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

75–591 PDF 2012

THE GREEN AGENDA AND THE WAR ON COAL: 

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE OHIO VALLEY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS, 

STIMULUS OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT 

SPENDING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 31, 2012 

Serial No. 112–170 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS, STIMULUS OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT

SPENDING

JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chairman 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York, Vice 

Chairwoman 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Ranking 

Minority Member 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 31, 2012 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Robert Hodanbosi, Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control, Ohio EPA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Mr. Andy Thompson, Ohio State Representative 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Mr. Tony Ahern, CEO of Buckeye Power, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Mr. Tom MacKall, President, East Fairfield Coal Company 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 57 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 60 

(1) 

THE GREEN AGENDA AND THE WAR ON 

COAL: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE OHIO VALLEY 

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS, STIMULUS

OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:00 a.m., Ohio University Eastern Campus, Shannon Hall, 45425 National Road W., 

St. Clairsville, Ohio, Hon. Jim Jordan [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Jordan and Kelly. 

Also present: Representatives Johnson and McKinley. 

Staff present: Christopher Hixon, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Ryan M. Hambleton, Professional Staff Member; and Alexia 

Ardolina, Assistant Clerk 

Mr. JORDAN. The House Oversight Subcommittee will come to 

order. We are pleased to be here at the Ohio State University Eastern Campus. If we could have Dean Richard Greenlee come forward. Come right on up. 

Mr. GREENLEE. I want to welcome you to our campus. We are 

glad you took the opportunity to use our fine facilities, and we hope 

you have a very productive meeting. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. Thank you so much for your hospitality. 

We will start with opening statements and get right to our first 

panel. We have two panels. We look forward to hearing testimony 

from everyone. 

Let me again thank the Dean and the University here for allowing us to be here this morning. I also want to thank Congressman 

Bill Johnson. We are in the fine district of the Congressman, and 

we appreciate him joining us today, as well as Congressman Kelly 

from Pennsylvania and Congressman McKinley from West Virginia. 

It is important and helpful for the Committee to hear firsthand 

about the problems facing local communities across the United 

States. We have come here today to learn about the effects of the 

Obama administration’s war on coal and the impact of federal regulations on families and businesses here in southeast Ohio. 

Coal is very important to communities in this area and to the nation as a whole. According to 2010 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, 

2 

there are 765 coal operations employing over 32,000 miners. As of 

2011, these three states account for over 20 percent of the coal production in the United States. Not only is coal produced in this region, but it is used here, too. As of 2010, Ohio derived 82 percent 

of its electricity from coal. In Pennsylvania this figure was 48 percent. West Virginia relied on coal for almost 97 percent of its electricity that year. 

America needs coal to provide nearly half of its entire electricity. 

Coal is used so heavily because it is cheap, reliable and abundant. 

Inexpensive and dependable electricity is crucial to manufacturing 

operations, which is important to a state like Ohio that depends on 

manufacturing to create jobs. However, coal in this country is 

under assault by this administration. 

The President has made statements to indicate his support for 

ending or significantly curtailing the use of coal and other fossil 

fuels as an energy source. In 2008, as a candidate, then Senator 

Obama said, quote, under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal power plants, you 

know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. 

That will cost money. 

Unfortunately it appears the President is making good on his 

campaign promise. The present anti-coal philosophy has found its 

way into the operations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency among other parts of the Administration. In fact, the 

EPA has been the most zealous in enacting the President’s philosophy. The agency has taken unprecedented action by overstepping 

its Congressionally approved authority under the Clean Water Act 

to slow down new coal permits and to attempt to veto existing permits after they have already been approved properly by the Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

EPA’s assault on the industry has also taken a form of rules that 

will make it harder to use coal. Local examples of this assault include the Utility MACT rule which requires extremely expensive 

upgrades to coal-fired power plants and the Greenhouse Gas New 

Performance Standards for electric generation units which would 

essentially ban the construction of new coal-fired electricity generation facilities. These regulations will cost billions of dollars and will 

result in massive job losses. 

I want to welcome today’s witnesses. Thank you all for being 

here. We are looking forward to hearing your testimony on the impact of the EPA regulations and permitting issues on the coal industry and on job creation and economic growth here in southeast 

Ohio. 

We also appreciate the attendance of the witnesses representing 

EPA and look forward to their testimony on the second panel. 

These witnesses represent two regional administration offices that 

have jurisdiction over Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. We 

look forward to hearing more from them about the role that the 

EPA’s regional administrators play in implementing the policies of 

this Administration. Again, thank you all for coming. We will get 

to our witnesses here in just a minute. 

First I want to yield to the gentleman from Ohio whose district 

we are in, Congressman Johnson. 

3 

We have one housekeeping matter. Can we have unanimous consent to have Mr. Johnson sit on the committee and participant in 

this hearing? 

Hearing no objection, Mr. Johnson, you are recognized. 

Excuse me. We need that for David as well. No objection. So recorded. 

Mr. Johnson you are recognized for your opening statement. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you yielding me time and for hosting this important hearing on the Administration’s War on Coal. I would also like to thank our witnesses 

for taking the time to come and testify before us today on this important issue. 

Since taking office, this President and his Administration has led 

an all-out fight against the coal industry. And the fight has been 

a 2-front war, one on the production side of coal and one on the 

market side of the coal industry. 

On the production side, we have seen the EPA slow-wall permitting for coal mines, and in one egregious case they even retroactively vetoed a permit that had been approved by the Army 

Corps of Engineers. But the EPA isn’t the only department in the 

Administration attacking the ability of coal companies to mine our 

natural resources. The Department of the Interior has been trying 

to rewrite the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone rule since late January 

2009, just mere days after this President took office. By some estimates this proposed rewrite of the Stream Buffer Zone rule could 

cost tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs and cause the 

price of electricity to skyrocket. 

Now, since I took office in 2011, I have been fighting tooth and 

nail to stop the Administration from going forward with this new 

rule, and I have introduced legislation to do exactly that. 

On the market side of the equation, the EPA has aggressively 

placed standards on coal-fired power plants that are unrealistic 

and uneconomical for utility companies to meet. Power plants 

throughout the midwest are left with the impossible decision of 

shutting down or spending billions of dollars raised through rate 

hikes on consumers to meet the new standards. 

Down near my home of Marietta, Ohio, a large power plant will 

close in the coming months because of these new standards. Over 

150 Ohioans will lose their jobs, and families and small businesses 

will be left with higher utility rates. As a candidate, as the chairman pointed out, the President told us what his policies toward 

coal and coal-fired power generation would do when he infamously 

said that if a company wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they 

can, but it will bankrupt them. 

This President doesn’t seem to understand that for states like 

Ohio, which receives over 80 percent of its power from coal plants, 

the people who are hit hardest are the seniors on fixed income, 

hardworking families and the small businesses that are the job engines of our economy. 

In fact, the average American family has seen a $300 per year 

increase in their utility bill since this President took office, and 

that is a direct impact of his crippling coal policies. Now, you can 

guarantee that this number will only go up for Ohioans if the 

President’s war on coal is not stopped and is not stopped soon. 

4 

I would like to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this 

important hearing and shedding light on this Administration’s economically destructive coal policies, and I look forward to hearing 

the important testimony from our witnesses. 

With that I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman. Now I yield to the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kelly, for his opening statement. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

I am not too far from here, over in Pennsylvania, and there are a 

lot of my friends that are in the coal business. Most of the time 

when I get a chance to talk to people, I talk about a country that 

has been so blessed with natural resources. Coal is abundant. It is 

accessible. It is affordable. It is has been the backbone of our nation’s electric power for so long. About half of the electricity we 

have in Pennsylvania comes us from coal. 

When I hear people talk about coal, they talk about coal in a way 

that I do not particularly care for. I know this Administration does 

have a war on coal. Do not be fooled by the small talk and the chitchat about they do not. I am telling you there is a war on coal. 

There is a war on fossil fuels. This Administration through the 

EPA has made it very difficult for my friends that are in the coal 

business. They are making it for difficult for Americans who rely 

on touching that switch and flipping it on and having their lights 

come on, able to cool their houses in the summer, able to light 

lights and do an awful a lot of things and run their industry. When 

you hear this going on day after day, week after week, month after 

month, it is time to stop chitchatting and tap dancing around the 

issues. 

Now, listen, all of us want clean air. All of us want clean water. 

But you know what we also want? We want our economic freedom. 

Why in the world would we put this country at risk with the abundance of natural resources that we have, the abundance of coal 

that we have. 200 years’ supply right here beneath our feet. 

Other places around the world would love to have what we have. 

They look at us and they scratch their heads and say, ‘‘What is it 

with you folks? Why would you put yourselves behind the 8 ball? 

Why would you put yourselves in a position where you can’t power 

yourselves?’’ 

Now, I am glad we are having this hearing today, and I am glad 

that the public is here. I hope that America is paying attention. 

There are very clear decisions in the way this country is being run. 

For those of you who are not watching it closely, please, please 

wake up and smell the coffee. We are at dire risk of losing the 

greatest country in the world because of an onerous government 

that keeps its boot on the throat of our job creators, that keeps its 

boot on coal and does not want coal as part of our energy production. Make no mistake about it. That is what they are trying to do. 

So the fact that we are here today and we are able to talk to different witnesses and talk to people who do produce this power and 

produce this product that allows America to rise to the top, I sure 

welcome that chance. 

We also have our friends at the EPA here. I got to tell you, gentlemen, at some point someone better take a look at what is happening in America. We cannot legislate and regulate and make it 

5 

impossible for America to continue its great success if we keep up 

with these policies. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. Thank you so much for 

having this hearing. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

The gentleman reminded me that the world is better and safer 

when America leads. The simple fact is you cannot lead militarily, 

you cannot lead diplomatically if you don’t lead economically. You 

cannot lead economically if you don’t have energy. The gentleman’s 

comments about affordable, abundant and accessible coal is critical 

to being able to lead in the energy area and, therefore, being able 

to lead economically and, therefore, make the world a better place. 

That is really what is at stake here. 

I appreciate the gentleman’s comments from Pennsylvania. They 

were right on target. 

I would now yield to the gentleman from West Virginia for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Chairman Jordan. Thank you for 

holding this hearing today to expose this war on coal being waged 

by the EPA and President Obama’s Administration. The coal that 

is mined here in eastern Ohio and throughout West Virginia powers America and provides good paying jobs for thousands of families and revenue for numerous state and local governments. 

