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

88–797 PDF 2014

BENEFITS OF AND CHALLENGES TO ENERGY 

ACCESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ELECTRICITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Serial No. 113–121 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES

Edward S. Finley, Jr., Chairman, North Carolina Utilities Commission ........... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Bruce E. Biewald, Chief Executive Officer, Synapse Energy Economics ............ 66 

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

Supplement to prepared statement 1

Mel Coleman, Chief Executive Officer, Northern Arkanses Electric Cooperative ......................................................................................................................... 77 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Paul O’Brien, Vice President for Policy and Campaigns, Oxfam America ......... 86 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 

Todd J. Moss, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Fellow, Center for Global 

Development ......................................................................................................... 98 

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

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report, undated, ‘‘Climate Change Evidence & Causes: An overview from 

the Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,’’ submitted 

by Mr. Waxman 2

Statement of February 24, 2014, ‘‘What the Cold Snap Tells Us About EPA 

Carbon Rules,’’ Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, submitted by Mr. 

Whitfield ............................................................................................................... 140 

Letter of January 24, 2014, from Christopher M. Crane, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Exelon Corp., et al., to Regina A. McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Whitfield .......... 143 

Article, posted February 20, 2014, ‘‘Energy Access and the True Cost of 

Fossil Fuel Projects in Africa,’’ The Huffington Post, submitted by Mr. 

Whitfield ............................................................................................................... 149 

1 Internet link to the report ‘‘2013 Carbon Dioxide Price Forecast’’ is on 

page 77. 2 Internet link to the report is on page 124. 

(1) 

BENEFITS OF AND CHALLENGES TO ENERGY 

ACCESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ELECTRICITY 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus, Terry, 

Latta, Olson, McKinley, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, 

McNerney, Tonko, Green, Barrow, Matsui, Christensen, Castor, 

and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte Baker, 

Press Secretary; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Allison 

Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Tom 

Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy 

Counsel; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; 

Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst; Bruce Ho, Democratic Counsel; Alexandra Teitz, Democratic Senior Counsel, Environment and Energy; and Kate Istoll, Democratic Fellow. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call the hearing to order this 

morning and certainly want to thank the witnesses for being with 

us today. 

This morning, we do begin a new hearing series entitled ‘‘Benefits of and Challenges to Energy Access in the 21st Century.’’ And 

today’s hearing will focus on electricity access, and the next hearing will deal with fuel supply and infrastructure issues. 

Now, when we talk about access to electricity, in America we are 

fortunate that we have a well-developed system, but many of us 

are genuinely concerned that the Obama administration is pushing 

us so quickly, so fast into a renewable mode, and the President 

says that he supports an all-of-the-above energy policy, which all 

of us do support. But his actions indicate that certainly on coal he 

does not see that coal really has a future in America, despite what 

he might say. 

And most people recognize, I think, that Europe at least has the 

reputation of being the green sector of the world, and 22 percent 

2 

of their electricity comes from renewables. But we also know that 

they are having great difficulty. They have an unemployment rate 

of 12 percent, gas prices are so high that they mothballed 30 

gigawatts of natural gas-powered plants to produce electricity, and 

last year, they imported into their area about 50 percent of our coal 

export market. And they are using more coal because natural gas 

prices are too high. 

And I think realistically in America we don’t think anyone is 

going to build a new coal-powered power plant with natural gas 

prices as low as they are, but most of us genuinely believe that we 

should have the option to build a coal-powered plant in the future. 

And with the greenhouse gas regulations that will become final 

supposedly this summer, it will be impossible to build a new coalpowered plants because the technology is not available to meet the 

emissions standards set by EPA. And we feel very strongly and 

have written letters to EPA asking for an explanation, that their 

emissions standard was set illegally because the plants that they 

rely on is an explicit violation of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. 

And I think that this recent cold spell should also cause concern 

for all of us. The CEO of AEP announced that 89 percent of their 

plants in operation to meet this cold spell demand are scheduled 

to be retired in 2015. Southern Company, 75 percent of their coal 

plants, operating at capacity for this recent cold spell, plan to be 

retired. Luminant brought two coal-fired plants back into operation 

in Texas for this cold spell. TVA set an electricity demand record 

during this cold spell and they are planning to close 20 coal-fired 

plants. The nuclear companies have written us letters saying that 

the pending cooling tower regulation coming out of EPA threatens 

the premature shutdown of a significant number of nuclear power 

plants. 

So, on the one hand, you talk to people and they say, well, climate change is the number one issue and that has got to be addressed. On the other hand, if people’s reliability is threatened and 

if we can’t compete in a global marketplace because we are eliminating one source of fuel that we might be able to use in the future, 

then we are threatening jobs and the economy. 

But one of the most disturbing things from my perspective is 

that the Obama administration is being so aggressive in making 

sure that the World Bank and even they attempted—the Ex-Im 

Bank and the Asian Development Bank and other financial institutions will not provide funding for a coal plant to be built anywhere 

in the world. We have people from Bangladesh coming to talk to 

us, people from Africa. I was reading in Nigeria half the people 

there don’t even have electricity. 

So this administration, not only are their regulations affecting us 

domestically, but they are affirmatively, aggressively trying to prevent the building of a new coal-powered plant even with the best 

technology anywhere in the world even though in those areas what 

they are burning now is fuel oil using generators that is much 

dirtier than emissions from a supercritical coal plant, for example. 

So these are issues that we are struggling with and they have 

got to be answered. We can’t just run off, as John Kerry said recently in Indonesia, that climate change is the mass destruction 

3 

weapon facing mankind. I think that kind of extreme view is not 

good or healthy. 

My time is expired, and I was just getting started. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

Today’s hearing will focus on electricity access, and the next hearing will deal 

with fuel supply and infrastructure issues. The unusually cold weather we have recently experienced across the Nation underscores the importance of affordable and 

reliable electricity. 

Nonetheless, under the Obama administration electricity access is being jeopardized by a number of already finalized or pending measures raising its cost. This includes pending global warming-related regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Regardless of intention, I believe any policy that increases the price of energy 

runs a serious risk of doing more harm than good. And the first victims of misguided measures are the least fortunate in society, both here in the U.S. and around 

the world. 

EPA’s rules threaten electric reliability as well as affordability. EPA’s rules are 

contributing to an unprecedented number of coal plant shutdowns that will occur 

in the next few years as environmental regulations take effect. Taking coal out of 

the equation means that America’s most abundant source of baseload electricity will 

have a diminishing role. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s most 

recent Long-Term Reliability Assessment and other studies have raised serious concerns about electric reliability in the near future. Among the EPA rules contributing 

to reliability problems are the Mercury and Air Toxics, or ‘‘Utility MACT,’’ rule, that 

is accelerating the pace of coal-fired power plant retirements, and the proposed 

greenhouse gas New Source Performance Standards for power plants that would effectively ban any new coal from coming online. To address the latter, we need to 

enact H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act, in order to keep new 

coal in our energy future. 

America’s growing natural gas abundance is clearly a blessing, but the recent cold 

spells demonstrate that there are limits to the ability of natural gas to replace coal. 

In fact, it was necessary to increase the use of coal-fired generation to get us 

through the periods of high demand brought on by the very cold temperatures. This 

included many coal facilities scheduled to shut down in the next 2 years. We should 

look at this winter as an early warning that reliability is at risk. 

Now I might add that it is not even necessary to be a global warming skeptic to 

be a skeptic of these policies. Even EPA administrator Gina McCarthy admitted to 

this committee that none of her agency’s costly global warming rules would make 

a measurable difference. In other words, the Obama energy agenda is all economic 

pain for no environmental gain. 

And the pain will fall disproportionately on the poor, who are least able to handle 

higher electric bills. The unemployed are also hurt, as higher electricity costs slow 

the pace of job creation, and the war on coal is eliminating job opportunities in 

many communities. 

The damage around the world from the administration’s climate policies could be 

even worse. 1.2 billion people still don’t have access to electricity. The last thing 

they need imposed on them is a costly climate agenda that puts the dream of electrification even further out of reach. 

For this reason, I am particularly disappointed by the administration’s opposition 

to financing for new state-of-the-art new coal-fired power plants in developing countries, and I’m perplexed by the President’s insistence that he supports the goal of 

increased electricity access while also pursuing an uncompromising global warming 

agenda that effectively deprives people of such access. 

Unfortunately, those seeking to advance a global warming agenda lose sight of the 

things that really matter. Today, we will refocus on what really matters—ensuring 

affordable and reliable energy for as many people as possible. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from 

California, Mr. McNerney, for an opening statement. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the chairman. I want to thank the 

witnesses for coming out here today despite the weather and whatever other obstacles you may have had. I just want to say a little 

rebuttal to the chairman, who I have a great respect for. 

Coal does have a future in this country but we need to implement carbon capture and sequestration technology and develop 

that technology, which would be a benefit to the coal industry. That 

being said, electricity and energy production and our environment 

are interconnected and it is essential that we continue efforts to 

produce energy in a responsible way. We know, as has been confirmed by the world’s leading scientists, that climate change is happening and that human activities, including burning fossil fuels, 

are driving this change. 

We have also seen that climate change threatens our electricity 

system itself and our economy through impacts like droughts like 

the one we are now having in California, where water accounts for 

about 15 percent of our total power supply. This drought has disrupted hydroelectric dams and forced utility companies to purchase 

electricity from other sources that is up to three times more expensive than hydro. 

Severe weather events, disasters, polar vortices, and large 

wildfires also pose additional strains to our electricity system. As 

a result, when considering electricity access in the coming years, 

we must consider climate change. Energy efficiency demand response, grid resiliency, reliability measures and modernization 

could all help to mitigate and prepare for the climate impacts that 

scientists tell us are coming. Addressing electric enhancements and 

vulnerabilities that providers are more capable of preparing for and 

responding to our energy needs during extreme weather events and 

also boost our economy by creating manufacturing jobs and encouraging innovation. 

Our Nation generates electricity from a variety of sources; 39 

percent comes from coal, 29 percent from natural gas, 19 percent 

from nuclear, and 13 percent from renewable sources. Renewable 

energy capacity alone has surpassed 90 gigawatts and is becoming 

more competitive with fossil fuels every year. In this committee, we 

have talked about American efforts to curb carbon pollution and 

greenhouse gas emissions and how that parallels the energy policies of other nations. 

The U.S. should lead by example. We can show other countries 

that we are more environmentally responsible to meet our energy 

needs. Coal will remain a component of our Nation’s energy infrastructure but we can show that there are ways to make it cleaner. 

For example, there will be plants online this year both in the 

United States and Canada where CCS technology will significantly 

reduce coal’s carbon pollution. We are also seeing the potential benefits of microgrids where consumers may be better able to handle 

energy needs. When wildfires take down a power line, the 

microgrid system can provide additional power back to the utility. 

The International Energy Agency estimates that by 2020, developing countries will double their electricity power output. There 

5 

will be regions where new centralized power plants make sense 

economically and that it is appropriate for existing infrastructure. 

However, microgrids could and should be essential to bringing 

power to many developing regions. That is because connecting a remote community to a conventional power grid with its large, centralized power plants is expensive and could take more than a decade. 

Building and combining power from multiple local sources can be 

cheaper, more secure, and faster than extending the grid to remote 

areas. This type of distributed generation also typically relies less 

on carbon-intensive energy sources. 

