 

People cannot afford to heat their homes with increased costs. 

They cannot afford their electricity if the electricity price is raised 

because of natural gas. They cannot afford—— 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry. I do not understand. You say if the 

electricity prices raise because of natural gas—— 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Because of the higher cost of natural gas. 

If you have an increased demand, natural gas is going to increase 

in costs. Then also—— 

Senator CARPER. I see demand is going up but the price is going 

down. I know that seems counterintuitive, but that is what is happening. 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Well, history shows that the more demand 

for a product, the more it is going to cost. 

Senator CARPER. Unless the supply expands, dramatically, and 

that—— 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Then you have to be wary of what is the 

fracking going to do to water supply, you know, there is whole myriad of problems associated with this. 

But several years ago, I believe the Chinese were bringing online 

one new coal-fired powerplant a week. No regulations. When they 

had the Olympics, they had to shut down two powerplants so the 

air could be cleaned up so they could have the Olympics which affected Dover Chemical, which one of their products is they need 

phosphate. 

Well, there were two places in the world that they could get 

phosphate, which was from China or Uzbekistan. Since they could 

not have the electricity to mine the phosphate, the Chinese raised 

the prices by 300 percent which put 60 employees of Dover Chemical out of work. 

I read a report last week about the beneficial effects of the Clean 

Air Act from 1990 to 2000 and what struck me as very interesting, 

it showed a map where all the pollution points were in the United 
108 

States, and yet it had Canada and Mexico with no points on the 

map. So, I was just wondering if pollution follows boundaries. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

A comment on that. I was born in West Virginia. My dad actually used to work in a coal mine for a while. So, I have a soft spot 

in my heart still for West Virginia and for the coal industry. I am 

not interested in putting coal out of business. What I am interested 

in doing is making sure if we burn it, we have a lot of it, as we 

burn it to create electricity that we just burn it in a far more, a 

far cleaner way, a far cleaner way. I will not go the other way because we need to close—— 

Mr. HOMRIGHAUSEN. Right. I think in order to do that we need 

to spend some serious dollars on clean coal technology, 

Senator CARPER. We have. Now what we need to do is to spend 

some serious dollars on implementing that technology that Alstom 

and others have. So, that is part of our challenge. 

All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Allen? Some closing thoughts? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, what I think what you heard is that everything 

is connected to everything else. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks very much. Mr. Montgomery? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. No, back to you, Mr. Allen. 

Mr. ALLEN. I also think that you heard a lot of different points 

of view struggling to understanding, coalesce around, the fundamental value proposition of environmental protection and, at some 

point, either you think that value is worth the cost or you do not. 

To the extent that markets can be used to do two things, to express 

the most efficient way to achieve the value if you believe it is there, 

and second to test how much consumers are willing to pay for it, 

then I think you have probably the right formula. 

Mr. Montgomery said almost exactly the same thing, if you think 

about it. He said that the costs, sooner or later, flow through to 

consumers. He is absolutely right. The question is do consumers 

want to pay for the value that they get from particularly clean air? 

I think we should leave that to them to decide. 

Senator CARPER. Going back to the example I used earlier between Dover, OH and Dover, DE, the consumers in, the folks who 

are going to benefit most from clean air from Dover, OH are folks 

in Dover, DE because of the transport of the emissions. The folks 

who are going to have to bear, or have been bearing for years, higher healthcare costs, are the people on the East Coast, the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast. Investments made, in some cases in the 

Midwest, will actually benefit those of use who live in the rest of 

our country, at least in the Eastern part of our country, because 

our healthcare costs are going to go down. 

It is hard for me to make an argument. I am trying to compete 

with a company that is thinking about putting jobs in Dover, OH 

or Dover, DE and they say well, look at the climate there, go to 

Dover, OH, they have cheaper electricity costs and their healthcare 

costs are lower. That is hard for me to compete with. We have actually, not to pick on Dover, we have actually had those battles and 

they are hard to win. 
109 

Mr. ALLEN. I guess I am in the camp of thinking we are all in 

this together. 

Senator CARPER. Good. All right. Thanks. 

Mr. Montgomery. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you. Well, I think the first thing we 

can probably all agree on is that Ms. Somson and I do not agree 

about the effects of regulation on the auto industry. I propose that 

the referee on that be a book by two economists at a more or less 

Democratic organization, the Brookings Institution, Pietro Nivola 

and Robert Crandall, who I would defer to on that subject, but I 

think that they support my point of view. 

I may be, again, overly optimistic, but I think that we all agree 

that in doing these, any of these environmental regulations, it 

would be very helpful if they are done in a way that their stringency and application and timing responds in a more or less automatic way to what we find out are the costs of doing things, that 

in many ways we are hearing that it is arbitrary schedules and arbitrary, you know, unit-specific requirements that are not something that are adjustable because of the costs you get the culpability of doing something. That is something really to be avoided. 