But the coal industry and the coal-fired electric generating plants 

are under siege, and the future is indeed in jeopardy. Under the 

pretext of global warming his playful support of radical and environmental extremists and his passion for renewable energy models, 

President Obama is relentlessly pursuing a dangerous gamble of 

diminishing the contribution of coal and our country’s energy portfolio. 

The President himself has said, as you have heard from other 

speakers, that he may not be able to prevent coal-fired utilities 

from being constructed, but the taxes and regulations that he will 

impose will bankrupt those that try. 

How about Secretary of Energy, Secretary Chu who said coal is 

his worst nightmare. The leading speaker for energy in America 

has said coal is his worst nightmare. Or Vice-President Biden who 

has said the present Administration is not supporting clean coal 

technology. Or what about Senator Reid who announced, ‘‘Coal 

makes me sick. It is ruining our country.’’ 

Wait. What about the assault from the EPA. The coal industry 

and the electric generating plants have had to deal with issues like 

delayed water permitting, unreasonable water conductivity expectation, a mercury emission standard that is crippling the current 

plants, a threat of treating coal ash as a hazardous material, regulating minute particulate matter designated with virtual no health 

benefit but costing the consumers billions of dollars, proposing New 

Source Performance Standards when there is no technology available to perform that standard, cooling water temperature, crossstate air pollution standards, intimidation of state and local environmental agencies by the powerful EPA, potential roadblocks permitting companies from exporting coal and even natural gas and 

oil, and then coupled with a 41 percent reduction in the R & D 

spending of the Department of Energy’s money for clean coal techVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75591.TXT APRIL
6 

nology. That is backed on the fact that last year, they had 39 percent reduction in the R & D for clean coal technology. 

This form of industrial harassment has already cost utilities 

across America to initiate plans reluctantly to begin the closure of 

approximately 125 power generating plants across America out of 

the 700. That is a result of almost 25 percent less power that’s 

going to go into the grid because of this war on coal. But keep in 

mind the EPA’s own economic model only predicted a 2 percent reduction. How wrong they have been. 

The integrity of the grid, the ability of consumers and manufacturers to have access to low cost electricity could very well be put 

to the test in the coming years unless other electrical generation 

from natural gas, oil, biomass, hydro, wind, solar become available 

and dependable. 

President Obama is depending on the environmental side of this 

equation to shore up his argument for this war on coal. Little, if 

any, of the global greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved without comparably enforced environmental standards in China and 

India. Both of these countries are seizing every opportunity to expanded their economies using coal as a primary energy source. 

More specifically, China has been constructing the equivalent of 

a new powerhouse, coal-fired powerhouse every week for the last 

three years. 12 years ago the United States and China were both 

producing and operating on a billion tons of coal. 12 years later, 

China is now at 3,000,000,000 tons, triple in just 12 years. They 

tripled their dependency and use of coal whereas in America, we 

are still back at 1.1 billion, but we are exporting the majority of 

that. 

We all want clean, affordable and dependable energy with increases, not reductions in money for R & D. We will get there. The 

ideologues and regulators in Washington need to step back and 

simply say to themselves just because you can doesn’t mean you 

should. Regulators need to slow down, take a close look at the economic impact of their actions. Perhaps if these regulators and bureaucrats got out of the Washington Beltway and came over to 

America’s coalfields here in eastern Ohio and throughout West Virginia and toured the technological marvels of our country’s coalfired powerhouses and met with the hardworking men and women 

in these communities, perhaps then they wouldn’t turn their backs 

on our nation’s coal industry. 

Hopefully this hearing held today in the heart of Ohio’s coal belt 

will demonstrate once and for all that the coal industry and our 

coal-fired utilities are clearly in an all-out confrontation with the 

Obama Administration and its rogue agency, the EPA. The outcome of this struggle, this war on coal, will demonstrate how vital 

our communities will be in the future and how manufacturers and 

consumers will react if king coal is overthrown. I look forward to 

hearing more of the testimony. 

I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman for his opening statement 

which is right on target. 

Let me introduce our first panel. We have Mr. Bob Hodanbosi, 

who is the Chief of the Division of Air Pollution Control at the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

7 

We have the Honorable Andy Thompson—good to have you with 

us, Representative—who represents the 93rd District in the Ohio 

House of Representatives, Mr. Anthony Ahern, who is president 

and CEO of the Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc. and Buckeye 

Power, Inc. and Mr. Tom Mackall who is the president of Sterling 

Mine Corporation. 

Gentlemen, I want to thank you. You know how it works. You 

have to listen to us first. Then you get to go. You get five minutes. 

If you can stick to that five minutes, that would be great. We are 

kind of lenient. But one thing we have to do, and it is the practice 

of the oversight committee is before we hear from you, we want to 

swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. JORDAN. Let the record show that each witness answered in 

the affirmative. 

Mr. Hodanbosi you are recognized for your five minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HODANBOSI 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this committee 

with information on the effects of the U.S. EPA requirements on 

the coal industry in Ohio and surrounding states. These series of 

new and additional standards continue to increase the cost of using 

this important domestic fuel. 

My name is Robert Hodanbosi. I am chief of the Division of Air 

Pollution Control at Ohio EPA. I have almost 40 years of experience in the field of air pollution control and have seen great improvements in air quality in the Ohio Valley and throughout the 

state. Attached is an example of the dramatic improvement in sulfur dioxide concentrations in Ohio. This improvement came at a 

substantial cost to Ohio utilities and industry. This reduction of 

sulfur dioxide emissions even further will require an even greater 

expense to obtain a diminishing return in improvement in air quality. 

There are several regulatory initiatives under way by U.S. EPA 

that have a direct adverse impact on coal or the major users of 

coal. In June of 2012 U.S. EPA promulgated a more restrictive ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide at 75 parts per million 

one hour average. This new standard was promulgated without the 

implementation requirements for states to follow. U.S. EPA issued 

draft guidance on the air dispersion modeling methodology that 

should be used in attainment areas. 

Over 20 state and local air agencies expressed concern to U.S. 

EPA over the proposed methodology. After these concerns were 

raised by state and local air agencies and others, the U.S. EPA 

held a series of stakeholder meetings to receive comments on possible revisions to the guidance. We are still awaiting the outcome 

of the meetings and guidance. 

The Cross State Air Pollution rule was promulgated in 2011 to 

regulate the amount of emission of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 

oxide from utilities that can affect downwind states. This rule allows for limited trading of emissions. With the continued tightVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75591.TXT APRIL
8 

ening of ambient air quality standards, U.S. EPA will be required 

to go back and promulgate even more restrictive standards. This 

leads to more regulatory uncertainty and increased cost to operate 

coal-fired power plants, leading to increased use of coal. 

On February 16, 2012, U.S. EPA promulgated the Utility Mercury and Air Toxic rule to reduce emissions from coal-fired power 

plants. This rule establishes very stringent standards for emissions 

of mercury, particulate matter and hydrochloric acid. The federal 

rule allows three years to comply with the standards. So by February 16, 2015, all units must be in compliance. U.S. EPA recognizes that the compliance date will be difficult to achieve for many 

units, and state permitting authorities have the ability to extend 

the compliance deadline by one year. Ohio EPA already initiated 

preliminary discussions with Ohio utilities to outline the documentation that will be necessary to approve the 1-year extension. 

What has been the result of all these U.S. EPA rules? There 

have been a series of announcements by the utility companies that 

over 25 boilers at power plants in Ohio will be closed. These closures will have a direct impact on mining and use of coal. Although 

these units are older, this does not mean that these units are no 

longer used. 

The Columbus Dispatch reported that some industrial consumers 

were required to reduce electrical consumption due to the lack of 

available electricity during a recent heatwave. For American Electric Power Company in Ohio, except for the small Picway unit, the 

other plants scheduled for shutdown were in operation. Ohio EPA 

remains concerned that if there are spot shortages of electricity 

today, the problem will be exacerbated when Ohio loses significant 

electrical generation capacity due to the closures as a result of the 

U.S. EPA requirements. 

U.S. EPA has proposed standards for coal-fired utility plants in 

the form of New Source Performance Standards. In the proposal 

U.S. EPA sets the standard for new coal plants to be the same as 

efficient new gas-fired plants. This proposed standard has not been 

achieved in practice by any coal-fired plant. 

Another aspect of this rule is that both the news release and preamble state that the rule only addresses new sources; however, 

U.S. EPA signed a consent decree that commits the agency to regulate new, modified and existing sources. Once this NSPS rule is 

promulgated, U.S. EPA will have no choice but to go forward on 

regulating existing sources under 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. 

Again, there is no cost effective controls for CO2 from existing 

power plants. This particular issue will have a huge impact on the 

continued operation of coal-fired power plants in the midwest and 

elsewhere. 

There are also additional requirements that the U.S. EPA is proposing on facilities that use coal. U.S. EPA is moving forward to 

tighten limitations on water discharges from coal-fired power 

plants and to change the manner that coal residuals are regulated. 

Finally, any significant increase in electric rates will have an adverse impact on Ohio industry. For example, the only two manganese ferroalloy plants in the United States are located in Marietta, Ohio and New Haven, West Virginia. These plants are located 

near power plants due to the large electric demand needed to make 

9 

the product. These plants can only remain competitive if there is 

reliable, inexpensive electric power. 

The same issue applies to aluminum producer Ormet in Hannibal, Ohio and other metal producers and alloy manufacturers in 

Ohio. For Ohio and other states to maintain an industrial base, 

there will continue to be the need for inexpensive power. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present these views on behalf 

of Ohio EPA. We would be glad to work with the committee for our 

recommendations on U.S. EPA requirements that are protective of 

public health but do not have as great an adverse impact on coal 

and coal-related industries. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hodanbosi follows:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75591.001
11 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75591.002
12 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75591.003
13 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75591.004
14 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. I appreciate your fine testimony. 

Representative Thompson will be recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ANDY THOMPSON 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing. My 

name is Andy Thompson. I am in my first term representing Ohio’s 

93rd House District, and I represent Guernsey, Noble and Munroe, 

as well as portions of Washington and Muskingum Counties. Before being elected to the state legislature, I served on the Marietta 

City Council for three terms, getting elected to my final term in 

2009. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today about the 

impacts of the Obama Administration’s ill-advised energy and environmental policies and their impacts here in Ohio. 

