89–010 

Calendar No. 19 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 116–2 

ALASKA REMOTE GENERATOR RELIABILITY AND 

PROTECTION ACT 

FEBRUARY 25, 2019.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BARRASSO, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 163] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 163) to prevent catastrophic failure or shutdown of remote diesel power engines due to emission control devices, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 

favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the 

bill do pass. 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

Of the more than 200 remote Alaskan villages, a majority are 

powered either primarily by diesel generators or by back-up diesel 

generators where renewable energy is available. Because these 

generators are not linked to a major road or highway system, diesel 

generators in these remote villages rely on fuel that must be 

barged in at high cost—up to $10 per gallon in some areas. Many 

of these isolated communities are located in Arctic and Sub-Arctic 

climates. These diesel generators provide vital heat and light that 

is necessary for human health, safety, and basic necessities. During 

fall, winter, and spring, temperatures can fall below freezing and 

daylight is limited. Many villages rely on generators that are between 10 and 30 years old and are looking to purchase new generators to improve efficiency and reduce the maintenance costs associated with worn out engines. 

2 

1 80 Fed. Reg. 68808, 68811 (Nov. 6, 2015). 

2 81 Fed. Reg. 44212, 44215 (July 7, 2016). 

3 Id. at 44217 (citing comments of the Alaska Energy Authority (Dec. 21, 2015), available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866-0019). 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recognized 

‘‘that the circumstances in remote Alaska required special rules.’’ 1

Under EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for compression 

ignition internal combustion engines (CI ICE) (i.e., diesel generators), EPA gives special considerations for ‘‘remote areas of Alaska.’’ 2 Under 40 CFR 60.4216, remote areas of Alaska can use stationary CI ICE that are certified to marine engine standards rather 

than land-based non-road engines. In addition, stationary CI ICE 

in remote areas of Alaska do not need to meet Tier 4 nitrogen oxide 

(NOX) emission standards that require an after-treatment NOX pollution control device, in particular selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) technology, because of the difficulties associated with using 

these devices in extreme cold and remote areas. Tier 4 particulate 

matter (PM) emission requirements are also not required for remote Alaskan stationary CI ICE that are older than model year 

2014. However, all non-emergency stationary CI ICE in remote 

areas of Alaska that are model year 2014 or later must either be 

certified to meet Tier 4 PM emissions standards or must ‘‘meet the 

applicable requirements for [particulate matter (PM)] in §§ 60.4201 

and 60.4204 or install a PM emission control device that achieves 

PM emission reductions of 85 percent, or 60 percent for engines 

with a displacement of greater than or equal to 30 liters per cylinder, compared to engine-out emissions.’’ This requirement in effect mandates the installation of after-treatment PM control devices such as Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) on model year 2014 

and newer engines. 

Based on recent information from EPA and Alaska state officials, 

there are credible reports that Tier 4 CI ICE emission control technologies for PM emissions—as well as Tier 4 NOX emissions controls—are having difficulties working in remote areas of Alaska. 

Similar to SCR technology, the extreme weather and remoteness of 

some Alaskan villages do not allow DPFs to perform as intended. 

The few CI ICE in remote areas of Alaska that have DPFs have 

shown a decrease in reliability of these engines as well as their fuel 

efficiency, an increase in maintenance requirements and an increase in maintenance costs. 

The additional cost of maintaining a DPF can affect a remote 

area’s economic and public health. If anything goes wrong with the 

DPF, the generator shuts down. Only a factory-trained service 

technician with the proper codes can fix the problem. In remote 

Alaska, these technicians are at least one to two days of travel time 

away, which adds to delays and costs. Especially in the fall and 

winter, further repair delays are likely because weather or extreme 

cold can shut down airplane access for multiple days or weeks. If 

a failure in the powerhouse occurs during one of these times, the 

village could suffer significant damage to its infrastructure or circumstances that could lead to the potential loss of life. 

The marine industry was able to avoid the DPF restrictions 

under that industry’s EPA standards specifically because DPF systems are expensive and unreliable. Generators in rural Alaska did 

not receive the same type of exemption despite requests.3 As a reVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:52 Feb 26, 2019 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR002.XXX SR002
3 

sult, remote Alaskan villages that want to replace old CI ICE must 

find engines that are model year 2013 or older to get around the 

Tier 4 PM requirement. Not surprisingly, villages are having a 

hard time finding these older engines. 

S. 163 addresses these concerns and allows CI ICE in remote 

areas of Alaska to meet existing Tier 3 standards without the need 

to install additional PM control devices. Narrow in scope, S. 163 

addresses only those diesel fuel generators located in remote Alaska to ensure that EPA standards for CI ICE in these areas do not 

decrease reliability, increase costs, or threaten people’s health and 

welfare. The legislation, as amended, also requires EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy, to provide Congress with 

policy options to help the people living in remote areas of Alaska 

have affordable and reliable energy while also addressing air emissions. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION

Current Tier 4 PM emission control technologies have difficulty 

performing adequately in remote areas of Alaska. S. 163 directs the 

EPA Administrator to revise 40 CFR 60.4216(c). 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and Protection Act.’’ 

Section 2. Revision of regulations required 

This section changes the standards under 40 CFR 60.4216(c) 

from Tier 4 PM standards to Tier 3 PM standards. The section also 

instructs the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation 

with the Department of Energy, to submit a report assessing options for the Federal Government to meet the energy needs of remote areas in the state of Alaska in an affordable and reliable 

manner while addressing air emissions. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On January 16, 2019, Senator Sullivan introduced S. 163, the 

Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and Protection Act, with Senator Murkowski as an original cosponsor. The bill was referred to 

the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

The text of S. 163 is identical to the text of S. 1934, Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and Protection Act, which passed the 

Senate during the 115th Congress. Senator Sullivan introduced S. 

1934 on October 5, 2017. Senator Murkowski was a cosponsor. The 

EPW Committee’s Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety 

held a hearing on S. 1934 on November 14, 2017. The EPW Committee reported S. 1934, as amended, by voice vote on September 

18, 2018. The Senate passed the reported legislation by unanimous 

consent on December 4, 2018. 

HEARINGS

A legislative hearing was not held on S. 163. As explained above, 

a legislative hearing was held on S. 1934 on November 14, 2017 

during the 115th Congress. 

4 

ROLLCALL VOTES

On February 5, 2019, the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works met to consider S. 163. S. 163 was ordered favorably reported without amendment by voice vote. No roll call votes were 

taken. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the committee makes evaluation of the regulatory impact of the reported bill. 

The bill does not create any additional regulatory burdens, nor 

will it cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the committee finds that S. 163 would impose 

no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, local, 

or tribal governments. 

S. 163 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The bill contains no new 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the reported bill, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the report. That statement follows: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, February 12, 2019. 

Hon. JOHN BARRASSO, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 163, the Alaska Remote 

Generator Reliability and Protection Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Stephen Rabent, who can 

be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

5 

S. 163 would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to revise regulations for certain internal combustion engines used 

in remote areas of Alaska to allow those engines to emit higher levels of particulate matter compared to current standards. The bill 

also would require EPA to report to the Congress on options for the 

federal government to assist remote areas in Alaska with meeting 

their energy needs in an affordable and reliable manner. 

Using information from EPA about current activities related to 

emissions standards for those engines, CBO estimates that the 

costs of implementing the bill would be less than $500,000. That 

amount includes costs for personnel and contracts required to develop and issue a proposal, to receive and respond to public comments, to issue a final rule for the revision, and to produce the report required by the bill. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Stephen Rabent. The 

estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made by 

the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no changes to 

existing law. 

Æ 


Insert graphic folio 6 here SR2.001