With that, I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ testimony and 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. McNerney. 

And at this time, Mr. Upton was going to make a 5-minute opening statement and we will submit it for the record, but he is not 

here today. 

So is there anyone on our side of the aisle that would like to 

make a statement? 

I know that Members of Congress always like to speak. I saw 

Mr. Waxman coming in so I was trying to stress that someone talk 

on our side, but at this time I recognize Mr. Waxman for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of 

the opening statement-makers. 

I want to say we are having a hearing on electricity access. Access to affordable, reliable electricity is fundamental to our economy. It is a subject we should be working together to address, especially since much of our current electricity infrastructure is decades 

old and will need to be replaced or upgraded in the coming years. 

According to the Edison Foundation, these investments will cost 

over $1 trillion over the next two decades. But we can’t have an 

honest discussion about the future of the electricity system unless 

we talk about climate change. Until we have an energy policy that 

acknowledges the reality of climate change, the utility industry will 

operate in a perpetual state of uncertainty. 

Outside of Congress, there is a broad agreement that climate 

change is the most significant issue facing our energy system and 

infrastructure needs. On Monday, the CEO of the Nation’s largest 

railroad, Matthew Rose, called for an energy policy that recognizes 

the reality of climate change. On Tuesday, David Crane, the CEO 

of the Nation’s second-largest power generator, said that climate 

change is the most serious threat to the future of the world. 

These CEOs operate in the real world, so unlike this committee, 

they know the value of listening to scientists. And scientists know 

that climate change is occurring in that human activities such as 

burning fossil fuels are largely responsible. The most recent report 

from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which assessed nearly 10,000 peer-reviewed studies, concludes that ‘‘warmVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:20 Jul 25, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-121 EA - ELECTRICITY SCAN REQ 7-23-14\113-121 ELECTRICITY PENDING WAY
6 

ing in the climate system is unequivocal,’’ and ‘‘human influence on 

the climate system is clear.’’ 

And yes, yesterday, the Royal Society in the United Kingdom and 

our own National Academy of Sciences jointly briefed this committee to reiterate that it is now more certain than ever that humans are changing Earth’s climate and that these changes will 

have serious impacts on humans, society, and the natural world. 

Energy, economic disparity, and the climate are intertwined. The 

rest of the world knows this. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon 

calls climate change an existential threat. And World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said that unless we address the climate 

change, ‘‘we could witness the rolling back of decades of development gains and force tens of millions more to live in poverty.’’ And 

President Kim said point-blankly, ‘‘if we don’t confront climate 

change, we won’t end poverty.’’ We need to face this reality if we 

are going to design an energy policy that protects our environment, 

grows our economy, and gives companies the certainty they need. 

Electricity system investments cost hundreds of millions and 

often billions of dollars and are expected to last for decades. It 

makes no sense to build this infrastructure without considering its 

effects on the climate and the effect of climate change on our energy systems. Much of American industry knows this. Even 

ExxonMobil screens investments using a price on carbon of $60 per 

ton. Most other major oil companies assume carbon prices as well. 

Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo, Delta, GE, Google, DuPont all are using a 

price on carbon to guide their decisions. 

As we will hear from one of our witnesses today, Synapse, even 

utility companies are assuming carbon prices in their planning. According to a recent survey, ‘‘carbon pricing has been standard operating practice in business planning.’’ But it is still an anathema 

even to discuss the idea in this committee. We need to stop denying 

science and start listening to the scientists and enlightened business leaders if we are going to succeed in crafting a sustainable energy policy for the future. 

For the information of our witnesses and our guests at this hearing today, despite repeated requests to have a hearing with scientists, we haven’t even gotten a response to that request, let alone 

a hearing, so we have a woeful ignorance in this committee of the 

reality of what is happening in the world today as we look at energy policy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. 

And that concludes our opening statements, and so once again, 

I want to welcome the witnesses and thank you for being with us 

today. We have a distinguished group of panelists that will provide 

great insights into this issue that we are talking about, energy access and the benefits and challenges of that. 

Our first witness this morning—and I will introduce all of you 

and then we will go back—but we are delighted to have Mr. Edward Finley, who is the chairman of the North Carolina Utilities 

Commission. Mr. Finley, thank you for being with us. We have Mr. 

Bruce Biewald, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Synapse Energy Economics. We have Mr. Mel Coleman, who is the chief executive officer of the Northern Arkansas Electric Cooperative. We have 

7 

Mr. Paul O’Brien, who is the Vice President for Policy and Campaigns at Oxfam America. And then we have Dr. Todd Moss, who 

is the chief operating officer and senior fellow at the Center for 

Global Development. 

So thank all of you for being with us, and each of you will be 

given 5 minutes for an opening statement and then we will open 

it up for questions. 

So, Mr. Finley, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF EDWARD S. FINLEY, JR., CHAIRMAN, NORTH 

CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION; BRUCE E. BIEWALD, 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SYNAPSE ENERGY ECONOMICS; 

MEL COLEMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NORTHERN ARKANSAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; PAUL O’BRIEN, VICE 

PRESIDENT FOR POLICY AND CAMPAIGNS, OXFAM AMERICA; 

AND TODD J. MOSS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD S. FINLEY, JR. 

Mr. FINLEY. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Whitfield and 

Ranking Member McNerney and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on 

the important of affordable and reliable electricity in North Carolina. 

By far the most difficult aspect of my job is to conduct public 

hearings at which consumers appear and implore us commissioners 

to reject utility requests to raise rates. The testimony is often 

poignant and heartrending. If you approve this request, I will be 

unable to pay both the power bill and to pay for medicine that I 

need. We listen to testimony for hours at a time in hearings from 

one end of our State to the other. In the end, we nevertheless grant 

at least a percentage of the requested increases because the utilities must maintain their financial health to provide reasonably 

priced electricity over the long-term and maintain reliable and safe 

service. 

Electric utility rate increases in recent years have been driven 

primarily by plant construction expenses, a new supercritical coal 

plant to replace older, less efficient ones, new gas plants constructed for the same reason. More stringent environmental regulations have been a major catalyst. 

Our State, its legislature, the electric and gas utilities, and its 

regulators have acted responsibly in efforts to improve the environment while minimizing financial hardship on the State’s citizens 

that have been hit hard by the recession. Since 2002, we have 

spent billions on environmental control facilities, coal-to-gas conversion, incentives for renewables, demand response, and energy 

efficiency measures. 

By 2015, our electric utilities will have retired all of their uncontrolled coal plants. However, rules requiring removal of carbon 

from the remaining smokestacks will prove a challenge for us. We 

have no place for the repositories. 

In 2007, the legislature enacted the first renewable energy portfolio standard in the southeast. It calls for 12.5 percent of electric 

sales to be from renewables and energy efficiency by 2021. For 

8 

Duke Energy, demand-side management and energy efficiency is 

projected to meet one-third of the projected demand growth over 

the next 15 years, and for Progress Energy, 20 percent. 

We have followed an all-of-the-above policy thinking that is best. 

We have been able to balance the requirements to keep energy 

prices affordable while anticipating assisting to formulate and to 

comply with the rules to protect and improve the environment. We 

believe this approach is best. It is usually done in an adversarial 

context where we hear strong arguments from both sides. That 

seems to be how our energy policy is addressed these days. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Finley follows:] 

9 

10 

11 

12 

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 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Finley. 

And, Mr. Biewald, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE E. BIEWALD 

Mr. BIEWALD. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman 

Whitfield, members of the U.S. Subcommittee on Energy and 

Power. 

My name is Bruce Biewald. I am President and CEO of Synapse 

Energy Economics. We are a research and consulting firm specializing in electricity, energy, economic, environmental topics. We do 

work largely in the States before commissions such as North Carolina related to utility planning. 

So I believe that climate change and carbon emissions from the 

electric sector can be addressed in the U.S. without threatening reliability, without large electricity price bill increases to customers, 

and in a way that creates net jobs in our economy. 

I am here today to focus in particular on the planning practices 

in the States. Many utilities are placing dollar values on CO2. Carbon dioxide emissions are priced in utility planning processes in 

the States. It has become increasingly commonplace. So that is 

what I am focused on. 

I did a report in November 2013, which is online. I think it is 

actually attached to my comments here. And it reviews Federal 

and State policies related to CO2 and then summarizes utility forecast of CO2 prices. So electric utilities, they are making very important resource decisions, very capital-intensive, long-lived resource 

decisions, and as part of that, they present the basis for those decisions before regulatory commissions in the States. They forecast 

CO2 prices, they forecast fossil fuel prices, they forecast capital 

costs for their resource alternatives. 

So I have a slide here today. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see 

at this scale, but it summarizes 30-some forecasts of CO2 prices by 

utilities. 

[The information follows:] 

67 

68 

Mr. BIEWALD. So we have got, for example, Duke Energy in the 

Carolinas as a forecast I think in the middle of the pack. There we 

have got Entergy in Arkansas. In their planning they use four CO2

price forecasts—well, they use zero for certain cases. They also look 

at a price of $25 per ton in 2017 in one of the sets of scenarios that 

they look at. So Entergy has a carbon price in their forecasts. In 

Arkansas, the Electric Cooperative Corporation has a CO2 price. 

They look at $0, $10, and $20 for purposes of the latest plan. 

So, you know, utilities around the country, including what are 

represented here through their regulators or executives, are forecasting CO2 prices and planning on that basis. They are able to do 

this and the average of the prices shown there for 2025 is $16 per 

short ton of CO2. So that is kind of a summary of a lot of complicated information. 

The links to all the IRPs are provided in the appendix to my 

written submission here. 

So I want to say that there are carbon prices I think coming in 

the future in the United States that affect power plants. Utilities 

are recognizing that. They are able to recognize that and plan to 

serve their customers reliably at reasonable cost and, you know, to 

the benefit of the local and U.S. total economies. 

Energy efficiency is available. Utilities that are investing in energy efficiency are seeing prices of 2 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. 

It is extremely attractive. In much of the country, particularly the 

middle from the Dakotas down to Texas, wind energy last year was 

coming in at prices of 2 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. 

In contrast, natural gas generation, you know, all in is, you 

know, 6 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour and the coal-fired power 

plants that we have been discussing, whether they are new coalfired—well, existing coal-fired power plants with the upgrades that 

are required are at prices significantly above that typically. It varies by region; it varies by plant. It is important for utilities and 

regulators and others to roll up their sleeves, look at the details, 

and make sound long-term planning decisions. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Biewald follows:] 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

The report ‘‘2013 Carbon Dioxide Price Forecast’’ is available at 

http://www.synadpse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapseReport.2013- 

11.0.2013-Carbon-Forecast.13-098.pf. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Coleman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MEL COLEMAN 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, thank you for 

inviting me to testify today on the benefits and challenges to electric energy access in the 21st century. I am Mel Coleman. I am 

here only as CEO of North Arkansas Electric Cooperative and my 

main concern are my 35,000 accounts that I have. 

We strive each and every day to improve the quality of life. That 

is the business we are in. We have 28,000 members, 35,000 connects. We purchase our power from Arkansas Electric Cooperative 

Corporation, which is our cooperatively owned wholesale power 

supplier. 