Today I would like to discuss, number one, the Administration’s 

war on coal and the impact on coal jobs, the impact on utility jobs 

and the greater coal communities, what this means for manufacturing in Ohio, and how this impacts our growing natural gas industry. 

This is coal country, and here in eastern Ohio we rely on coal not 

only for electricity, but also for good-paying jobs and a strong tax 

base to help provide critical services. Coal not only provides jobs for 

our miners, equipment operators and support personnel. It also 

provides many jobs in the surrounding communities where coal industry employees work and live. 

For example, a study from Pennsylvania State University has 

demonstrated that every direct coal mining job supports 11 other 

jobs in such areas as trucking, railroads and equipment suppliers, 

as well as local businesses, including restaurants, stores, and gas 

stations. Coal has been integral to the wellbeing of eastern Ohio’s 

communities for many, many years. When coal is doing well, we do 

well. 

But unfortunately, coal is in a tough spot right now. Many of the 

environmental policies that the Obama Administration has undertaken in recent years have caused substantial hardship in our region, and I fear that this may only be the beginning. 

Just last week, a major coal mine in my district announced that 

it was laying off 29 workers in direct response to several Obama 

Administration policies aimed at coal. Not too long before that, I 

learned of a surface mining company in Noble County that cannot 

get any new permits approved by the Corps of Engineers and the 

EPA. This company has mined almost all of its permitted property, 

but now is considering shutting down operations because the government has not granted it new permits. These are just two of the 

many troubling examples that have been brought to my attention 

recently. 

As every elected official knows, this is county fair season, and at 

every fair that I have been to, people have come up to me and expressed deep concerns about the war on coal and what it means for 

communities and for eastern Ohio. These people have spouses, 

brothers and uncles in the mining business, and they are all scared 

for its future and for their own future. I hear this more than any 

other issue. People in eastern Ohio are deeply concerned that the 

15 

war on coal is going to ruin their livelihoods, their families, and 

their communities. 

When you hear about layoffs in the coal industry, you generally 

think about coal miners and others who work at a mine, and that 

is understandable because they are the first ones to lose their jobs 

and their livelihoods when a coal mine shuts down. But we also 

need to be thinking about what is going to happen to people who 

work at the coal-fired facilities that are being shut down. Those 

layoffs are starting to happen right here in Ohio. 

For example: AEP will shut down 5 units at the Muskingum 

River in Beverly, costing 128 jobs. They will shut down one unit 

at the Conesville Generating Station, eliminating 20 jobs. AEP will 

shut down one unit for nine months annually at its Picway plant 

near Lockbourne, costing 24 jobs. Duke will shut down one of its 

generating units at its Beckford Station in New Richmond, Ohio, 

impacting 120 jobs. First Energy will close units at its Bayshore, 

Eastlake, Lakeshore and Ashtabula locations, jeopardizing up to 

530 jobs. GenOn will shut two units at its Avon Lake plant, costing 

80 jobs, and GenOn will shut two units at its Niles plant, cost cutting 40 jobs. 

But Ohio alone will not be the only state impacted in our region 

from the war on coal. Two facilities are slated to shut their doors 

on the other side of the border in Pennsylvania, and three are 

going to shut down across the river in West Virginia. When you 

add in the job losses in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, we are 

talking about nearly 9000 direct, indirect and induced jobs in the 

Ohio Valley. 

Ohio is a manufacturing state, and it always has been. The energy boom in the Midwest has provided many opportunities that 

Ohioans are excited to pursue, but those opportunities are running 

head on into the Obama Administration’s environmental policies. 

Let me provide a key example. The largest electricity user in 

Ohio is Ormet Corporation in Monroe County, which is an aluminum producer capable of producing 270,000 tons of aluminum 

per year. Ormet had employed roughly 1,100 employees with more 

than 900 represented by the United Steelworkers Union, but the 

company just announced that it was considering laying off 90 to 

100 of them due to concerns about increasing electricity prices. We 

are going to continue seeing this at other manufacturing facilities, 

both large and small, all across Ohio. 

Mr. Chairman, coal is not the only industry taking the brunt of 

this Administration’s destructive environmental policies. Unfortunately, despite the unprecedented boom in natural gas production 

in our state, environmentalists and the Obama Administration are 

starting to turn a negative eye to natural gas. 

I am sure everyone here knows about the ‘‘Beyond Coal’’ campaign run by the Sierra Club. Now, they are beginning a ‘‘Beyond 

Natural Gas’’ campaign, which will attempt to cast the same negative light on the natural gas industry that it did on the coal industry. And the Obama Administration is not far behind. 

There are many questions at the end of the day about the Obama 

administration’s policies toward the coal and natural gas industries. What people really want to know is how much is this going 

16 

to cost, and the costs are substantial. I see that I am running out 

of my time, so I will wrap it up here. 

I want to thank you and your colleagues, Chairman Jordan, for 

conducting this much needed oversight of the Obama Administration. I very much appreciate your efforts along with Speaker 

Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor and others who have passed several bills promoting energy development and reigning in the EPA 

and the Administration. 

I want to acknowledge Congressman Johnson because I know he 

has worked very hard on this. I just wish that the United States 

Senate and the President of the United States would follow suit. 

I should also note, Mr. Chairman, that I am doing my best here 

in Ohio to support those efforts. Specifically I have sponsored two 

separate resolutions in the legislature urging the President to suspend both Utility MACT and CSAPR. I also led the passage of a 

resolution in the House of Representatives that urges the President 

to discard proposals to increase taxes on producers of coal, natural 

gas and oil and instead adopt policies that encourage domestic production of these important resources. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify today. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate 

time. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

17 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75591.005
18 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75591.006
19 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75591.007
20 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75591.008
21 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75591.009
22 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75591.010
23 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Representative. 

Thank you. Appreciate your work with the general assembly. 

Mr. Ahern, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TONY AHERN 

Mr. AHERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other committee 

members. I appreciate the opportunity to give testimony to you 

today. Buckeye Power is a generation and transmission cooperative 

owned by the Ohio distribution cooperatives. Ohio cooperatives 

serve 10 percent of the State of Ohio. Just upriver from where we 

are sitting here is the Cardinal station. We own two of the 600 

megawatt units there, Cardinal Units 2 and 3. We have spent in 

the last 10 years $1 billion for SCR and scrubbers for those units. 

We have made, as a result, a substantial reduction to sulfur dioxide and NOx emissions, as this chart over here vividly shows, a significant reduction. Cardinal now is able to use local high sulfur 

coal. So jobs have been added with this investment. That has 

helped the economy. Our Cardinal units are among the cleanest in 

terms of conventional pollutant coal plants in the United States. 

But this has come at a cost. The average residential cooperative 

consumer today pays about $20 more a month to provide this result. But they are getting something for this. There is an air quality benefit. Everybody is happy about it. Our members are happy 

about it. 

I wish I can end my story here, but I can’t. Why can’t I? Because 

EPA is overly aggressively pursuing additional regulations. Let me 

give you an example using the MATS, the Mercury and Air Toxic 

rule. 

When EPA was looking at whether they should impose MATS, 

they assessed the damages, the health effects from mercury and 

hazardous air pollutants, and they estimated the annual economic 

value or impact on the country was $6 million a year. They then 

estimated what it was going to take to reduce emissions to what 

they considered an acceptable level, and that number was $9.6 billion That is right, a $4 to $6 million benefit at a $9.6 billion cost. 

How do they connect the 2? They have done what they have been 

doing for many years now, double counting. Mercury benefits alone 

couldn’t justify their actions, so they looked at secondary benefits, 

in this case fine particulate reductions which they already regulate 

under another part of the Clean Air Act. So they are using overcompliance of fine particulate, what is referred to as PM2.5, by taking those levels below what they have established as an acceptable 

PM2.5 limit as a level they have established as protective of human 

health. 

This has got to stop, this double counting. The MATS rule, we 

are going to be able to meet the MATS rule we think. We are going 

to be close perhaps, but we think we have done enough. We don’t 

think we should have to incur more cost. Our biggest concern about 

the MATS rule is the monitoring requirements. We strongly believe 

and EPA has provided testimony that have said they think the 

combination of SCR and scrubbers on eastern coal takes care of the 

mercury level. 

So we are not concerned about whether our mercury level is 

going to be on an absolute basis low enough. We believe it is. Our 

24 

problem is going to be proving it through testing because mercury 

is so dilute in concentration. The standards they want to apply are 

1.2 pounds per trillion BTUs. You typically think about an issue in 

pounds per million. This is pounds per trillion. So we are very concerned about the mercury emissions. 

Let me echo what other speakers have already said today about 

the greenhouse gas rule. Our nation is foreclosing coal with this action. History has shown it is dangerous to think we can predict 

over the long-term what energy sources are going to be economical 

and reliable. In the past our federal government has banned the 

use of natural gas for electric generation. Nuclear power, it has its 

up and downs. Therefore, the prudent course of action is to not put 

all of our eggs in one basket. We need to retain coal for reliable 

generation. 

As Mr. Hodanbosi has already said, one of the biggest problems 

we have with the greenhouse gas rule is they then will apply it to 

existing units, and they think this should be corrected. 

So on behalf of Buckeye Power and our cooperative consumers, 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for allowing 

me to testify. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ahern follows:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75591.011
26 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75591.012
27 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75591.013
28 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75591.014
29 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75591.015
30 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Ahern. We appreciate your work 

and the organization’s work. You have been extremely helpful over 

the years when we have dealt with cap-and-trade issue and other 

things. We appreciate that. 

Mr. Mackall will be recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TOM MACKALL 

Mr. MACKALL. Chairman Jordan and members of the subcommittee, good morning. 

My name is Tom Mackall, and I am President of East Fairfield 

Coal Company. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

once again. 

East Fairfield Coal Company has operations in both Ohio and 

Pennsylvania, and we employ over 160 hardworking Americans. 

We mine underground for clay, coal and limestone. We are a small 

business, and I am proud to say that my father worked for the 

company when it was started in 1934. I have been with the company for over 40 years, and my son works there today. 

In 2008, then Senator Obama stated in a press interview that 

under his preferred policy of cap-and-trade, anyone who wanted to 

build a new coal-fired power plant would go bankrupt in the process. He stated that under his cap-and-trade plan, electricity prices 

would necessarily skyrocket. He left out the fact that it would put 

thousands of people out of work. 