I would like to believe that that also makes us all agree that 

there are far better ways of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions 

that the Clean Air Act authorities of EPA. 

Finally, I would love to talk to you about TMDL trading in the 

Chesapeake because I think that one way we could deal with one 

of the Golden Rule problems is if Congress took up the subject of 

a six State trading system to improve the way in which the runoff 

is managed. But that is an entirely different subject. 

Senator CARPER. That is a good one. Maybe we can get Senator 

Cardin to join us in that conversation. 

Thanks. Thanks a lot. 

Mr. Yann. 

Mr. YANN. Thank you, Senator. I think we all believe in quality 

clean air and I think we all believe in quality jobs and I think we 

also believe that the market-based solutions provide the best option 

for addressing these issues. I think, quietly, I will end it at that. 

Senator CARPER. One of the questions that I think President 

George Herbert Walker Bush faced as he signed into the law the 

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments was how are going to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions? We had a real problem with acid rain at the 

time. We do not hear much about that anymore. I think they wrestled with the question of whether we were going to use a regulatory 

approach or try to harness market forces and use that approach. 

In the end, the approach of using market forces, some of us were 

skeptical as to whether that would actually work, turned out it 

worked pretty well and I am told we actually met our sulfur dioxide emission targets in about one-half the time that was anticipated and at about one-fifth the cost. Pretty impressive. 

I studied a little bit of economics at Ohio State and later after 

I got out of the Navy at the University of Delaware. I have always 

been fascinated by how to harness market forces to drive good public policy behaviors. So, I do not know who came up with that idea, 

Mr. Montgomery, you know, with acid rain, but I thought it was 
110 

very clever. Maybe sometime, somewhere along the way, we can 

find that to apply to other things. 

The other thing I want to say, Laura Haines, who is sitting right 

here over my left shoulder, hears me say this about every other 

day. I like to quote Albert Einstein. I am one of the few people here 

who does. But he used to say, in adversity lies opportunity. 

I am, by nature, an optimistic person. But I really think we face 

plenty of adversity these days, certainly not on the scale of what 

they face over in Japan right now, but we face plenty of adversity. 

I think our challenge as we deal with that adversity is to try to 

derive from it opportunity, to realize opportunity. God knows we 

need jobs here, we need good paying jobs, we need cleaner air, and 

we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, especially on oil, 

from other countries that are undemocratic and unstable. 

So, my hope is that we can figure out around here, the reason 

why, to try to work together and find consensus and that is the 

reason why I asked all of you to answer that last question was to 

maybe help plant some seeds for that consensus. 

So, we very much appreciate your preparation today, your participation today. Maybe if you are lucky, we will send you a couple 

of questions, not too many. We would ask you, if you get some of 

those, that you respond to them promptly. We would be most grateful. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thanks so much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m. the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Madam Chairman, we face a clear and present danger from Tea Party politicians 

who want to reward Big Polluters by crippling the EPA’s ability to enforce the Clean 

Air Act. The health benefits of the Clean Air Act—particularly for our children— 

are well-documented. Last year alone, the law prevented 1.7 million cases of childhood asthma and more than 160,000 premature deaths, according to EPA. But beyond its environmental and health benefits, the fact is this law is also a critical tool 

for our economy. 

For many years, I led a business that I co-founded with two friends—a New Jersey company that now employs 45,000 people in 23 countries. As any business person will tell you, virtually nothing is more important to a company’s productivity 

than the well-being of its employees. Clean air is essential to that well-being. When 

the air is dirty, health care costs climb and productivity plunges. Simply put—employees who can’t breathe are employees who can’t work. 

Last year, there were 13 million fewer lost work days in our country, thanks to 

the Clean Air Act. Make no mistake: As pollution levels have fallen, the U.S. economy has grown. Overall, the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are estimated 

at more than 30 times the cost of compliance. Our country’s gross domestic product—the value of all the goods and services we produce—is at least 1.5 percent higher today than it would have been without the Clean Air Act, according to research 

from Harvard University. 

This law is also an employment generator. The technology that our country has 

developed to combat air pollution has spawned thousands of jobs across a variety 

of industries. The environmental technology industry as a whole does more than 300 

billion dollars in business every year and has created 1.7 million jobs. America leads 

the world in the export of environmental products—all proudly stamped with the 

‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ label. But the Tea Party wants to ignore the Clean Air Act’s 

success. They want to ignore the Supreme Court and scientists at the EPA who 

agree the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. All so 

they can give a free pass to polluters. If this happens, we’ll see more employees calling in sick, more parents taking off work to care for asthmatic children, fewer clean 

energy jobs and fewer business opportunities for the environmental tech sector. 
111 

So I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about how we can defend the 

Clean Air Act—not decimate it—and continue using this historic law to protect public health, reduce our dependence on oil and produce more clean energy jobs in our 

country. 

Æ