We have an obligation, Mr. Chairman, to provide a reliable supply of electricity, plain and simply, providing that to our member 

consumers at the lowest possible price. This job is not easy today 

based on the new and ongoing challenges that we face. One such 

challenge is the heavy infrastructure investment that is associated 

with serving rural service territories. Co-ops serve very diverse 

communities with sharp economic and geographical differences 

with service territories that are sparsely populated. I have a density, sir, of 7.4 meters per mile where the average across the 

United States is 33.3. So our costs are a lot more than most co-ops 

and most utilities will see. The legacy of rural electrification and 

the obligation to serve the last mile results in higher maintenance 

costs as compared to our industry counterparts. 

On top of our infrastructure challenge, we serve some of the 

neediest Arkansans. As with most rural areas, North Arkansas is 

economically depressed with limited economic opportunities for our 

members. All six counties that my co-op serves has an average poverty rate of 19.15 percent, well above the national average, and a 

median household income of $32,000, well below the national average. Rural consumers are more dependent upon electricity to meet 

their household energy needs than those living in urban and suburban households. Contributing factors are higher electric usage in 

rural areas and the prevalence of single-family detached unit 

homes, as well as energy inefficient manufactured housing. So it 

stands to reason that increased electricity costs have a disproportionate impact on rural consumers. 

Recently, consumers have been hit with the double whammy of 

increased costs and higher rates due to the recent cold snap. Not 

even a southern State like Arkansas was immune. Our electric coops set new peaks for winter power consumption with this being 

the coldest winter the State has experienced in 20 years. High demand for electricity and natural gas, along with localized gas supply disruptions, force the grid to rely heavily on coal generation to 

meet the power needs this winter. 

I hope we can all take a lesson from these events and appreciate 

the stability of coal pricing as a hedge against natural gas-priced 

78 

volatility. Our coal-based generation resources protected Arkansas’ 

electric cooperative member consumers from the full effect of the 

recent spike in natural gas prices. This winter proves that such a 

move to shut down coal plants and EPA’s goal of shutting down 

coal plants would jeopardize reliable and affordable electricity for 

my members. 

Unfortunately, EPA’s proposed standard to limit carbon dioxide 

emissions from new coal units will require carbon dioxide capture 

technology that is costly and is not viable on a commercial scale, 

effectively removing new coal generation as a hedge against future 

natural gas price spikes. EPA’s climate regulations may well be the 

greatest threat facing our industry. We are extremely concerned 

that EPA will propose a standard to existing coal plants this summer that will threaten the viability of our existing coal fleet, resulting in increased cost to our members and undermine the reliability 

of the Nation’s power grid. 

My cooperative, members of the committee, is not in the electric 

business. We are in the life improvement business. Our partnership with NRECA’s international program has only confirmed my 

sentiments about our commitment to quality of life. To see what 

rural America was like before rural electrification, all you need to 

do is visit a Third World country. 

I hear old-timers talk about the day the lights came on but I 

didn’t experience that day. I was fortunate to be part of an electrification project in the remote areas of northwest Guatemala. 

Last year, I saw the lights come on for the first time for people. 

As the electrons flowed for the first time, so did the tears of all who 

witnessed. That was the beginning of the quality of life for those 

villagers, and in their face, I saw our grandparents and felt what 

they experienced in our country 75 years ago. That is what we 

have to protect. Electricity is the foundation of our quality of life, 

and we must never forget that. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:] 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thanks, Mr. Coleman. 

And, Mr. O’Brien, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL O’BRIEN 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks, Ranking 

Member McNerney, for your comments and for inviting us here. 

Oxfam America is part of a collaboration of 17 affiliates, and we 

work in 90 countries around the world, kind of in the same business as Mr. Coleman, trying to improve lives. And those were 

touching reflections and we have experienced those ourselves. We 

see energy poverty and what it means to people on the ground all 

over the world where we work. I lived in Afghanistan for 5 years 

and I saw the same thing. I saw micro hydro dams turn on electricity for girls who were able to do schoolwork for the first time. 

In Sudan, I saw pumps that electricity was allowing water to come 

out. Women no longer had to walk through insecure areas. It literally changed their lives, may have saved them. East Africa in 

more remote areas I saw what refrigerated electricity can do for 

the medicines that rural communities and remote places can have 

and health clinics work all day long. 

But we have seen something else happening in the last few years 

that we are also trying to work on on the ground, and that is the 

devastating impacts of climate change for poor communities. We 

feel that they are the ones who face it first and worst. They are 

20 times more likely to face a climate disaster in their lifetimes 

than the non-poor. 

So what has that meant for us? Well, it means two big things. 

One, it means that we as Oxfam have to spend a lot more time trying to help people to be food secure in an increasingly insecure environment. We work in places like Mali, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Senegal 

to help farmers develop resilience practices so that they can cope 

with unpredictable weather. We have watched in the last few years 

food price spikes. And of course these are far worse for poor people 

because they are spending 70 percent of their income on food. So 

corn may not be at all-time high now but it was just a couple of 

years ago, and our estimates and our research tells us that corn 

is going to double in cost in real terms over the next 20 years due 

to climate change. 

The other big thing we see besides food insecurity is climate-related disasters. We have worked with victims of flooding in places 

like Pakistan and Bangladesh. We have helped communities recover from coastal incursions by extreme weather in the Gulf Coast 

of the United States, in Haiti, and very recently, in the Philippines. 

In the next 40 years, we estimate that somewhere between 150 

million and 1 billion people are going to be displaced by climate 

change. The U.S. is already one of the most generous and effective 

responders to disasters around the world, but are we going to be 

able to cope? Already, today, we are dealing with south Sudan, 

Syria, the Philippines, the Central African Republic. What are we 

going to do when climate exacerbates the breadth and depth of the 

disasters that we face? And this isn’t just about the people on the 

ground that Oxfam America and others like us care about. It is 

also about all of the security and political unrest that comes when 

you face those kinds of disasters. What are we going to do? 

87 

Something different must be done to deal with these two challenges of energy poverty which is real on the one hand, as we have 

spoken about, but also of climate-related poverty. And just to be 

clear, Oxfam America does not oppose fossil fuel extraction. We 

worked for 10 years to make sure that the monies from oil, minerals, and gas that developing countries are getting, and they are 

getting it—goes towards poverty reduction. 

I just want to put this in numerical context. Globally, there is 

about $130 billion spent every year on AIDS to help people living 

in poverty mostly in developing countries. At the same time, there 

is $2 trillion of private investment going into developing countries. 

And there is $6 trillion of government investment being spent in 

developing countries. The question that is before us is not whether 

we should decide the fate of fossil fuel industries in Africa and 

other places. That is going to happen anyway. The question is 

whether we should be taking precious U.S. payer tax dollars and 

using it to invest in fossil fuels. And we believe that that is not the 

way forward if the interests of the poor in those countries is the 

center of the equation. 

So today, the Electrify Africa Act is being marked up by the 

House Foreign Affairs Committee and we, Oxfam, and many organizations like us are advocating that the Act adhere to three core 

principles around access. First, it should be prioritizing access and 

not just production. Secondly, let’s remember that at the end of the 

day whether communities and countries have viable access to electricity is going to be the responsibility of their governments, and 

everything we do should weaken, not undermine, those governments. Whether we like it or not, they are going to be responsible 

for maintenance and for ensuring that revenues are connected to 

sustain their energy economies. 

And finally, we believe that the Act should be prioritizing renewable energy development. And just a couple quick comments on 

why. First, we believe that fossil fuels do not internalize the actual 

cost of their production, their cost to communities, their cost to 

countries, their cost to the planet. If they did, we believe that they 

are actually far more expensive than renewable energies. Secondly, 

we know where the poor are living, and although some will say 

that the numbers around urban poor are high, maybe as high as 

200 million, we don’t think it is that high. Even in a place like Africa, most people, 400 million, are living in rural areas where you 

cannot access them with centralized grid planning. You need minigrids. You need off-grid plans. 

I watched in Afghanistan in the early—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. O’Brien, excuse me a minute. I have let you 

go over a minute and 15 seconds—— 

Mr. O’BRIEN. OK. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. So if you could just summarize. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. I will close with one sentence. Renewable energy 

costs, we believe they are going down and we would like more creativity and innovation by the United States. 

But thank you, Mr. Chairman—— 

88 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. O’BRIEN [continuing]. For allowing me the time, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Brien follows:] 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Dr. Moss, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TODD J. MOSS 

Mr. MOSS. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, and other members 

of the subcommittee. 

Energy access is increasingly relevant to American business and 

U.S. foreign policy interests, especially in the fast-growing emerging markets. As a development policy scholar at the nonpartisan 

Center for Global Development and a former State Department official, I am going to focus this morning on the international dimensions and what the U.S. really can and should be doing about it. 

I have three points this morning. One, the energy gaps are huge 

and very harmful; second, the U.S. can and should be a leader in 

expanding energy access abroad; and three, to succeed, we have to 

be honest about how our policy choices may have the practical effect of denying power to the world’s poorest. 

First, more than 1 billion people today live without electricity. 

Turning on a light, heating our homes, using a computer or a 

fridge are things that we in the United States view as simple conveniences of modern life. In Africa, as we have heard, some 600 

million people, almost twice the population of the United States, 

live with no electricity at all. Even those with access to power use 

an absolute fraction of the power that we do. 

I was recently shopping for a new refrigerator with my son, who 

is here with me today, and I was reading those little yellow ENERGY STAR tags, and my new fridge uses five times power per 

year than the average person in Tanzania or Liberia. 

This lack of electricity is devastating to both lives and livelihoods. Without electricity, people are forced to cook with wood and 

charcoal. This creates indoor air pollution, which then leads to premature death. The best global estimate we have is that there are 

3 1⁄2 million premature deaths every year from indoor air pollution, 

so energy poverty kills more people than AIDS and malaria combined. The effect on jobs and economic growth is stifling. World 

Bank data show that the lack of affordable and reliable electricity 

is the top constraint to business expansion in Africa. 

Second point, the U.S. Government has a very vital role to play 

in closing this energy gap. African governments are prioritizing 

electricity estimates. European countries, China, and other nations 

are increasing their commitment to energy access and it is time for 

the U.S. to play its part, too. In our own history, our government 

has been fundamental in the expansion of electricity to underserved areas and ensuring that American industry has sufficient 

and affordable energy to be competitive. This policy had both a 

human face and was pro-growth. 

Last June, President Obama launched Power Africa. This very 

promising initiative supports a doubling of energy access in the 

continent. Ordinarily, the agency best positioned to lead this effort, 

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or OPIC, is hamstrung by outdated policies and legislation. This little-known but 

high-performing agency supports the American private sector 

through insurance and project finance, not aid. This is commercial 

99 

finance. And what OPIC needs is not more money but they need 

more authorities and flexibility to fulfill their mission. 

Fortunately, the Electrify Africa Act introduced last year by 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Royce and Ranking 

Member Engel is being marked up today. Congressional action is 

important because it will power OPIC and provide a foundation so 

these efforts outlive the current administration. 

Momentum in Congress is encouraging, yet just as the U.S. is 

pushing expanded access, other policies are adding restrictions on 

financing for natural gas and even hydropower. This comes unfortunately at just the moment when many African countries are discovering natural gas and understandably they want to use some of 

those resources to produce electricity at home. Indeed, all six of the 

Power Africa focus countries are either producing or exploring for 

oil and gas today. 