The Obama Administration has systematically waged a war on 

coal, attacking the industry on multiple fronts, and to date they 

have been very successful. What I would like to address today are 

the details of the war on coal, specifically On Permitting, they continue to raise new obstacles. Through the use of administrative 

guidance, the Administration has effectively implemented a policy 

where isolated, non-navigable waters would receive the full protections of the Clean Water Act. 

On Mining, their goal is to throw up as many regulatory hurdles 

as possible. MSHA’s Mine Dust Regulation provides yet another example of the Administration’s war on coal and its attempts to limit 

coal mining. Essentially MSHA is proposing a standard for respirable dust that cannot be met. On burning coal, they seem intent 

on punishing any utility that dares to burn coal. 

Perhaps the most expansive and most visible attack on the coal 

industry over the last few years has been the Administration’s efforts to drastically curtail the percentage of our electricity that is 

generated from coal. Electricity prices are going to go up and the 

electric grid will be stretched even farther posing serious challenges for reliability. 

Last but not least is the issue for me for coal flyash. The flyash 

residue from coal combustion is used as a cement substitute in our 

cement block plant. The prospect of a hazardous material designation puts this type of use in jeopardy. On top of it all, I fully expect 

the second Obama term would focus on cap-and-trade while the 

President is following through on his promise to enact cap-andtrade by regulation. His allies in the Senate haven’t given up on 

legislation. I expect them to try and move climate legislation in the 

next year. 

31 

I would like to say this about CO2. One of my customers operates large industrial size greenhouses in Michigan and Canada. In 

order to promote quicker growth, they operate large CO2 generators which raise the concentration of CO2 in the greenhouses from 

340 parts per million, which is the ambient, to over a thousand 

parts per million. All this CO2 is absorbed by the plants. I don’t 

believe CO2 is really an issue in the natural world. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to briefly mention that the Administration is not the only player on the war on coal. Well-funded 

environmental groups have done everything in their power to kill 

coal in America. For example, one of America’s largest environmental groups teamed up with one of America’s largest natural gas 

producers on the so-called Beyond Coal Campaign. In fact, it was 

recently discovered that the natural gas company donated 

$26,000,000 to the environmental group in a joint effort to destroy 

the coal industry. This reliance was not to be, however, as the 

same environmental group just announced a new campaign entitled 

Beyond Natural Gas. 

Mr. Chairman, the war on coal is real and is doing tremendous 

damage to our industry. The Obama Administration and its environmental allies are doing everything they can to stop coal from 

being permitted, to make it uneconomical to mine, and stop utilities from burning it. They discourage the use of the byproducts for 

beneficial uses. This is a highly coordinated aggressive effort to literally destroy the industry by attacking coal at every point of its 

life cycle. 

The Obama Administration’s war on coal is a tragedy for the coal 

industry and the thousands of Americans that our industry employs who rely on us to provide affordable electricity. 

On behalf of myself, East Fairfield Coal Company and many 

thousands of people in our region who rely on coal for their livelihoods, thank you for supporting and conducting vigorous oversight 

of the Obama Administration and its war on coal. I have to remind 

you, though, that if definitive action is not taken to reverse the 

above-referenced policies, this industry is going to be in deep, deep 

trouble. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering your questions at the appropriate time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Mackall follows:] 

32 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75591.016
33 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75591.017
34 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75591.018
35 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75591.019
36 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75591.020
37 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75591.021
38 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75591.022
39 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75591.023
40 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75591.024
41 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Mackall. You mentioned some of 

the environmental groups who also are fighting this attacking coal, 

but in the end, it is the Administration. The buck stops with them. 

They make the rules. They implement the law. They pass the policies. 

I want to go to you, Mr. Hodanbosi. You have an undergraduate 

degree from Cleveland State University in chemical engineering? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. You have a Master’s degree in chemical engineering 

as well? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. I believe you said have you worked in this field for 

40 years, almost 40? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Almost 40. 

Mr. JORDAN. 39 years. And all of that at the Ohio EPA? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. So I am looking at your resume, biographical information. You started in 1973? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. That is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. So you have worked for Republicans and Democrats; you worked for all kind of folks? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. You have interacted with the federal EPA for all 

those 39 years? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. When you think about it, that is Nixon. That is 

Ford. That is Carter. That is Reagan. That is Bush. That is Clinton. That is Bush. And now Obama. That is a lot of experience 

working both side of the aisle. 

In that time, in that 39 plus years of working with all those administrations and the various governors, both Republican and 

Democrat, have you ever seen an administration who has this 

much animosity towards coal? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Mr. Chairman, overall this current Administration has promulgated more rules that directly affect coal than any 

time in the history of the Clean Air Act and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Mr. JORDAN. Unprecedented action we have seen in the three 

and a half years of this Administration and the 39 years of experience you have had with both Republican and Democratic administrations, you have never seen it like this? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Yes, that is correct is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. I am just curious. I don’t know the answer to this. 

Have you ever testified before in that 39 years of experience? 

Have you ever participated in hearings like this? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Yes, I have. In the U.S. Senate I testified once. 

Mr. JORDAN. Who was president at that time when you testified? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Boy, actually I do not know who was president. 

It had to do with air permitting. That was the issue. 

Mr. JORDAN. So 39 years of your service, this is the first time you 

have testified and talked about the nature of the rules being promulgated and enforced by the Administration? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Yes. 

42 

Mr. JORDAN. You would agree with the title of today’s hearing to 

talk about the Green Agenda and the War on Coal? Do you think 

that is an accurate title? Do you think there is actually a war on 

coal we are seeing from the Obama Administration? I know these 

guys would, but I am curious what you would say. 

Mr. HODANBOSI. I didn’t use that term, war on coal. 

Mr. JORDAN. We did. I am asking if you agree with it. 

Mr. HODANBOSI. That is more I am going to say a term that was 

used in a political sense. I don’t try to go down that line, but you 

can look at the rules that have been promulgated, what the effect 

is both in terms of direct coal mines or the uses. 

Mr. JORDAN. I am forgetting my Ohio history. Who was governor 

in 1973? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. It was Gilligan. 

Mr. JORDAN. So when you first were hired at the Ohio EPA, it 

was a Democratic Administration that you were hired in under, is 

that right? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Right. That was Governor Gilligan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I am running low on time. I want to get to our three 

other members who are more the experts on the coal industry. 

The blackout that we have been hearing about in India, I have 

not heard the cause of it. I am just curious your thoughts on that 

and if something like that could happen in the United States if we 

continue this effort to make it difficult to use coal to meet our electric and energy needs. I will start with you. Then we will go down 

to the line. 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Just quickly, I read about the blackout in India 

yesterday, but instead of it having gotten better, I heard on the 

radio today it has gotten worse. Instead of 300,000,000 people without power, it is now up to 600,000,000 people without power. 

Can it happen in this country? Well, I think we have experienced 

some blackouts in 2008, maybe it was a little earlier, in Ohio and 

in the east coast. So it has happened here, and it is certainly something to be concerned with. 

Again, part of my testimony, I submitted the article from the Columbus Dispatch that talks about the units that were going to be 

shut down during the last heatwave. They are in use. So where is 

that power going to come from? How are we going to replace it to 

keep the electricity going? 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me quickly talk to the other three witnesses. 

I think I know the answer to this. The title of today’s hearing 

is Green Agenda and War on Coal. Would you agree that is an accurate description of what is going on, Representative? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do think it is kind of unprecedented because administrations in the past at the federal 

level would have had a mutual interest seemingly in having inexpensive energy. Energy independence has been a goal for this country since the beginning of time. President Carter started the energy 

department with the stated goal to try to have energy independence, and it seems as though this Administration is driving us in 

the opposite direction. 

We are going to be more and more dependent on other sources 

of energy, more expensive sources of energy and probably from hosVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75591.TXT APRIL
43 

tile countries. I think that is a problem. Clearly there is a war on 

coal, and we are feeling the effects of it already. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Ahern, you deal with electric cooperatives all 

over the state. Would you agree with the title of today’s hearing, 

War on Coal? 

Mr. AHERN. I think probably the greenhouse gas rule that the 

EPA has proposed for new units is probably the signature that declares war on coal because it is a standard that the demonstrated 

technology is not available in order to meet that standard. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Mackall. 

Mr. MACKALL. I obviously agree very much, and I would point 

out that Ohio’s success in the past has been our coal-fired electricity providing economical power for industry. With the proposals 

they have now, what industry are we going to have left in Ohio? 

It is an attack on the economy, not just on coal. 

Mr. JORDAN. Remember the title. We said the Green Agenda and 

the War on Coal. It is both. There is a war on coal. You have all 

made that clear. We have a gentleman who has 40 years of experience with the Ohio EPA who understands how different this Administration is from previous administrations. But it is also the 

green agenda. Mr. McKinley brought up Secretary Chu of the Department of Energy, the loan guarantee program at the Department of Energy. They took $16 billion of taxpayer money and gave 

it to 26 companies. 22 of those companies that got the money—this 

is Solyndra, this is Beacon Power, this is Abound Solar, three companies that went bankrupt, gave them your money—22 of those 26 

companies had a credit rating of BB-. 

Mr. Mackall, you are in business. You know what that means. 

That means it was junk. No one would invest in it. But it was okay 

to give them your money. This is to add insult to injury. Not only 

are they at war on coal, but they are also saying oh, by the way, 

the tax money you do send to us, we are going to take it and give 

it to your competitors. 

Meanwhile, three of them have gone bankrupt and 22 of the 26 

companies that got your money would have never got any money 

in the private sector because they weren’t a good risk. 

That is what is going on with this Administration. So when Mr. 

Hodanbosi says he has never seen it like he has with this Administration, it is true. We got all the facts to point it out. So we want 

to thank you all for being here. I went over time. 

The gentleman from Ohio will get extra time. Mr. Johnson, you 

are recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hodanbosi, in your background and with your experience, do 

you think that the EPA has an agenda that it is trying to effectuate by the promulgating of regulations that specifically impact 

the coal industry? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. I think it is pretty clear that all the rules that 

are coming out are overall specifically designed to certainly restrict 

the use of coal. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You know the Vice-President came through Ohio 

not too long ago touting a resurgence in manufacturing at the same 

time that the Administration has begun an all-out attack on the 

44 

very energy sources to fuel any kind of resurgence in manufacturing. 