Ghana, a close U.S. ally, is a good example. Ghana wants to use 

its newly discovered natural gas to expand access and grow its industry. If the U.S. is limited in our ability to assist, and many advocacy groups concerned about greenhouse gas emissions are pushing to prevent any gas-fired power plants in Ghana, as we consider 

our position, it is worth noting in the United States we have over 

3,400 fossil fuel plants. Ghana has two. 

My final point is that we cannot wish away these tradeoffs of our 

energy policy choices. An emphasis on clean technology is a very 

good idea where it is feasible and it deserves active U.S. support, 

but the scale of the problem is so great that those approaches will 

simply not be enough. People living without power are not all in 

isolated villages. As we have heard from Mr. O’Brien, some 200 

million Africans living without electricity are in cities and towns. 

Connecting these fast-growing urban areas will require more largescale generation and expanding the grid. 

Even in rural areas in Africa, people are not as spread out as 

some people imagine. In Kenya, only 20 percent of the population 

has access to power, but a careful study by the University of California Berkeley shows that 75 percent of the population lives within a mile of an existing transmission line. 

Solar lamps, also very popular, it is a fine invention, but consumer demand is going to be much greater than having a single 

light bulb and a cell phone charger. No country would rationally 

accept solar lamps in lieu of a modern energy system that can generate jobs and growth. 

A final common mistake is assuming that universal energy access can be achieved entirely through renewables. Instead, there is 

a clear tradeoff between strictly focusing on renewables and expanding access. My colleague Ben Leo and I estimate that allowing 

OPIC to invest in natural gas power projects could provide, for the 

exact same money, access for 60 million more people over a renewables-only strategy. At the very least, we should make an exception 

to any public financing restrictions for the poorest countries with 

the least emissions. 

To conclude, no one would openly argue that we should fight climate change on the back of the world’s poor, but we must be very 

careful not to burden the poorest nations with romantic notions of 

an energy future that does not yet exist. If an all-of-the-above apVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:20 Jul 25, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\113-121 EA - ELECTRICITY SCAN REQ 7-23-14\113-121 ELECTRICITY PENDING WAY
100 

proach is good enough for the United States, how can we in good 

conscience stand in the way of the world’s poorest countries using 

locally available energy sources to provide electricity for their own 

people? 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moss follows:] 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Moss, and thank 

all of you for your testimony. 

You know, your testimony raised some great issues because 

while we do have many problems in America as we make this transition—and I still maintain we are transitioning too quickly to renewables—but basically, you have America and Europeans and 

wealthy nations dictating to developing nations on exactly what 

kind of energy they are going to have. 

And, of course, Mr. O’Brien, in your testimony, I mean Oxfam 

has a great reputation. In your testimony you talked a lot about 

climate change, and obviously, whenever you talk about this issue, 

you have got to talk about climate change. And I want to read an 

article that I read just recently about the most recent AR5 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

which says it acknowledged that the lack of warming since 1998— 

there has been a lack of warming since 1998—and there are growing discrepancies between observations in reality and the climate 

model projections. There is evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, evidence that 

the sea level rise during 1920 to 1950 was the same as 1998 to 

2012, and that the Antarctic ice mass is increasing, also, that types 

of weather extremes were worse in the ’30s and even in the ’50s 

than they are today. 

And there are a large group of scientists who are saying because 

so much of CO2 emissions are natural, that is having a much greater impact certainly than manmade. So none of us question the concern about greenhouse gas-enhanced climate change, but we should 

not be such alarmists, and the international news media I think is 

contributing to this because we need to start acknowledging that 

there are some real discrepancies in these model projections and 

the reality, as is pointed out in this AR5 assessment report that 

was issued in the fall by the IPCC. 

So here we are talking about we have got these financial institutions under pressure from the Obama administration dictating on 

what the electricity is going to be produced from in these developing countries. And I mean that is a concern that you expressed 

also, Dr. Moss. 

But anyway, one of the questions I wanted to ask you, Mr. Coleman, I mentioned in my opening statement about how, with this 

cold spell that we had, and we had Southern Company, we had 

AEP, we had Luminant, we had even the nuclear plants talking 

about the impact of these regulations, and 89 percent of the AEP 

coal fleet is going to go down, Southern Company, 75 percent that 

was operating at capacity is going to go down, all because of these 

regulations. 

And many of us are concerned about when you have spells like 

this, the renewables, I mean how can you just meet your requirements with reliability without these plants? Would you just comment on that for me? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the short answer is 

we can’t. Baseload generation are our fossil fuel plants. And I will 

give you a disclaimer; I am in the distribution business. I am not 

a generation and transmission expert. But the power that we purchase, you know, we have to have the baseload generation there. 

119 

Renewables are great. We are all for renewables. We have got renewables in our portfolio. And as you said, in Arkansas we have 

got a campaign called The Mix Matters, and it says you have got 

to have a mix of all-of-the-above energy strategy, not all-but-one 

energy strategy. 

So renewables play a part, certainly, the wind renewables that 

we have, but it is not baseload generation. Fortunately in Arkansas 

we are part owners of the newest coal plant in the country, an 

ultra-supercritical coal plant, the Turk plant, and we could not 

build another one today under today’s EPA rules. So, yes, we have 

got to have the basic generation or my people are out of power. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You know, these are such real issues with such 

dramatic impacts on people, and I really think the Obama administration is not being truthful with the American people when they 

set the emission standards on these new plants based on plants 

that will not be built without a lot of government support. And 

none of these plants are in full operation yet. That is the thing that 

is so disturbing to me and many other people. 

My time is expired so I would like to recognize the gentleman 

from California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What I am hearing this morning is a conflict between the legitimate desire to provide electric power to people in the world to 

make their lives better so that they can live in a modern world on 

the one hand, and on the other hand, providing electric power requires fossil fuels to be burned, which increases the problems associated with climate change. So the risk in my opinion of the climate 

change is the bigger risk. But we can’t overlook the need to provide 

power. So that is the fine line that we need to develop and to walk. 

And to say that one side or the other is totally right or wrong is 

missing the point in my opinion. 

Mr. Biewald, you had an interesting comment I believe in your 

opening statement that you thought that it was possible to provide 

responsible power and create jobs without increasing the price of 

electricity. Would you expand a little bit on that, please, in a 

minute or so? 

Mr. BIEWALD. Absolutely. In the States that we have looked at, 

it is perfectly plausible with a little bit of planning to retire some 

plants and replace them with alternatives that really don’t cost any 

more, in fact, in many cases cost less. And so it helps the consumers. 

In Kentucky, for example, we did a study where adding efficiency 

and renewables, displacing some fossil fuels, added 20,000 net jobs 

by the year 2020. So it is helping the economy, it is keeping the 

reserves at a level that is required for liability and at reasonable 

cost to the customers. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would that increase their price of electricity for 

the customers? 

Mr. BIEWALD. It need not. What happens is the efficiency opportunities are so inexpensive and such low-hanging fruit and so attractive that those are available and decrease the prices a lot. The 

renewable prices are a mix. Some renewables are less than the conventional supply and some renewables are more. In terms of intermittent renewables coming on the grid, say wind, as Mr. Coleman 

120 

points out, we need to sort of baseload demand for electricity, but 

that baseload can be served by some mix of resources, including, 

say wind, with natural gas backing it up. So that provides in combination baseload power that serves that baseload demand reliably. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. O’Brien, I would like you to sort 

of expand that discussion to the international situation. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Well—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. How could we provide power to international 

customers that don’t have power now—— 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Right. 

Mr. MCNERNEY [continuing]. Using responsible low-carbon emission methods? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. What has changed radically for us as a development organization is where wealth that is driving economic growth 

is coming from. Let’s take countries we have been in in the last 

several decades, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique. In the 

last 3 years, those four countries have discovered 130 trillion cubic 

feet of gas. They have discovered 2 billion barrels of oil. They don’t 

need our help to burn more fossil fuels. In the same environment, 

they have populations facing extreme weather events all the time. 

They have got coastal regions where fishing communities are being 

wiped out; they have got farmers who are losing their livestock and 

their crops. 

What we are asking is that the United States plays a leadership 

role in helping the global economy move off an overreliance. We 

want to be the ones associated with the hospital in Haiti that is 

able to run through solar power an entire hospital to cater for 

6,000 patients. We want to be associated with that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So another thing that scares me about climate 

change is the potential to drive political and military conflicts. 

Would you expand on that a little bit, please? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Today, there are 2 billion people under water 

stress. Many of them live in insecure regions where their governments don’t have confident control of their territories and they are 

not frankly anything close to the kind of strong democracies that 

we would like to see. Climate is only going to exacerbate local tensions based on lack of access to important resources like water and 

so on. If we don’t tackle the consequences of climate change, we are 

going to be dealing with the stresses on governance and on security 

in much of the Sahel, in much of central Asia where I spent a lot 

of time, and in many other areas which are really facing water 

stress is perhaps the easiest way to understand it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You may have done this 

before I arrived but we have former Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson in the audience, and if she wasn’t introduced, we welcome you 

back to the committee and we are glad to have you in your new 

position today. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, thank you for doing that. We hugged and 

kissed before but we didn’t do it publicly. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I missed out on that unfortunately, 

dadgummit. 

121 

We have been throwing around a lot of terms here today, Mr. 

Chairman, and just for the record I want to try to clarify some of 

these before I ask some policy questions. 

My first question—and I don’t know who to ask this to, I guess 

the utilities commissioner from North Carolina, Mr. Finley—is the 

cost of CO2 the same as the cost of carbon? 

Mr. FINLEY. Well, there is a lot of ways to measure the cost of 

carbon. Of course, carbon involves more than CO2. It involves 

methane and other types of—I am no expert on the cost of carbon 

so that is about the best answer I can give you. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Well, let me try it another way. When we talk 

about the cost of CO2, are we talking about the actual cost of obtaining CO2 for a productive purpose such as oilfield injection or 

something of that sort or are we talking about the cost of complying with various CO2 remediation and reduction regulation? 

Mr. FINLEY. In my opinion, it is the latter as opposed to the 

former. There is a lot of cost involved in taking the CO2 out of the 

smokestack and making the plants compliant with whatever regulations that we do come up with and retrofitting plants to be able 

to accomplish that. 

Mr. BARTON. So we are really talking about the cost of regulatory 

compliance? 

Mr. FINLEY. I think that is a large cost, yes. 

Mr. BARTON. Does anybody disagree with that, anybody on the 

panel? I don’t see—— 

Mr. BIEWALD. Well, some people do talk about the cost of buying 

CO2 as an industrial product. No one here today—— 

Mr. BARTON. But that is not what your chart was? 

Mr. BIEWALD. No, no, and my chart has to do with the price of 

carbon or carbon dioxide for purposes of planning. So we are certainly talking about that. Some of us are also talking about the societal cost of the carbon emissions, so the cost of the damages associated with the carbon emissions. So there is both sides to it. 

Mr. BARTON. Which is a very subjective thing, very speculative. 

This pencil lead is carbon. I know what that costs. I know what 

this pencil cost. Your chart and all this, it is in the eye of the beholder what you want to apply to that. At least in my opinion it 

is. 

Do these compliance costs result in any increased efficiency in 

the generation of electricity or any lowering of electricity cost? And 

I will ask the gentleman from the electric co-op in northern Arkansas that question. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Again, Congressman, I am a distribution guy; I 

am not a generation guy. Would you restate the question for me 

one more time? 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I was trying to get you to say no—— 

Mr. COLEMAN. No. 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. It just raises the cost. 

Mr. COLEMAN. That is what I heard, no. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. That is the answer I wanted. I only have a 

minute left. The vice president of Oxfam, I was really impressed 

by your testimony. I mean you seem to be in the real world and 

not some starry-eyed idealist, which I am an industrial engineer by 

training so I really did appreciate what you said. So my question 

122 

to you, and I don’t think this is a loaded question and I think the 

answer is going to be yes, but does your organization believe that 

democratically elected governments that use free market capitalism 

principles provide the greatest opportunity for their people to have 

a better life in their country? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Good. Good. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. We have a way to go to get there, but yes. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Now, I wish I had another 10 minutes or 5 

minutes because I would really like to get into—I actually support 

a lot of what you said about in these developing nations a baseline 

power grid system like we have in the United States is not the 

most efficient means of providing power in these developing countries where they are so spread out and they don’t have the infrastructure, and I do believe that alternative energy sources like 

wind power and in some cases small hydro is the way to go. 

But I also believe that there are cases where a baseload coalfired power plant, if there is coal locally in the region, can provide 

an economy of scale and an efficiency that these alternative energy 

sources can’t provide so that in my view, if you are using free market capitalism, you would have a mix in these developing countries. 

Would you agree? That is a pretty complicated statement. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. I will tell you what I saw. 

Mr. BARTON. And then I will yield back to the—— 

Mr. O’BRIEN. And very briefly, in my 5 years in Afghanistan I 

saw major infrastructure projects around energy start and flounder 

because the government was weak, like you say, or didn’t have the 

capacity to get things going or it got stolen or there wasn’t security 

on the grounds to actually move the thing forward fast enough. 

But at the same time, I went to some of the most remote bases 

and saw small micro hydros literally change the options for women 

and children. 

Mr. BARTON. Right. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. And I see what is going on in Pakistan today, and 

even if we get those lines across Afghanistan to provide power, I 

don’t believe that government has what it takes to collect the revenues needed to sustain a big energy economy. That is why I think 

in many respects if we want to meet real needs, we have got to go 

smaller and meet people where they are at. 

Mr. BARTON. I agree with that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time expired a long time ago, 

but at this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to do my 

questions within the 5 minutes, but I see that you are being liberal 

and allowing people to go over, but I will try to stay within the 5 

minutes. 

Coal-fired power plants are responsible for one-third of the Nation’s carbon dioxide pollution. A new coal-fired power plant can 

cost billions of dollars and might be expected to operate for 40 

years or even longer. Given what we know about climate change, 

it doesn’t make sense to invest in a new coal plant without considering the long-term liability of its pollution. 

123 

Mr. Biewald testified that many electric utilities are looking for 

ways to minimize their carbon pollution such as by including costs 

of carbon in their integrated resource plans or IRPs. In 2013, the 

Arkansas Electric Cooperative, which supplies Mr. Coleman’s co-op 

with its power, filed an IRP with the Arkansas Public Service Commission that included carbon price scenarios starting at $10 per ton 

in 2022 and escalating to as high as $78 per ton by 2050. Last 

year, Duke Energy Carolinas also included a carbon price in the 

IRP it filed with Chairman Finley’s commission. Duke looked at a 

carbon price of $17 per ton beginning in 2020 and escalating over 

time. 

Mr. Coleman and Chairman Finley, are there laws that impose 

these carbon prices in Arkansas or in North Carolina? 

Mr. COLEMAN. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Finley? 

Mr. FINLEY. Not in North Carolina. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Jim Rogers, Duke Energy’s former CEO, recently said, ‘‘every decision we make today we make with the 

knowledge that there will someday be carbon regulation in this 

country. There will be a price on carbon, and since we make decisions for 30 to 40 to 60 years, we need to take that into account.’’ 

Mr. Biewald, do you agree with Mr. Rogers that rational utilities 

should include a price on carbon in planning and investment decisions even if there are no current laws that impose such a price? 

Mr. BIEWALD. Absolutely, yes, because such prices are likely to 

be in place, policies and prices, during the life of these assets. So 

prudent, responsible planning really requires the companies making these decisions—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. 

Mr. BIEWALD [continuing]. To anticipate that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Utilities around the country are prudently considering the cost of carbon in their business decisions. Unfortunately, 

there is only so much they can do on their own. In 2009, American 

Electric Power proposed to build a commercial-scale coal-fired 

power plant with carbon capture and sequestration in West Virginia, but AEP had to cancel that project when State regulators 

wouldn’t approve the cost because no existing laws required AEP 

to reduce its carbon pollution. Mr. Biewald, are other utilities likely 

to be able to finance technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration if there are no legal requirements to control carbon? 

Mr. BIEWALD. I would say in general, no. It would be difficult for 

commissions to approve those kind of expenditures and put them 

on the backs of the customers. Even a new coal plant without carbon capture and sequestration is sort of economically unviable, so 

in that regard, it is not about the carbon policy or the price of carbon. It is just the market economics of producing kilowatt hours. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, EPA’s forthcoming power plant rules would 

provide the regulatory certainty utilities need to build cleaner coal 

plants in this country, yet House Republicans recently passed the 

Whitfield bill out of this committee which would block EPA’s rules. 

House Republicans might not believe climate change is real, but 

virtually no one in the scientific community holds this position and 

responsible businesses don’t either. This committee needs to stop 

ignoring reality and start finding solutions to climate change. 

124 

In his questions a minute or so ago, Chairman Whitfield read 

some out-of-context quotes to suggest that climate change has 

paused and that there is less reason for concern. He could not be 

more wrong. Yesterday, the Royal Society of Great Britain and our 

own National Academy of Sciences published a new paper entitled, 

‘‘Climate Change Evidence and Causes’’ that specifically addresses 

these and similar denialist arguments. And let me read you a key 

section. ‘‘Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate 

change is no longer happening? No. ... Despite the slower rate of 

warming, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. A short-term 

slowdown in the warming of Earth’s surface does not invalidate our 

understanding of long-term changes in global temperature arising 

from human-induced changes in greenhouse gases.’’ 

So since there is still such misunderstanding about such basic 

facts on this committee, I would ask unanimous consent to introduce this report for the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

[The information is available at http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf.] 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that my time has 

expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

And at this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much for the hearing today and thanks to our witnesses for being 

with us today. I really appreciate your testimony. You know, we 

have been experiencing a really cold winter in the United States. 

Across my district, tonight it is going to be 10 below again, so it 

has been cold. 

But if I could get right to it, just a little bit about my district. 

I probably represent the largest number of co-ops in the State of 

Ohio. I probably represent the largest number of farmers in the 

State of Ohio. I also represent about 60,000 manufacturing jobs in 

the State of Ohio. And as I believe Mr. Coleman had said a little 

bit earlier that you need baseload capacity to turn these machines 

on and what you need to do to power up, and that is what we have 

to have in my area to make sure that people are back at their jobs 

in the morning working. 

And if I could, Mr. Finley, I noticed with interest on page 4 of 

your testimony, you are describing, you know, some of the declines 

in your furniture businesses and things like that and then on page 

5 that, you know, you are all competing for business across the 

country and businesses are also looking at price and reliability. 

How important is it to you to have that power out there to make 

sure that you can even bring these businesses into your State? 

Mr. FINLEY. It is fundamentally important. It is one of the most 

important aspects of our jobs and the power companies’ jobs that 

we regulate. 

Mr. LATTA. And, Mr. Coleman, as you talk about Arkansas coop and, you know, I also saw that in your testimony, you know, you 

talked about that if you are going to raise the standard of living 

and tackle poverty, you have got to have that power. And to be able 

to do that, especially tackling poverty and to have that power, 

125 

doesn’t that equate to jobs that you have to have to make sure that 

you have it? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. LATTA. And again in looking at your testimony, I also found 

it interesting, I think it was on page 2 of your testimony where you 

went into one of your plants is required to do $614 million in total 

upgrades to a plant that cost $1.17 billion. So you are almost at 

half the cost of your plant for upgrades. Who is paying for those 

costs? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Congressman, my members are and all of the 

480,000 members of the State of Arkansas are paying for those in 

the electric bills every day. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And when you look at that, what are your folks 

out there that are using the power in your companies saying when 

they are getting these increases in their costs? Are they saying that 

they can stay in Arkansas or do they have to sometimes look somewhere else? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I can give you an example. We have got a 

10 megawatt load on our lines, and we meet with them on a quarterly basis. They are based out of Chicago, and they are the largest 

user of power that we have. Power is also the largest expense that 

they have as a business. And, you know, I meet with them across 

the table once a year and I hear from them that, you know, when 

is this going to end? And if you listen to some of the testimony 

today, it is not when is it going to end; it is almost like it is just 

beginning. So when we talk to, whether it is the industrial customer or whether I talk across the table to a residential member, 

and I have got some stories about how they can’t pay their bills, 

that is the problem, the affordability of the bill and the fact that 

the power has got to be there when they need it. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Finley, if I could ask a question to 

you now. You also testified that the electricity rate increases are 

up in North Carolina are being driven largely by recent construction of power plants required in large number by need to comply 

with more stringent environmental regulations. When you refer to 

more stringent environmental regulations, what are you referring 

to? 

Mr. FINLEY. Those have to do with the atmospheric regulations 

both within our State and from the national government. There are 

any number of them that have been driving the cost of plants in 

North Carolina since approximately 2002. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. And, Mr. Moss, also when you are looking 

at the developing countries out there and to really get their economies moving and get the standard of living up there, you have to 

have jobs. And to have those jobs, you have to have that energy 

and especially electricity. When you are looking at that crystal ball 

into the future, what kind of power do these countries have to have 

to be able to have that baseload capacity to create those jobs to increase that standard of living? 

Mr. MOSS. Many multiples of what they have now, many, many 

multiples. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And when you say multiples, how would you describe the multiples? 

126 

Mr. MOSS. The average person in Nigeria uses about 130 kilowatt hours per year. In the United States, the average person uses 

about 13,000, so we have got 100-fold. You know, for a Nigerian 

that wants to live an American-style lifestyle, they need a 100-fold 

increase in power. There is an aluminum smelter previously owned 

by an American company in Ghana. That has been running at only 

20 percent capacity for the sole reason that they do not have 

enough power. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expired and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our panelists for some interesting discussion. 

Mr. O’Brien, in your testimony you refer to the International Energy Agency’s scenario for universal energy access, which has 65 

percent of the energy coming from renewable sources. The model 

for the electricity sector in the developed world, large-scale central 

generation with power delivered to customers over a network of 

transmission and electrical lines, is about a century old. OPIC and 

the Ex-Im Bank have been operating for years without any energy 

cap, and these countries have had access to the technologies that 

make up this traditional generation and delivery system for years. 