How do we fuel a resurgence in manufacturing if the EPA and 

the Administration persists with this attempt to shut down the coal 

industry? Where is the power going to come from to fuel manufacturing plants? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Well, that remains a concern of not just Ohio 

EPA, but the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio on the rules that 

were promulgated. Both agencies filed comments to that extent. In 

order for us to have a strong industrial base, we need to have inexpensive electric power. That is just the bottom line. And if the costs 

go up too much, we will lose some of our heavy manufacturing to 

companies that move overseas where the power is cheaper. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mackall, uncertainty is one of the big issues that businesses 

talk to us about these days and the uncertainty around the regulatory process and the EPA’s actions. 

How has uncertainty created by the EPA and the Clean Water 

Act permitting process harmed your ability to expand your business and create jobs? 

Mr. MACKALL. Across the coalfields today, the uncertainty, especially with the election ahead of us and so on, most companies that 

I know of, maybe all companies I know of have stopped considering 

making further purchases of mining equipment because what are 

we going to do if Obama goes another four years? I feel my company will have a very difficult time continuing in the coal business. 

I am not going to buy any new equipment. It is starting to really 

stop the economy. I think that is another reason why we see the 

slow growth across the metric today. There is so much uncertainty 

with their economic policies. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, if you knew about the uncertainty, the red 

tape and the costs of EPA regulations in acquiring permits, would 

you still have gone into the coal mining business? 

Mr. MACKALL. I have to answer that by going back to my coal 

miners. They are wonderful people. I suppose I would have retired 

a long time ago if it wasn’t for them. There is a lot of great, intelligent, hardworking young coal miners who need jobs, and they will 

never find jobs like this again. Really the only reason I continue 

is for them. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As a coal operator, what would you say to a company or an individual that is trying to invest in new coal mining 

operations today? Based on what you know and the impacts that 

the EPA and their regulations or the Administration is having on 

the coal industry, would you invest in new coal mining operations 

today? 

Mr. MACKALL. Not in the United States of America. We don’t 

mine anything in the United States of America today. In fact, that 

is one of the points that they made with Solyndra, is that China 

controls all over our earth. So they are going to control many of the 

manufacturing anyway. I guess today we need to invest in coal 

mines in India and China. They are going to lead the world’s economy if we continue with Obama’s policies. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I appreciate your responding to those questions. 

45 

Representative Thompson, first of all, I appreciate you being 

here, and I enjoy working with you. We cover a lot of the same territory in our respective districts, and I know that you are a passionate advocate for the coal industry as well. 

Can you give us a sense of how coal production affects the economy, your specific area that you represent? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate working 

with you very closely as well. As you well know, a lot of communities depend upon the revenues generated by these utility plants 

that are burning coal. Several school systems in our districts right 

now are very, very concerned about the shutdown of these utility 

plants and what it is going to mean to their revenue sources. We 

have so many people who are working in the mining business, particularly Noble, Washington. Monroe County is huge. So these are 

real individuals. These are real communities. These are real people. 

They count on coal for that certainty. 

We talked about uncertainty. There is a tremendous palpable 

sense of dread right now. As I discussed in my testimony, as we 

go around to county fairs, and I know you are experiencing this as 

well, people just say please stand up for coal. Please do something. 

Please see what you can do to stop what is going on in Washington 

with these regulatory agencies. Because everybody has got a family 

story. My uncle was in coal. My granddad owned a coal company. 

That future may not exist for people going forward just because 

of the uncertainty, because of this deliberate attempt to eliminate 

this energy source. We are not going to have that baseload power 

we need. We need that baseload power to make Ohio’s economy go. 

Ohio can’t be open for business if we’re shutting down coal. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We talk about the effect on the consumer and on 

business. Let us look at it from a different perspective. The state 

requires revenue to function as well, to conduct its business. As a 

state representative, one of your legislative responsibilities is to 

help draft the budget for the State of Ohio. 

If coal production in the state continues to suffer more, what 

would be the effect on state revenues and on the budget? What 

would have to be done to counter the effects of the diminished revenues? 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is a huge impact. I don’t have a specific figure 

for you, Congressman, but I think, again, it is a reliable source. We 

count on the jobs that it generates. We count on the jobs that it 

facilitates when we have inexpensive energy in the State of Ohio. 

You eliminate that component of coal—obviously we are excited 

about some of the shale things that are going on right now, but you 

also need the competition between the 2. You need that vibrant 

market that keeps rates down, keeps them cost effective. 

So there is additional uncertainty for our budget obviously if we 

are shutting down those plants because of the income tax it generates, the sales tax it generates. There is so much investment. We 

talked about those 11 additional jobs that each coal job relates to 

and creates and supports. So we need that. We need that basic undergirding of the economy or else Ohio is going to be in desperate 

straits. 

It was a struggle this year to try to solve an $8 billion budget 

hole. It is going to get a lot tougher if we don’t have coal as an inVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75591.TXT APRIL
46 

expensive energy source in Ohio because it impacts throughout the 

entire community. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Because it is actually a trickle down effect. It is 

not just the income taxes that the coal operators provide and the 

coal mining operations themselves provide, but it is also the manufacturing companies that are dependent upon energy that will shut 

down as a result of not having affordable energy. It is a really big 

impact. 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is heavy equipment manufacturers. They 

count on coal. Trucking companies, people that provide equipment, 

clothing, housing, everything else. It is vitally important. The sense 

of uncertainty in eastern Ohio is really strong right now, and I understand that. It is heartbreaking to hear about people who are 

being laid off. 

We talked about Monroe County. As well Ormet is a critical component there. Beyond Ormet there is not a lot going on there that 

is positive economically, and we want to see them continue and be 

strengthened. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me for one 

more question. 

Mr. JORDAN. Sure. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Ahern, if regulations prevent or seriously limit 

a co-op from burning coal, how would the underserved in rural 

areas like we represent here along the Ohio River, how will they 

receive their electricity? 

Mr. AHERN. Well, it probably will be from other sources that are 

likely to be more expensive. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You are talking about people that are already 

struggling day to day, unemployment in many places, some double 

digits, and yet they are going to have to pay higher utility rates 

to power their homes. It is even going to have a further crippling 

effect on those businesses that operate in those rural areas because 

as their cost to provide power to their business and manufacturing 

operations increase, they are going to have to probably lose people, 

not hire people. 

Mr. AHERN. Chairman Jordan and Representative Johnson, I 

think right now natural gas is relatively inexpensive. It is helping 

to hold down electricity prices, but once people turn away from 

coal, the only reasonable place you can turn to for baseload generation is natural gas. Natural gas prices are going to rise significantly. It is going to raise electricity prices for Ohio and many 

other areas of the country. They are going to see significant price 

increases. 

As Mr. Hodanbosi already mentioned, we are going to lose some 

generating capacity. With today’s very low natural gas prices, nobody will build anything today. You won’t be building a combustion 

turbine at today’s low wholesale power prices. So we are going to 

wind the spring and do nothing, and then when that spring lets go, 

we are not going to have enough electricity, and it is going to drive 

up the price, and people are going to feel it and businesses are 

going to feel it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

47 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. In your questioning, you 

brought out the jobs that are associated with the coal industry and 

the positive impact that has on communities and the school districts. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Murray is with us, of Murray Energy. Of course, they employ a lot of folks and have a lot of positive 

impact on the countless number of communities across this state 

and across the country. So we appreciate him being with us today. 

With that, I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you all for being here. I walked in with one 

of the gentlemen that is in the industry. We take for granted this 

idea that you flip the switch and the lights come on, hit the switch 

at night and the air conditioning comes on, or in the winter, you 

just turn up the thermostat a little bit and the house gets warm 

and the lights get lit. 

The fragility though of this grid and the inability to keep it at 

a level, a baseload, any of you please explain that. I think hearings 

like this are great because the general public doesn’t understand 

how fragile this is. We start talking about brownouts and blackouts. The fact we haven’t had any absolutely amazes me right now. 

The startup, you can’t just start them back up again. Once these 

plants shut down, you don’t start them back up again that easily. 

Am I right or wrong on that, Mr. Ahern? 

Mr. AHERN. Chairman Jordan and Representative Kelly, you are 

right. The grid is not a real stable system in terms of it doesn’t tolerate upsets very well. A great example of that is August of 2003 

when there was a disruption due to problems in northern Ohio, and 

we ended up with a blackout that blacked out 55 million people 

that went from Ohio to Michigan, around the north side of Lake 

Erie, across upstate New York and down to New York City. So the 

grid, it is not self-correcting in that way. You have got to maintain 

the voltage. You have got to maintain the frequency to keep it stable. 

Mr. KELLY. So the importance of the grid, we all agree how crit- ical it is. We put $16 billion in green energy. How much of an investment have we made in the grid? See, I never hear that. I always about renewables and the way we are going to go for renewables. That seems to be the push that this Administration has. 

Mr. AHERN. Chairman Jordan and Representative Kelly, one of 

the things that I think is not really appreciated broadly is that the 

only reason the grid is there is because it is being maintained. The 

idea that we have an antiquated infrastructure, I reject that idea. 

It is cared for. It is taken care of. Sure, we have seen deficiencies. 

You have got FERC. You have got NERC. You have got state 

commissions. You have got the individual utilities themselves. You 

have got regional transmission organizations. For Ohio you have 

got PJM. There is a tremendous amount of focus going on to maintain the grid. 

One of the things that the green agenda is doing that is going 

to present challenges to the grid is that the two major sources of 

power that they seem to strongly advocate are wind and solar and 

they are intermittent resources. They can come up quickly, but 

more importantly, they can come down quickly. Clouds can shield 

48 

a solar field. The wind can die off rather quickly. Those dramatic 

changes, the rest of the grid has to really hustle to keep the voltage 

and the current in line. Otherwise, the system will go unstable as 

the blackout of 2003 shows, the blackout of 1965 and other regional 

blackouts that have occurred. 

Mr. KELLY. We rely on sun that may not shine and wind that 

may not blow. Then we turn our back on all the other stuff we 

know, which is right beneath the surface. That is really amazing 

to me, that an Administration that many people will say these are 

the smartest guys—I don’t know. When you run a business 1.7 trillion in the red every year, I don’t know that I would go to any of 

those guys for business advice. 