This model hasn’t delivered for these people, so this doesn’t seem 

to be a realistic model for energy access by the poor, especially in 

rural areas. Would you agree with that statement? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. And the finance model for our electricity sector 

where central generation and delivery costs are paid by the ratepayers also doesn’t seem realistic for people who operate in a cash 

or barter economy and spend about 75 percent of their incomes on 

food. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. It seems to me this is analogous to the situation 

with landline-based telecommunications versus cellular communications, that the improvements in renewable energy technologies 

and the drop in the price to acquire them seems to have been done 

far more to improve energy access for poor people in developing 

countries than our decades-long attempt to help them duplicate our 

model of energy access. Is that—— 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Yes. I had the privilege of being in both Africa and 

Afghanistan to watch the technology leap in the telecom sector, and 

it was transformative and it wasn’t done by starting from all technologies. I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And your testimony provides examples 

of climate impacts that poor communities in the developing nations 

are experiencing now. Are these communities or their national governments able to respond to natural disasters, increased water 

scarcity, or other climate-related problems that they are experiencing? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. The short answer is they have to be because there 

is no other viable way to meet the long-term solutions. If we want 

127 

those free market economies with proper oversight, you have got to 

have effective governments doing that. 

When we went to Haiti to help them after the earthquake, only 

1 percent of all the money we provided to Haiti went through public institutions and basically left them just as weak afterwards as 

they were beforehand. You know that Haiti is going to see another 

climate-related disaster in the next few years, and their government is no more ready today than it was before the last crisis. We 

have got to find a way both to meet the needs of people on the 

ground and to do it in a way that makes local institutions stronger 

at being responsible themselves. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And what do these continued or accelerated climate impacts mean for the people affected? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Well, it means everything. It means jobs, too, for 

fishermen, for farmers, for healthcare workers. We are witnessing 

threats to livelihood in that all of these contexts because of extreme 

weather events, and not is why we are so seized with the fact that 

we have to address both the climate challenges economically and 

the energy challenges. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. O’Brien. Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 

McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. O’Brien, in your testimony you use quite a few statistics and 

some facts there but you didn’t provide the sources of those so that 

we could verify that. I think it is on page 3 you talk about—you 

use a 20 time multiplier. You talked about the 3 percent with the 

poorest people—could you—— 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Go back through your testimony and 

provide us the references of those if you would, please? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. We will be happy to do that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But that leads me to another because what I 

heard in your comments, you raise, quite frankly, a moral question. 

I think everyone on the panel and others would agree that the African nation needs affordable and dependable energy for them to 

emerge from poverty. And there is a consensus among economists 

that the best way to do that is using their fossil fuels that either 

they have or they can develop with that. But by virtue of some of 

your testimony, it came across that these Africans and other people 

in Third World nations—it comes across as they shouldn’t be entitled to use them. Now, America can, but they can’t. 

And so there was a quote that was given. It was, you know, forcing a Third World person to stay behind by forcing him to use more 

expensive electricity just so some First World person will feel better about themselves. This comes across as immoral and I am troubled with that, and I hope that we can work together somehow to 

get across to maybe change the minds of some individuals with 

that. 

But the time that I have remaining I would like to hear a little 

bit of Mr. Moss because you were also providing some very interesting testimony. I started talking about Africa a year ago, the 

problems that they have with a lack of power and how we can be 

128 

exporting coal into Africa to develop so that they can emerge from 

poverty. Then I used the model of a 60 watt light bulb and I said 

that is the total power that they have there is a 60 watt light bulb 

for 3 hours a day per person. That is it. 

So I want you to amplify a little bit more on that and also to reflect back on some of Mr. O’Brien’s testimony if you would, please. 

Mr. MOSS. Sure. I mean I think that it is absolutely right that 

the poorest people in the world are going to be hit the hardest by 

climate change, but it is perverse to actually make the world’s poor 

pay twice by compounding their poverty by taking measures that 

effectively deny them access to power. 

There is no plausible scenario that I have ever seen where African carbon emissions are going to affect global emissions, so if it 

is a global problem, the problem is in the current emitting countries; it is not—you know, us denying Ghana two or three natural 

gas power plants is going to have absolutely zero affect globally. So 

it doesn’t make sense to try to connect Ghanaian farmers who are 

having trouble with climate change and saying, well, let’s not let 

Ghanaian farmers get electricity from Ghana’s natural gas. That is 

just a logical leap that I think is quite frankly quite immoral. 

Just one other point I want to make, the IEA figures, the International Energy Agency, when they define energy access, it is for 

an urban household of five people, 500 kilowatt hours per year. 

That is 100 kilowatt hours per person. That is what an American 

will use in 3 days. 

So when you see these scenarios that we can provide universal 

energy access through, you know, nice solar panels, yes, some clinics will run on solar panels, yes, micro-hydro and other technologies are changing every day, but if your target is 3 days’ worth 

of electricity per year for somebody, of course you can do it through 

these other technologies. And you are not going to be able to build 

industry, you are not going to be able to have households that run 

refrigerators and washing machines and all of the things that all 

consumers want without being able to provide a modern energy 

system which, given current economics, frankly is going to have to 

be a mix, including a lot of fossil fuels in many places. 

And it is true that the price of renewable technology is coming 

down. If it turns out that renewables are cheaper in Ghana or 

Kenya or Mozambique, then the regulations on something like 

OPIC are totally irrelevant because OPIC is going to decide project 

by project on what is commercially viable. That is how they do it. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much to the panel. I think this is a very interesting topic and we 

have many challenges ahead. 

Affordable, reliable electricity is very important to our neighbors 

back home and to the overall economy, and one way that States 

and utilities help ensure that electricity costs are affordable is by 

a going through planning processes routinely where they look at 

the economics of generation and conservation over the long-term 

and then compare different options. And I know you all agree that 

129 

if utilities do not adequately prepare for the future, this can impose 

substantial cost on the electricity system and its customers. 

But it seems now that these planning processes now do not meet 

the challenges that we face due to the changing climate. They seem 

divorced from the context of rising costs, from extreme event. I 

know one of my colleagues said that those costs are often subjective, but they are real and local governments have to adapt, have 

to address rising sea level rise, but in our local property tax dollars 

to repair, replace infrastructure systems at home. And look at what 

the Congress has to do when it comes to disaster funding, responding to natural disasters. It has been a very high price tag that is 

very well documented. 

It seems that part of this is because the whole business model 

of electricity sales is outdated. There need to be new incentives for 

the utilities to promote conservation and energy efficiency. And 

some States are doing that and some are way behind. My State of 

Florida is kind of a problem child and needs to do more when it 

comes to efficiency and conservation. 

Mr. Biewald, you know, your group has done a lot of the analysis 

on these planning processes. Most State electric utility planning 

processes really don’t take into account the wider range of cost. 

One Florida utility Commissioner recently said to me in a conversation, gosh, our hands are tied. The State law was written 

some time ago. We can’t consider any of these cost factors outside 

of just that narrow ratepayer or rate increase decision. What needs 

to happen today in the planning processes at the State level for 

States to begin to build in consideration of the huge costs that we 

are going to face in the future due to the changing climate? 

Mr. BIEWALD. So I would start out by pointing out Florida is one 

of the more vulnerable States in terms of those damages, right, the 

storms and the impacts of climate change. We tallied up the damages for scenarios with sea level rise in Florida, and they are, I will 

say, astronomical in terms of the regulation of utilities in Florida. 

I think that the regulators in many States—you have to look 

State by State—but in many States they have more leeway they 

may take advantage of. In other words, regulators should certainly 

be requiring test practices in integrated resource planning, and 

those practices include carbon price or carbon constraint on the 

planning of the utilities as they are picking their resources and 

looking at a full range of resource options, really looking at energy 

efficiency, really looking at renewables. 

Some States now have laws that require the procurement of all 

cost-effective energy efficiency, and that is a terrific thing. It is basically in the interest of the customers and the businesses in that 

State. It has environmental benefits but also economic benefits locally. So where we see things like that happening, it helps the commissions and the utilities. 

Ms. CASTOR. Do you agree this whole business model on the 

amount of energy you sell really is not going to service well in the 

future? Think about the cost that ratepayers and consumers could 

realize if utilities are aggressive about conservation and energy efficiency. And there is one huge example out of Florida—I know you 

all are aware of it—where we have put in an advanced recovery fee 

that kind of encourages the building of large power plants. UnforVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:20 Jul 25, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\113-121 EA - ELECTRICITY SCAN REQ 7-23-14\113-121 ELECTRICITY PENDING WAY
130 

tunately, the plants did not come online but ratepayers were still 

on the hook to the tune of $3 billion without realizing one kilowatt 

hour of energy. Certainly, if a more enlightened business decision 

had been made, that $3 billion could go to more energy-efficient initiatives. What do you think? 

Mr. BIEWALD. Absolutely. I think there is a lot of improvement 

that could be made within the current legal and regulatory structures and then also the utility business model and the regulated 

monopoly. The regulation, the way it is done, is very stressed and 

needs to be changed. And I think that will be changed going forward on a kind of State-by-State basis as States experiment and 

learn—— 

Ms. CASTOR. What can we do at the Federal level to encourage 

it? 

Mr. BIEWALD. Well, at the Federal level I think the main thing 

is clarity of the coming regulations. So, in other words, utilities in 

these planning processes in the States, some of them do a good job 

at anticipating the future fossil fuel prices, future environmental 

regulations of various types. Other utilities take a very myopic 

view. They look at the next regulation and ignore the further regulations that are going to come 4 years—— 

Ms. CASTOR. Yes. 

Mr. BIEWALD [continuing]. Six years from now. So as regulations 

are firmed up so there is some certainty of what is actually coming 

in terms of carbon and cooling water and air regulations, that helps 

the utilities and the regulators be able to plan in a rational way 

and actually pick the lower-cost alternatives. What no one wants 

is this piecemealing of complying with just the next regulation, 

then the next regulation, then the next regulation one at a time, 

which leads to horrendous resource decisions, very expensive investments as you pointed out, that hurt the residential customers, 

hurts the industrial customers, hurts the local economy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 

Pompeo, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, we heard from some folks on the other side today the 

Republicans aren’t interested in solutions. You know, what we are 

really interested in is the EPA has proposed solutions that simply 

don’t work. I asked Ms. McCarthy a few weeks back now about the 

26 indicators she has got on the EPA Web site about climate 

change, and I asked what the greenhouse gas regulations would do 

to each of those 26 indicators. And she said, well, you are thinking 

about it wrong. This is about global leadership. This isn’t about actually impacting climate change. This is about feeling good about 

ourselves. 

You know, Republicans don’t care about science? Science is about 

testable propositions, right? You satisfy the regulations and this is 

the impact we would expect this would have on climate change, 

and then you test against that. And yet the very test that is being 

proposed by the EPA, the administrator herself admits doesn’t 

work. 

And so I think this is all about science. I think it is about finding 

real good solutions, solutions that work. And, Mr. Coleman, that is 

131 

why I wanted to ask you a question. So you talked about we have 

got a greenhouse gas set of rules that are proposed for future coal 

power plants to be built and you expressed some concern that they 

may begin to regulate current coal-fired power plant generation as 

well. How long before the impact of just the rules on new power 

plants will begin to be felt in the cost structure? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I think you are feeling them right now. I 

was fortunate enough to be able to speak to the EPA back in the 

summer about this. You know, we are seeing and we are projecting 

rates that are going to be again somewhere around 40 percent, 20 

to 40 percent range for our members when we see some of these 

come into effect now. You know, that is up to $480 a year, and that 

is not a lot to us, but to the ladies, the grandmothers that I have 

got on fixed incomes, when you talk about these coal-fired plants, 

whether it is the existing fleet or whether it is the new fleet, it is 

going to have a tremendous negative impact on my members. 