One of the things I do want to point out, and I think you would 

all agree, while we face a global market that is out there for us all, 

we may never ever get to a point where we can compete on an 

hourly wage, but we can compete when our energy costs are lower 

than every other place in the world. So while you have wages that 

allow us to have a sustainable life form and a way of life we like, 

we can offset it by low energy costs, can we not? That is part of 

the formula of what drives the cost of a product either up or down. 

I look at this and I say if we are ever going to fair fight, shame 

on us. With what we have at our disposal, we put our men and 

women in a situation where they can’t absolutely blow everybody 

else away, what are we thinking about. This is not the type of a 

country that I know of, ruin its greatness. We have it. It is here. 

It is affordable. It is abundant. It is accessible. Why in the world 

would we ever, ever turn our back on what we know and how we 

can offset the rising cost of wages that our people need and put 

ourselves in jeopardy. It makes no sense. 

Mr. Mackall, I know that your company is doing a great job. Mr. 

Murry’s company is doing a great job. Why is there this war on 

coal? Why? 

Mr. MACKALL. I have no understanding. It makes no sense to me. 

It is all over a phony CO2 issue, which I mentioned in my speech 

that my greenhouse customer totally, to me, disproves the science. 

I don’t understand. 

I do know that all these plants they want to close right now, including two that I supply, two GenOn plants, they are slated to 

close, but they are running right now, or our grid wouldn’t be functioning right now. There is no other source of electricity. Every 

available source of electricity is running right now to keep the electricity grid working. Without them, they would be dead. 

Mr. KELLY. It is baffling, is it not? Representative, I mean, I 

think there is some confusion sometimes. We think that the government is somehow just this benevolent monarch that showers on 

the people all these gifts. But the reality of it is every single penny 

that the government uses comes out of a hardworking American 

taxpayer’s pocket. Unfortunately, only half of us are paying taxes 

anymore. 

Please explain, because I think these types of hearings allow the 

community to understand. Every single penny that Ohio needs, 

where does it come from? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Chairman Jordan and Representative Kelly, it 

comes from people who are actually working. I think the way that 

49 

Ohio goes to work is Ohio has reasonable priced energy. That energy is supplied to the manufacturers. The manufacturers put people to work. They put people to work in mining coal. They put people to work in transporting it, shipping it and delivering it. 

The green agenda, I think, which concerns me the most, it is almost an article of faith, it is an alternative to religion, to the one 

that we understand, and it is a religion where they disdain fossil 

fuels. They consider fossil fuels to be the enemy of our health and 

our safety and our way of life. 

If you look at California’s energy policy, you will see what America is going to look like shortly. It is a mess. They disdain energy 

sources that we know are reliable. They are increasingly trying to 

rely on wind and solar which cannot be effectively stored, cannot 

be transmitted very well. So it just makes this economy much more 

problematic, increases the uncertainty. 

We have 200 years of proven reserves of coal. Why aren’t we 

doing everything possible to invest in that? If we need to make it 

cleaner, let us invest in clean coal technology. We have the ability 

to do that. As we do that, again, we get all the benefits that we 

are seeking. 

We have got reliable reserves. We know we can produce it cost 

effectively. That goes right into the economy, and it makes Ohio 

viable because it is an advantage for Ohio, not just for the nation. 

Right here in Ohio we have very inexpensive energy sources that 

can power the manufacturing sector comeback we would all like to 

see. 

Mr. KELLY. I know Pennsylvania is doing the same thing. I think 

all of us sit back, and it is one of these things where you scratch 

your head and kind of raise your shoulders and you just keep asking why. I do not know. After watching the current Administration, 

when they were running for office, they absolutely have kept their 

word to the American people, and they have certainly kept their 

word to coal. 

For the life of me, I just keep asking why. Nobody can ever answer that to me. Why do you want to do this? I guess the answer 

for all of us is because they can. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman for his good questioning. I 

want to ask one thing real quickly before we go on to Congressman 

McKinley. 

Mr. Ahern, when you and Congressman Kelly were dialoguing, 

you mentioned that you think the grid is maintained, but I want 

to make sure I heard accurately. You said with the focus you are 

seeing from this Administration on wind and solar, you think the 

likelihood of blackouts and the likelihood to maintain that quality 

grid is somewhat jeopardized, is that accurate? 

Mr. AHERN. Mr. Chairman, it is close. I would say it this way 

more specifically, it is going to be a great challenge. To put more 

intermittent resources onto the grid and maintain the reliability, it 

is a bigger challenge. I am not saying it is impossible. 

Mr. JORDAN. So the conclusion is that the potential for blackouts, 

in fact, is greater with this unreliability of wind and solar being 

added to the mix? 

50 

Mr. AHERN. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is a great possibility, yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Mr. Ahern, you mentioned in your remarks about 

flyash. For those people who are not aware, it is an unavoidable 

byproduct of burning coal. 

Mr. AHERN. Yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If you burn coal, you get an ash. The EPA since 

2009 has been contemplating and developing and perfecting a piece 

of legislation, a new rule and reg. that would potentially classify 

flyash as a hazardous material. 

We know that flyash is used in concrete. It is used in brick and 

block. We know it is used in drywall. We know it is used in bowling 

balls. It is used in ceramic tile. It is used in a variety of beneficial 

recyclable uses. 

What are you doing at Cardinal? What are you doing with the 

flyash there? 

Mr. AHERN. Chairman Jordan and Representative McKinley, 

most of the flyash at Cardinal, we store it on site long term. Although we do sell some of the flyash, there are certain products— 

for example, you mentioned bowling balls. There is a certain part 

of the flyash that is very small, spherical hollow particles that are 

great for making plastics of improved quality and things like that. 

One of the other things that is not flyash directly, but it is indicative of the effort we go to, our scrubbers, the sulfur dioxide gets 

converted to gypsum, calcium sulfate. That can be used for drywall. 

Over half of the gypsum we produce at the Cardinal station is put 

on a barge, and taken downriver to a drywall plant and made into 

drywall. So we have looked for avenues. 

Much of the bottom ash has a different character than the flyash. 

It is a great aggregate for concrete. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But, if this becomes hazardous material? Don’t 

you think consumers—I know that there are studies that say 

across America, there are 316,000 jobs involved in the recycling of 

coal ash and gypsum. All of those would be in jeopardy, wouldn’t 

it, if the EPA has its way with the coal ash rule? 

Mr. AHERN. Mr. Chairman and Representative McKinley, it 

would be a huge problem if flyash was declared hazardous because 

of just the laws that would apply to the ways you have to protect 

workers, clothe them, ventilators, things like that, what we would 

have to do to our handling systems and things like that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Have you been able to project at all what the 

cost to the consumer could be? Because that would be passed along 

through the Public Service Commission, that cost. Do we have a 

sense of what that could be to the consumers if they persist in 

making this a hazardous material? 

Mr. AHERN. Chairman Jordan and Representative McKinley, we 

do not have a good cost estimate of what the impact would be. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Let me move on. There was the other comment, 

I think it was Mr. Mackall, about the new performance standards, 

New Source Performance Standards. Did you not make that statement in your remarks about that? 

Mr. MACKALL. Yes. 

51 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Again I think more people across America need 

to understand what that is all about. The mercury standard was 

to go back to the old plants to bring them into compliance. But 

under this new performance standard, this is for all the potentially 

new coal-fired generating plants. This would be their rule. That 

would put them in a bind. The real crux, as I understand, is coming down to the carbon capture and sequestration or carbon capturing utilization processes that could be available. 

I think you mentioned and others have said that technology, as 

we know, is currently not available and may not be available for 

10 years or more. Yet the EPA is promulgating this rule. We have 

a hearing. We just put a bill in last week. I am honored. I know 

that Representative Johnson is on that bill with me and others in 

Congress. We are going to try get that rule held back until there 

is technology commercially available. 

In other words, they can set it up, but until it is commercially 

viable, that rule can’t be enforced. We think that is a realistic response to this effort. We just got word yesterday that the leadership is going to have a hearing on that in September. For those of 

you that have an interest in that legislation, watch in Washington 

for September when we have the opportunity to be able to understand more how the EPA has gotten ahead of the curve here and 

not using science, but using ideaology as their driving force. 

Again, I thank you all for being here today. I hope to see you 

again in September. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman. Now we will go quickly a second round. We will start with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Hodanbosi, I want to turn a little bit to the 

issue of the effects of these regulations on the supply of electricity. 

You have heard a little bit talk about reliability. 

From a reliability standpoint, how do you think Ohio coal-fired 

power plants will be able to comply with Utility MACT and provide 

electricity during peak hours, such as in a heatwave like we have 

had here in Ohio recently? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. I guess the issue is not so much the plants that 

are operating and can comply. Mr. Ahern talked about the Cardinal 

plant and the expense, that he believes his plant can comply. So 

we will have some facilities that will be able to comply. 

The issue is all of the facilities that are closing and are not going 

to be in operation. Where are we going to get the capacity from to 

make up when we need the electricity? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let us turn to that issue. How many electricity 

generating units have already been prematurely retired as a result 

of Utility MACT and do you have any idea how many are projected? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Well, there 25 specific boilers that are shutting 

down as a result of the Utility MACT and other EPA requirements 

that have been announced. That is over 5000 megawatts of capacity that will be gone in the next three years. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I know that you sit in a regulatory agency, so I 

don’t know how many businesses you talk to, but do you have any 

sense of the direct effects of increased electricity costs as a result 

52 

of EPA’s regulations? Are companies laying off workers and shutting down businesses? 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Well, there certainly is a direct impact when 

electricity rates go up. The example of Representative Thompson of 

Ormet that is just down the river, the aluminum producer, that 

they have laid off some workers, and if the price of electricity continues to go up, that will be the course there. That is a huge employer in Ohio. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Ahern, will regulations like the Utility MACT 

increase the cost of electricity that you provide to your customers, 

and what implications does this have? We have dealt with this a 

little bit, but I want to give you a chance to expound on it. 

What implications does this have for economic growth and job 

creation in rural areas like your company serves? 

Mr. AHERN. Mr. Chairman and Representative Johnson, it is unclear to us exactly how the Utility MACT might expose us to additional costs. We are hoping that it doesn’t, but as I mentioned previously, one of the big uncertainties is the monitoring requirements. Mercury is just so dilute in concentration. It is extremely 

difficult to measure. And what sort of testing requirements will 

they have, what sort of testing frequencies. Tests particularly with 

very dilute concentrations, sometimes you can actually be performing well, but the tests will raise doubt. So you could be required to spend a lot of money on testing, a lot of money on monitoring equipment. 