And, you know, I can give you one example. I had a grandmother 

call me a few years back when we had—we have a fuel cost line 

adder on our bill and this fuel cost rise that is passed along to the 

member because that is the only person that can pay these fuel 

costs. But I had a grandmother from Horseshoe Bend, Arkansas, 

called me. Typically, this would be a phone call where she was not 

happy and I might get chewed on just a little bit, but she told me, 

she said I what you to know that I have figured out—I got this 

phone call, by the way, this is not someone handing me a note. She 

said I want you to know that I have figured out how to pay my 

electric bill; I am going to take my medication every other day. 

This was several years back. That was when that lady’s electric bill 

was lower than it is today, and what really scares me is all this 

stuff we are talking about, how is she going to afford it? 

I got a text last night from a member who cannot pay her electric 

bill, and she is a young person and she is worried about not being 

able to afford air-conditioning in the summer because of what her 

winter bills have been because of the extreme winter. This is what 

I face every day. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, I appreciate that, real health effects of these 

regulations impacting folks adversely as opposed to what the proponents of these rules would say they are going to improve the 

health of citizens in Arkansas and places like south-central Kansas. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Exactly. Exactly. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. 

Mr. Biewald, you said in your testimony that in a strip South 

Dakota and south—that would be Kansas, straight south of South 

Dakota if I got my geography right—you said wind is cheaper than 

other forms of energy today. Is that your testimony? 

Mr. BIEWALD. In many parts of the country, yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. So if it is cheaper today, no need for the wind production tax credit any longer? That is a vestige of days gone by, 

an anachronism because we now have affordable wind energy at 

least in this strip? We will have it in other places but the production tax credit for producers in those places, we should just eliminate immediately? That would make sense, right? Just let the market sort it out because they are cheaper today? 

132 

Mr. BIEWALD. I think we should look at energy subsidies kind of 

comprehensively. 

Mr. POMPEO. I agree with you but I am just asking the question. 

One of the justifications for the wind production tax credit you 

have to subsidize it while the technology improves so the costs 

could come down, and I just heard you say we are there. 

Mr. BIEWALD. I think there are parts of the country where that 

is the case for wind. There are other—— 

Mr. POMPEO. And I thank you for supporting me in that effort 

to get rid of all of those energy tax credits, for the oil and gas guys, 

too. I think we should get rid of them all. But it sounds like wind 

is at the competitive point from your perspective in at least certain 

places. 

I was also interested—I have just got 20 seconds left—you talked 

about companies pricing carbon today in anticipation of regulations 

down the road. 

Mr. BIEWALD. I did. 

Mr. POMPEO. So just the mere threat of regulation is driving up 

costs for consumers today, is that right? 

Mr. BIEWALD. Not at all. It is providing a signal where the smart 

utilities that are looking forward doing long-term planning are able 

to make better resource decisions. I would say it is lowering costs 

again in many parts of the country. 

Mr. POMPEO. Wow. So it is lowering costs for them to anticipate 

some future cost increase on their business? Having been a small 

businessman for a long time, that is fascinating economic estimation. 

Mr. BIEWALD. I also am a small businessman. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes. 

Mr. BIEWALD. We try to do good planning. 

Mr. POMPEO. Fascinating. I will yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding the hearing. 

Today’s hearing we are discussing the topic of electricity production and climate change. We have heard from our witnesses that 

discussed domestic international opportunities and challenges associated with energy access, but underlying all these opportunities 

and challenge is the economic cost. 

You know, the cost associated with natural resources, regulation, 

production, carbon has created vast amounts of uncertainty for consumers, investors, industry, and the environment, and it is this uncertainty that Congress should address. We must create a workable 

structure that deals with uncertainty and the framework must remove these unknown variables and address environmental concerns and promote economic development. 

Saying all that, I have some questions. Mr. Biewald, your organization produced a document, 2013 carbon dioxide price forecast, 

that discusses a number of different ways to price carbon. Under 

the social cost of carbon, the price of carbon is $23-$37, industry 

internally priced carbon at $6-$60, which is a great spread, and regional cap-and-trade prices range from $2-$11. First, what accounts 

for these wide disparities? Are they all using different formulas? 

133 

Mr. BIEWALD. Well, they are to some extent different things. And 

one of the questions I answered earlier had to do with the price of 

carbon in terms of compliance versus the social cost of carbon. 

Mr. GREEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. BIEWALD. So the social cost, those higher numbers are associated with the damages imposed on people outside of the system 

from the emissions. The median numbers I believe that you referred to have to do typically with the cost of compliance. So the 

marginal price if you had a cap-and-trade system comprehensive 

for the country, this is where the price might be, the kind of prices 

that I showed where utilities are anticipating the cost. And in the 

lower numbers are for some of the cap-and-trade systems in place 

today. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I represent a very industrial district in Houston—refineries, chemical plants—and I know the issue with EPA 

now is looking at new power generation plants. We know that carbon emitted from a coal plant—in Texas we use everything, coal, 

natural gas. I don’t think we use fuel oil but in a lot of our rural 

areas we use propane. 

But on the cost of fuel switching is a good example, and I want 

to ask from our co-op in Arkansas, because your base fuel is coal, 

and I know Arkansas traditionally has produced natural gas and 

we are seeing some very low prices except for the last month when 

we have had such—although my producers obviously like the $5 or 

$6 but we don’t think it will stay there. What would be the carbon 

cost, for example, if you used your baseload in Arkansas, you used 

natural gas instead of coal? What would it cost? Is coal that much 

cheaper than a pipeline from, say, South Texas to be able to fuel 

switch to natural gas? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir. Coal is our least-cost resource. The existing coal fleet that we have, when you exclude the Turk plant that 

you are well aware of, is about 2.3, 2.4 cents. You get up in the 

gas range, you are going to be up in that 4 cents a kilowatt hour 

on a wholesale basis. Now, again, my disclaimer here is I am a distribution guy, but obviously I keep up with our generation resources. 

Mr. GREEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. COLEMAN. But, yes, natural gas is more expensive. And what 

worries me is what happens when the next debate moves on to natural gas because of its carbon emissions? 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and that is the issue, but unless scientists are 

changing their opinions, we know carbon would be about half—— 

Mr. COLEMAN. Right. 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. What it would be for coal. 

But that is where I get back to the cost. You know, the ratepayers are going to end up paying for that cost. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. If we see, you know, people really do want to deal 

with carbon, then we need to make sure that the ratepayers understand there is a cost of doing that. And although I have to admit 

that in Texas we also produce more wind power than everywhere 

else in the country. And it is cheap. 

And, in fact, ERCOT in our recent problem with reliability said 

if we hadn’t had that 10,000 megawatts of wind power, we would 

134 

have probably had rolling blackouts through Texas. And if in Texas 

we are lacking energy electricity production, no telling what the 

rest of the country is because we use, like I said, everything except 

for hydropower. We just don’t have enough rivers that have any 

fall to be able to deal with hydropower. 

Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of my time but I appreciate 

our—because that is the issue, the cost and how much both our 

customers, your grandmother but also your industry in Arkansas, 

can afford to be there. And with natural gas we are seeing expansion of a lot of plant capacities as it is cheaper. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. And at this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in microphone 

no man’s land, so I will move here. 

I appreciate you bringing this hearing together in order to focus 

on the benefits of having access to affordable and reliable electricity. Not only do individual households reap the benefit of our 

country’s vast energy resources on a daily basis but so does our 

economy. The industrial sector in the United States accounts for 

about one-third of all in-use energy consumption while filling about 

14 percent of our GDP. What this means is that access to our country’s affordable and reliable energy puts domestic production and 

employment in the manufacturing industry at a competitive advantage as compared to others around the world. 

In fact, I had an interesting meeting recently in Germany in 

which many of the German CEOs informed me of that very fact 

and the much better competitive environment here in the United 

States than even in Europe. Low-input prices tend to lead to higher 

output that can in turn lower prices for consumers. Lower prices 

lead to less demand for imported products and help create jobs domestically, which are all good things. 

In Illinois, over 90 percent of our electricity generation comes 

from nuclear and coal-powered plants, which seem to both be under 

constant regulatory threats to their existence. In my district alone, 

I have four nuclear power plants providing grid and price stability 

to consumers throughout our region. I believe I have the most of 

any Congressman out there. Without the availability of this baseload power, there is no doubt that energy prices would skyrocket 

and the stability of the energy grid would plummet. Not only would 

this be bad for households, but it also creates an environment in 

which manufacturers will have to deal with yet another hurdle in 

order to compete in a global market. 

Unfortunately, as is often the case, government regulations have 

set up roadblocks to this sector of the energy industry. In just the 

past 5 years, five nuclear power plants have either retired or announced their plans to retire in the near future. And that is baseload power that is critical to the reliability of the system that, unlike some other forms of power generation, we can’t just flip a 

switch to turn back on. 

In addition to this, a large portion of nuclear industry is getting 

to the end of their current licensing lifespans. As it currently 

stands, existing operating licenses for over 7,500 megawatts of capacity are scheduled to expire before 2023. Two of those reactors 

are in my district in Illinois. This threat of closure due to reliVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:20 Jul 25, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\113-121 EA - ELECTRICITY SCAN REQ 7-23-14\113-121 ELECTRICITY PENDING WAY
135 

censing requirements is real and is something that I believe we 

should all take very seriously. 

The Foreign Affairs Committee, which I also sit on, just held a 

markup on the Electrify Africa Act, and I believe Dr. Moss mentioned that in his opening statement. It is bipartisan legislation 

that states it is U.S. policy to encourage access to electricity 

through the development of a multi-year strategy to assist countries throughout that region. 

I actually recently visited Liberia and I saw the stark contrast 

between those in Liberia and how they live and those in the United 

States. And because it was a country that chewed itself up with 

civil war, you have basically a lost generation, a lost decade. And 

in many cases, though, I think there is hope for Liberia in the future. It is sometimes hard to find because of what happens. 

So, Dr. Moss, my first question is for you. What is a level of electricity that we would consider meaningful access for the poor in Africa and other nations, and is it enough to power a few light bulbs 

for each person through the year or to provide such necessary for 

people to have refrigeration, sanitation, efficient water delivery, 

things like that? 

Mr. MOSS. Yes. I think, you know, the international standard of 

100 kilowatt hours per year or, in rural areas, 50 kilowatt hours 

per year is way too low. It is kind of the equivalent of the international standard for poverty of $1 a day. If you got everybody up 

to $1.50 a day, you wouldn’t call them rich and they certainly 

wouldn’t be satisfied with that income. 

The exact level, probably something closer to 4,000, 5,000 kilowatt hours per year would be a better international standard that 

would, you know, provide a dignified life that people could use the 

appliances that in Europe, the United States, and other developed 

parts of the world that we take for granted. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, thanks. And I think it is interesting, too, 

if you actually look at the advances that Africa has made, I mean, 

you know, back in the ’80s and ’90s we were constantly seeing videos of people on the edge of starvation. And that number of people 

on the edge of starvation has reduced but we still have a huge poverty problem obviously in Africa. And when you deny people energy, you deny them opportunity to be entrepreneurs, to build businesses, and to grow themselves out of that situation. 

How far do we have to go to get to a point where the poorest of 

Africa have access on the order of, say, Great Britain or China? Obviously very far. 

Mr. MOSS. I don’t want to look into a crystal ball on that. I would 

say that, you know, there is decades of investment have to come 

and it is both at the consumer level for individuals. 

And I should add that the analogy to cell phones and being able 

to leapfrog cell phones, until we can project electricity through the 

air, the actual lesson from cell phones is that the commerce can be 

based on mobile phone payment systems. I was not that long ago 

in Namibia and they have a pay-as-you-go scratch card for electricity, and being able to do that allows for people to pay for their 

electricity, which is necessary for commercial sustainability. And 

we have seen from cell phones that even poor people are willing to 

136 

pay for services if they work. So I think there is a lot potential 

there. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. And as I wrap up, I will just say, you 

know, I think developing an electrical grid in Africa is important 

to help them withstand weather disasters, to reduce the need for 

U.S. and foreign aid, and obviously help us to live in a much better, 

peaceful world. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair, and welcome to our witnesses. 

On January 10, 1901, the Spindletop well near Beaumont, Texas, 

started gushing oil. My home State, Texas, rightfully became the 

face of oil in America. About a century later, that face has changed. 

We are still the face of oil, we are the face of coal, the face of natural gas, the face of nuclear power, the face of solar power, the face 

of wind power. As my colleague Gene Green mentioned, we are the 

number one wind producer in America right now. We have a true 

diversified energy portfolio which has allowed my State to become 

the fastest-growing State in the country. Three million people 

moved to Texas between 2000 and 2010. 

But that growth is being threatened. The administration is conducting a war on coal. Nuclear power here in America is on hold, 

and tax credits for wind have put our baseload power under pressure. Our grid’s reliability is uncertain in the future in many ways. 

My first question is for you, Mr. Coleman. And I know that Arkansas is different from Texas, but can you please go into more detail on why wind is an important source but not one that we can 

build a grid around? 

Mr. COLEMAN. And you said wind, sir? 

Mr. OLSON. Wind, sir, yes, sir. Again, we are number one but we 

can’t build a grid around that. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, we can’t build a grid around anything in my 

opinion except baseload generation. You know, we do have wind assets, and when the wind blows, we have those assets, the peaking 

power that they provide. But I am unable to meet the obligation 

that I have to serve my members if Arkansas Electric Cooperative 

has to base their portfolio around wind. We have to have the baseload generation. If I have learned anything in the last few months, 

Lord hope I have learned something because we have had a tough 

winter in Arkansas. I don’t know how Texas has been but Arkansas has had a tough winter. We have got more to come. But our 

baseload coal generation is our hedge against the volatilities that 

we see of natural gas, of the ineffectiveness of wind and solar. 

But we cannot, as you said, base our portfolio around wind technology. We will utilize it. It will be part of the mix. The mix does 

matter and it is an all-of-the-above strategy, just as you mentioned 

Texas has. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

The next question is to you, Dr. Moss. And first of all, having a 

13-year-old son who will be 14 in April, your boy is amazing, but 

I know he is getting very hungry right now so my questions will 

be very brief. 

137 

I want to talk about India. As you know, over 1 billion people call 

India home. Over 400 million live in poverty, no electricity. That 

is more than the entire population of America. And I saw this firsthand. I went on a trip before Christmas. Wealth and poverty, opulence next to staggering poverty, right side by side. 

You said that allowing OPIC to invest in gas plants would bring 

electricity to 60 million more people focusing on renewables alone. 

I want to get this straight. You said that allowing OPIC to invest 

in gas plants would bring electricity to 60 million more people than 

focusing on renewables alone. 

And while Chairman Emeritus Dingell is leaving us, his examples persist. I will ask you some yes-or-no questions and get your 

son to have his lunch here. Are those 60 million people more likely 

to face illness and see higher child mortality, more deaths, those 

60 million people, without getting that power? Yes or no? 

Mr. MOSS. Without getting power, yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, OK. Yes or no, are they more likely to remain 

on crude sources of heat and power than dirtier inefficient sources? 

Mr. MOSS. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. Are they more likely to stay in severe poverty? 

Mr. MOSS. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Regarding India, is there any downside to exporting 

LNG, liquified natural gas, to India in your opinion? 

Mr. MOSS. Downside for the United States? 

Mr. OLSON. Downside for the United States, India, anybody in 

the world, big picture. 

Mr. MOSS. I don’t think. 

Mr. OLSON. No downside. One final question: Do you believe that 

current American policies on power in the developing world would 

leave people in the dark who would otherwise see electrification? 

And you can elaborate on that one. 

Mr. MOSS. Yes, it will. I mean, it depends a lot on what happens 

with a lot of the regulations or changing the fiscal year 2014 Appropriations Bill. So it will depend a lot on what happens next 

year. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. That is all my questions. It is time for lunch. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Enjoy your lunch, Mr. Olson. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. He thought he was last. He forgot about me. 

Thank you all for being here. This is important. I will tell you 

that several years ago, then-Administrator of the EPA Lisa Jackson was in. We were debating the authority to regulate greenhouse 

gases. Obviously, the case of Massachusetts v. EPA set up the principle that they could. It didn’t say that they had to. It just said 

they could if they found that it was harmful from a health standpoint. I asked her at that point, I said, ‘‘OK’’—I was last then, 

also—‘‘Your testimony here today has all been about global warming and how hotter temperatures cause people to have more heart 

attacks and strokes, but what happens when somebody like people 

in my district cannot afford to pay their bill, cannot afford to buy 

their fuel? The cost has gone up too high for their electricity, and 

they cannot heat their home in the wintertime. Did you all study 

that?’’ I asked her that question. Her response to me at that time 

138 

was—and I may be paraphrasing but pretty darn close—was, ‘‘We 

have programs to take care of those people.’’ 

Mr. Coleman and Chairman Finley, I ask you, when you hear 

these stories of people who are not taking their medications or you 

hear stories of people who can’t pay their bill, are there always programs to take care of those people or does the money run out like 

it sometimes does in my district in a hard winter by the time you 

get to the end of February? 

Mr. COLEMAN. The money runs out. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Chairman Finley? 

Mr. FINLEY. We do the best we can to have support for people 

who can’t pay, but for many there is not enough money there. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And so, you know, I have to question the underlying finding by the EPA that they have the authority to regulate 

these greenhouse gases because they studied half of the problem, 

the rising temperature, but they never looked at what happens 

when you make those costs go up for the poor people in our country, for the working folks, for the middle class. 

I think your testimony—and I apologize I wasn’t here; I was at 

another hearing—but one of you, I think, testified that your constituents or the people that you serve—I guess it was you, Mr. 

Coleman, have an average household income of about $32,000. My 

district might be a couple thousand dollars different than yours, 

but I am in the same boat with the people that I represent, and 

they can’t always afford to pay these things. We didn’t look at that. 

We didn’t look at, apparently, what happens when people can’t afford to pay for their medication and to heat their homes. And so 

as a result of that, I think that the policies the EPA is putting forward are actually harming the health of a lot of American citizens, 

and it is unfortunate they didn’t take the whole picture into account. 

And the testimony today here, hearing you all testify and knowing that your testimony is heart-wrenching, I understand that because my constituents tell me the same thing. 

Let’s talk about, Mr. Coleman, you said the volatility of natural 

gas, this winter there have been a lot of places. Did you all have 

any difficulty getting a hold of the natural gas necessary to power 

whatever plants you have using natural gas? 

Mr. COLEMAN. We didn’t have any difficulty but at one time some of the prices that we saw—you know, we were in the $3-$4 range. 

We saw prices $17, $18 that spiked. Prices on average were $4 or 

$5. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. And I saw reports in the Northeast where 

they were having trouble getting supply that prices actually crested 

over $100—— 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. During that really bad cold snap. 

That doesn’t happen obviously with coal. You have got it piled up 

out back. You can just pull it in there. 

We do have some infrastructure issues with turning it all over 

to natural gas. Now, in my area, I heard one of the other witnesses 

or one of the other Congressmen say that they didn’t use a lot of 

fuel oil in their area, but in my area a lot of people use fuel oil and 

we do at my house. And one of the reasons we use fuel oil is beVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:20 Jul 25, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 F:\113-121 EA - ELECTRICITY SCAN REQ 7-23-14\113-121 ELECTRICITY PENDING WAY
139 

cause we would kind of like to switch to natural gas but there is 

no pipe that comes to our house. I live just on the other side of the 

interstate, and it is just too costly to bring that pipe across the 

Interstate 81 to my neighborhood so I don’t have the ability to get 

natural gas. I might be able to get propane. Do you find that to 

be a problem for some of the folks in North Carolina, Chairman 

Finley? 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, sir, it is a problem. We have done a good job, 

I think, in expanding the pipeline facility. Twelve years ago I was 

in your situation in the middle of Raleigh. My old 40-year-old oil 

furnace went out on the coldest day of the winter and the pipeline 

was about 20 yards up the street, and they couldn’t get it there for 

3 weeks and I couldn’t wait for 3 weeks so I had to put an oil furnace back in. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. And so this is a problem that real people, not 

ivory tower folks at the EPA or even in the halls of Congress, are 

facing. It is that, you know, natural gas may be the wave of the 

future, but if you can’t get it there, if you don’t have the supplies 

to provide the electricity, to provide the heat for people, they are 

going to need it. And also the fact that we are raising the costs by 

creating regulations that are closing down plants and raising the 

cost of electricity for the average American citizen is harmful to the 

health of the working people in this country. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing 

and I yield back. 

Mr. FINLEY. I would say, if I might, that from my friends at 

PSNC that they have run the line down to my house and I do have 

natural gas now. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You are the chairman, so you have got influence, 

right? 

Well, Mr. Griffith, thank you. And I want to thank you all for 

coming this morning to testify. We appreciate the insights that all 

of you provided on a rather vexing issue. 

And that will conclude the hearing. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council’s document entitled ‘‘What the Cold Snap Tells 

Us about EPA Carbon Rules,’’ as well as a letter to the EPA we 

received from the CEOs of five nuclear power plants relating to 

EPA’s pending cooling tower rules and the fact that may cause the 

premature retirement of a significant portion of the nuclear fleet. 

[The information follows:] 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And I want to clarify the fact, when I was talking about Southern Company, I want to make sure that I said 75 

percent of Southern Company’s coal-fired generating plants scheduled to be retired were operated during the cold spell. And that is 

like 3,300 megawatts. So those that were scheduled to be retired 

were operating, and certainly when they are retired, that will be 

the end of it. 

And also ask unanimous consent that we enter into the record 

‘‘Energy Access and the True Cost of Fossil Fuel Projects in Africa.’’ 

[The information follows:] 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So with that, the record will remain open for 10 

days. 

And we look forward to working with all of you as we move forward, and thank you again for your time. And that will conclude 

today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