Overall, it is difficult to say exactly how it is going to impact us, 

but as I described, the accomplishments that we have had so far 

have added up to a billion dollars of capital costs and $20 a month 

for the average consumer. We don’t think it is appropriate to add 

any more costs on top of that because our customers have already 

paid for significant improvement in air quality. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Rural cooperatives like yours, do you have reliability concerns about the Utility MACT compliance, particularly 

during peak hours? 

Mr. AHERN. Mr. Chairman and Representative Johnson, any 

time you do anything to the old, it can affect the whole electric system. Everybody that is connected to it is potentially impacted. 

Even though our plants may be fine, may be well controlled, may 

meet the standards, if others around us retire, if there reliability 

problems because a lot of generation is taken out, we will be impacted, and probably the most direct and costly way is the possibility of blackouts. 

Mr. JOHNSON. If the co-op wants to build a new coal-fired power 

plant, will it be able to given the New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions? 

Mr. AHERN. Mr. Chairman and Representative Johnson, I don’t 

see with the proposed greenhouse gas standard how anyone could 

take on the task of building a new coal plant. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Representative Thompson, let us come back to 

you. We talked a little bit before about the effect of reduced coal 

production on state revenues. What about local government revenues? I know you and I talk to a lot of local government folks that 

are struggling to fund their sewer upgrades, their water upgrades, 

53 

also a part of the regulatory process that is being mandated on 

them, and yet they don’t have the funds to be able to do that. 

What effect on local governments would diminished revenues as 

a result of lower production and use of coal have? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Johnson, I 

think, again, in more of a micro way, they count on all the local 

jobs, the people that are paying income tax. They count on the 

services that are used locally by these coal companies and the utility companies. Again, their base revenue sources are very much dependent on these companies. 

We talk about local government. We talk about schools that are 

going to be suffering, school districts. In many cases, the utilities 

are partners with local charities and things. There is so much. It 

radiates through so much of that local economy. It is obviously very 

tough for local governments right now because of revenue at the 

state level and also at the local level. So any variable that you introduce into that equation is really going to harm them in a significant way. 

This is something that doesn’t have to happen. This is something 

that is happening in Washington by design. And this war on coal 

and this disdain for, again, our electric utilities and also our coal 

producers and the livelihoods that are dependent upon it, it is a 

huge impact. You and I are experiencing it. We hear it. The discussions and palpable fear in local communities is on the rise. 

I hope we can turn this back. I hope we can reverse this. A lot 

of it is under way, and it is hard to get bureaucracies to move in 

the right direction. But I appreciate what this committee is doing 

to call attention to it, and I will do everything I can in the State 

of Ohio to be of help. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. JORDAN. I now recognize Mr. Kelly for a second round. 

Mr. KELLY. One of the things we talked about, Mr. Ahern, was 

the grid. When I am back in western Pennsylvania and I get a 

chance to visit with the folks that I represent, I talk to a lot of the 

machinists. 

I talked to one of my friends up in Meadville. He was saying, 

hey, are you guys going to get this thing taken care with the grid? 

Are you guys going to do something about this? Because the problem I have is that I can’t afford the surge. I said, what do you 

mean the surge? He said, I can’t turn these machines on and then 

have there be a dip in the power because then I have to go back 

and restart and recalibrate everything. He said, you know the cost 

of doing that? I said, no, I have absolutely no idea the cost. He 

said, well, I will tell you what. It is going to put us out of business. 

The reliability of the grid is also one of those things that is absolutely critical. Mr. Ahern, when we talk about all these different 

alternative uses, you look at what we have done with coal over the 

years, I am talking about something that is so consistent and so 

reliable and so affordable, what is the purpose in all that? I know 

you talked a little bit about the grid, keeping it up, but the reality 

of it is these surges also really affect these businesses and their 

ability to power up the machines. 

How often do you see that? It is going to become more and more 

prevalent I would think. 

54 

Mr. AHERN. Mr. Chairman and Representative Kelly, you bring 

up a very good point. It is part of the evolution of technology. There 

is so much greater use of electronics and electronic controls and 

things like that, much more than there were decades ago. This is 

the kind of equipment that is not very tolerant of even a fraction 

of a second blip in the voltage or the frequency. 

So it is more and more important that the grid reliability be 

maintained. I am telling you from my experience the utilities know 

how to maintain grid reliability. They know what needs to be done. 

It is not rocket science, but it is fundamental. You have got to have 

enough grid. You have got to have enough transmission. You have 

got to have enough generators, and you have got to deal with the 

upsets. 

As I mentioned before, the biggest challenge that I see coming 

for the grid is the intermittent resources growing to be a larger and 

larger percentage of the supply which is going to introduce an environment that is not the norm that they are used to, and there is 

going to be a learning curve. And during that learning curve, there 

are probably going to be problems. 

Mr. KELLY. But it doesn’t make sense to me for us to go away 

from something we already know. Maybe you can help out. My 

friends in the business tell me about the secondary power sources, 

how you have the backups. It is almost like one of these big diesel 

trucks. When they go in and grab a cup of coffee, they don’t shut 

them down. They leave them running because it is cheaper to leave 

them run than it is to shut them down and start them back up 

again. 

That is where I keep going to with this grid and the availability, 

that you have this backup system in place so when you have the 

dip, the other kicks in so you don’t have those surges. This is what 

bothers me. If we keep shutting down these plants, these coal-powered electric producing plants, there is a dire effect that happens 

in industry with this. 

A guy like me that sells cars and trucks, I get it. I know why 

the guys leave the diesels running. What I can’t understand is why 

the government wants to shut down our most reliable source of 

electric generation. I don’t get it. Is there something I am not getting? 

Mr. AHERN. Mr. Chairman and Representative Kelly, I think you 

are getting it. It is just very important to maintain the reliability. 

Now, the grid operator, which today in our region of the country 

is PJM, they have the oversight of all the transmission. They are 

the ones that give dispatch orders to the generators, pick up, drop 

off. They always keep some generators at part load so that they are 

prepared to pick up load or to reject load. 

As Mr. Hodanbosi has mentioned, when some of these coal plants 

get taken out over the next few years, we are entering a new environment. As I mentioned previously, hardly any new generation is 

being built today because wholesale power prices are so low that 

nobody sees an opportunity for a good investment to be made. 

And this is even more so in states that have chosen to go to a 

greater use of markets. In Ohio it is one of those for the investor 

and utilities, competitive markets and market suppliers, and a lot 

of these marketers, they are sharp businesspeople. They say, well, 

55 

I don’t want to build a new plant today because I don’t know that 

five years from now, there isn’t going to be overbuilding. That is 

another new element that we now have that we didn’t have before, 

which is another urge for caution and not to go with full abandon 

in the direction we are going. 

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Jordan and I have sat in on a number of these 

hearings. One of the things I find absolutely astounding is that we 

would pour $16 billion into renewables. That sends a signal to the 

private investors. They don’t want to put that money in themselves 

until the government says, we will underwrite it. You don’t have 

to worry about that. Then we find out from a lot of them as soon 

as they saw what was going on, they got out of that investment so 

fast, when they found out this stuff was going upside down, it 

wasn’t going to be subsidized by the American taxpayers. It is 

amazing to me that we have turned our back on a lot of things that 

we have. 

Again, I keep going back to this. I still keep asking myself why. 

Why are we abandoning a source that has been so reliable, provides so many jobs, provides so much revenue to run this country, 

and turning our backs on it and saying we want to try this other 

stuff? It just does not make any sense. It is a waste of taxpayer 

money. I thank you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman. 

We will recognize Mr. McKinley for a short round and then get 

the second panel in here. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

We have spent a lot of time here today talking, and it seems like 

the majority of the questions had to do with the utility companies 

and what it is going to do to the consumers and businesses. But 

I think we have to be equally cognizant of the mining industry. 

Mr. Mackall, I am going to focus some of my attention to you. 

We know the rules, the Utility MACT, the air transport Rules. We 

know all that. The New Performance Standard, we know what it 

is going to do to the utility. Let us go back to the men and women 

in the mines where they are going to produce the coal. I looked at 

here a series of things. Bill Johnson has worked very hard. I have 

seen him work the floor on the Stream Buffer rule that is going to 

open up opportunities for that. 

We have water permitting, the water conductivity. There are 6 

bottled waters in America that if we went to a mine site and we 

drank this water and poured some of it on the ground, we would 

be in violation of the EPA water conductivity standards. That just 

is incredible, what it is doing to our industry. 

We have got the use of flyash being proposed not to allow it to 

be used as a buffer on acid mine runoff. We have got the roadblocks that the Sierra Club and others are trying to put up about 

shipping coal overseas. If we can’t burn it in America, perhaps 

someone else can do it and put our men and women back to work 

with that. I am sure there are more from your industry. I am not 

in the coal industry. 

But what actions of the EPA do you think have been the most 

onerous? If Congress could focus on one issue when we go back beVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Aug 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75591.TXT APRIL
56 

tween now and the end of the year, which would be the one that 

would affect the mine industry that should be reversed first? 

Mr. MACKALL. That is a very difficult question to answer. We 

talked about all the different ways we are being attacked, and they 

are all important. The cumulative effect of all of them is what is 

really significant. I mean, to get a permit, it is a ridiculous tremendous maze you have to go through. I am convinced there are a lot 

of the people in the bureaucracy that don’t want to give us a permit. They have embraced this war on coal. They don’t want us to 

have permits. They throw up even more personal roadblocks in the 

middle of the process. 

We have spent years trying to get permits, whether it is Army 

Corps permits or mining permits. They are getting a little better 

in Ohio finally. But it is the cumulative of the whole thing. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. You got a group of individuals here today that 

are focused on trying to push back on this war on coal to get some 

common sense. I am one of two engineers in Congress. So I am trying to use my background and experience. I want to make sure I 

am fighting based on science. But I need to know what your priority is. So I am trying to hear from you what would be your top 

priority, first bill to get repealed? 

Mr. MACKALL. Our most important issue, I guess, focuses on our 

customers. We have lost many, many customers over the years that 

have quit burning coal. I want to make sure that our customers 

continue to burn coal. 

It amazes me when I see the records and I see how clean the air 

is. I have never seen the air so clean. I used to be in Pittsburgh. 

It was a horrible mess. Cleveland was a big mess. Youngstown was 

a big mess. The air is so clean now. We have accomplished so 

much. I don’t want any more regulations to impact on the customer 

base that is left that we can sell coal to. We can at least deal with 

the other regulations as long as we have a customer left at the end 

of the day. If there is no customer, then why even fight it. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I yield back my time. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the panel. Let 

me finish with just one question here. Just to dispel this idea that 

this is nonpartisan, I mean, I think it has been clear based on what 

we have heard, this Administration is different, different than previous Republican administrations, different than previous Democratic administrations. This is just the fact, that this Administration is, in fact, engaging in a war on the coal industry and has this 

green initiative. 

Mr. Mackall, I bet you employ both Republicans and Democrats 

in your business, is that accurate? 

Mr. MACKALL. We don’t ask that question. 

Mr. JORDAN. I won’t ask you which one you are either. 

Mr. MACKALL. I guess we are 98 percent Republican. 

Mr. JORDAN. Some of the guys that work for you in your organization, I am sure people who work in the coal mining industry 

aren’t all Republican; is that right? 

Mr. MACKALL. No, they are not. 

Mr. JORDAN. You make no distinction about it. 

Mr. Ahern, in the cooperatives that you represent and Buckeye 

Power, I am sure you have got both parties in your organization. 

57 

Mr. AHERN. Certainly do. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Thompson, if my memory serves me right, your 

district for many years represented by Democrats in the general assembly. When you are out talking with constituents, I bet you have 

had Democrats come up to you and say they are just as concerned 

about what this Administration is doing to coal as you are. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very much so. 

Mr. JORDAN. The Republicans are. 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is not a partisan issue. We want to allow people to continue to work, and they can’t do that with this war on 

coal. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Hodanbosi, we determined in the first round of 

questions with you that you have been in this business for almost 

40 years, worked for, if I have got my history right, Gilligan, 

Rhodes, Celeste, Voinovich, Strickland and Kasich, all administrated both Republicans and Democrats in there. You have worked 

with and interacted with what would have been Nixon, Ford, 

Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. So you have worked 

there, too. And you definitely see this Administration as different 

than other administrations that you have had the privilege and opportunity to work with. 

Mr. HODANBOSI. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. I want to thank all of you for being here today and 

your important testimony. We appreciate what you do in these 

communities and the service you provide the taxpayers of this 

great state. 

We will go now to our second panel. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. JORDAN. We have the second panel with us, Mr. Shawn Garvin, who is the administrator of Region 3 of the Environmental 

Protection Agency and Mr. Bharat Mathur who is deputy administrator of Region 5 of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

We want to thank you both for being here. You guys know how 

this works. You have to stand up and be sworn. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. JORDAN. Let the record show that both witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. 

Again, I know you guys have done this before, but you get five 

minutes. And I think, if I understood from our staff, just Mr. Garvin is going to make his opening statement and then be ready for 

questions. 

Mr. Garvin, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SHAWN M. GARVIN 

Mr. GARVIN. Good morning, Chairman Jordan and Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator of 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Atlantic 

Region, Region 3. I am here today to testify on behalf of EPA’s 

Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic Regions and am joined by my colleague, Deputy Regional Administrator Bharat Mathur, of EPA’s 

Great Lakes Region, which includes Ohio. 

As the Agency has indicated to your staff, we are responsible for 

the implementation of regulations designed and promulgated in 

58 

EPA’s headquarters offices in Washington, D.C. in both the Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes regions respectively. As the agency has also 

indicated to your staff, while questions that relate to specific national efforts fall outside of our responsibility, we are more than 

happy to refer those questions to the appropriate EPA staff. 

Let me begin by being clear, EPA does not have a ‘‘war on coal.’’ 

The actions of the agency are based on sound science and the law. 

I will focus my testimony on EPA’s work with clean water. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, our communities’ businesses depends on our nation’s water for drinking, swimming, fishing, farming, manufacturing, energy development, tourism and other activities central to the American economy and quality of life. Without 

protections at the state and federal level, many of these activities 

would be threatened by the polluted water. Congress recognized 

this in a bipartisan fashion when it passed the Clean Air Act of 

1972, which was signed by President Nixon. 

While the agency works very closely and collaboratively with the 

state partners, the Clean Water Act requires that EPA oversees 

these authorized state programs to ensure the goals and requirements of the Act are being met. 

Relating to the permitting of certain types of coal mining 

projects, the Clean Water Act designated the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers as the permitting agency for discharges of dredge and 

fill materials. EPA may provide comments and information to the 

Corps on specific permit applications and may request the Assistant Secretary of the Army for civil work review certain permit decisions. 

Also, the Act authorizes EPA to prohibit, deny, restrict or withdraw specifications of the fill disposal sites, an authority EPA has 

exercised only 13 times since 1972. Our regional office works constructively with the Corps, states and other partners to provide 

input that may assist applicants in developing environmentally 

sound projects in cases where discharge of dredge or fill material 

into the nation’s water is being proposed. 

I know the Committee has a special interest in Appalachia surface coal mining. Our work here is informed by peer-reviewed 

science documenting the environmental and public health impact of 

certain unsustainable mining practices of the past. Recent studies 

point to environmental impact and challenges from surface coal 

mining that were largely unrecognized even 10 years ago. Between 

1992 and 2002, more than 1200 miles of Appalachia headwater 

streams had been impacted by Appalachian surface coal mining 

practices. 

EPA has documented ecologically detrimental changes to Appalachia’s ecosystems associated with impacts from surface coal mining. Today EPA works closely with partners in the federal government, the states and industry to ensure that projects can move forward when designed to minimize environmental impacts. 

Let me be clear, EPA has not established a moratorium on coal 

mining. EPA is not blocking or delaying National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems permits from being issued. In fact, 

EPA has issued very few objections that would prevent NPDES 

permits for mining discharges from being issued. 

59 

Of the 283 draft NPDES permits for mining discharges received 

by EPA from West Virginia, for example, between July 21, 2011 

and June 25, 2012, EPA issued a specific objection to the draft permits less than 2 percent of the time. In those cases, EPA is continuing work with the state and other applicants to resolve issues 

that are the basis for EPA’s objections. In June 2012, the average 

time for EPA to review for NPDES permits for mining discharges 

in West Virginia was 11 days. The State of Ohio has chosen to 

cover surface coal mines under general permits where appropriate. 

We are committed to working together with our states and federal partners, coal companies and the public to ensure that the decisions under the Clean Water Act are consistent with the law and 

best available science. Families should not have to choose between 

healthy water and a healthy economy. They deserve and can have 

both. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Bharat and I 

will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Garvin follows:] 

60 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75591.025
61 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75591.026
62 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75591.027
63 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75591.028
64 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75591.029
65 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75591.030
66 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75591.031
67 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75591.032
68 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Garvin. Mr. Garvin, you said in 

your testimony, if I heard it correctly, that EPA does not have a 

war on coal. Do you stick by that? 

Mr. GARVIN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. What about this Administration, do you think this 

Administration is waging a war on coal? 

Mr. GARVIN. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you think there is a bias towards other forms 

of energy and a bias against coal? 

Mr. GARVIN. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. Were you sitting here in the audience with the first 

panel, Mr. Garvin? 

Mr. GARVIN. I was. 

Mr. JORDAN. You heard what all four witnesses had to say? 

Mr. GARVIN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Specifically Mr. Hodanbosi, you heard what he had 

to say in his 40 years of experience in working for the Ohio EPA? 

Mr. GARVIN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. How many years have you worked for the EPA? 

Mr. GARVIN. Since 1997. 

Mr. JORDAN. What is that? 15? 

Mr. GARVIN. 15 years, a little over. 

Mr. JORDAN. So he has got 25 more years working. You are saying his description of this Administration is not accurate? 

Mr. GARVIN. I am saying I am not qualifying what he said. I am 

telling you from—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You don’t think it is a bias from an Administration 

that takes $16 billion of taxpayer money and gives it to 26 companies, 22 of which have a BB-rating from Fitch on their credit rating 

and three of those 22 companies have gone bankrupt? You don’t 

think that is a bias against alternative forms of energy? 

Mr. GARVIN. That is outside of my role and responsibilities. 

Mr. JORDAN. You just answered my question a little bit ago. I 

said, do you think there is a bias towards other forms of energy 

and a bias against coal? You said, no. Now I am asking, you don’t 

think there is a bias when 26 companies get tax dollars, 22 of them 

have a BB-rating and three of them have already gone bankrupt? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can only respond based on what we are doing in 

EPA Region 3. 

Mr. JORDAN. You mentioned Region 3. I know there are 10 regions. Let me play for you some of the statements made by people 

in other regions who have the same job that you have but oversee 

different parts of the country. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Garvin, let me take them in order. The first, 

Mr. Armendariz, do you agree with his statement where he talked 

about people who aren’t doing what they want? He used the term. 

I don’t like to say the term. But do you agree with the way he described how he was going to treat people in this particular industry? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can only focus on what I do in Region 3 and how 

we approach it. 

Mr. JORDAN. But he has the same responsibility in his region 

that you have in yours. All I am asking is, do you think he was 

69 

appropriate in his comments and how he described it, or do you 

think his comments were appropriate? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can only respond to what we focus on. 

Mr. JORDAN. What about the second one? You saw on the film 

Ms. Hedman accepting petitions from people supporting a rule that 

the first panel testified about how difficult it is for them to do their 

business and create jobs? 

Do you think it is appropriate for an administrator to accept petitions from a group supporting a rule and show that acceptance by 

her conduct? Do you think that is appropriate? 

Mr. GARVIN. The agency receives comments from all sectors on 

all rules, and we treat them all the same. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you typically show up at a press conference, at 

a rally and applaud those people for giving you those petitions? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can only talk about what I do in Region 3. 

Mr. JORDAN. Have you ever shown up at a pep rally and applauded the people who bring you petitions, environmentalists? 

Mr. GARVIN. I have not. 

Mr. JORDAN. You have not? 

Mr. GARVIN. I have not. 

Mr. JORDAN. Never? 

Mr. GARVIN. Never. 

Mr. JORDAN. What about the third clip where Mr. Spalding is 

speaking at Yale University and said Lisa Jackson has put forth 

a very powerful message to the country, if you want to build a coal 

plant, you have got a big problem? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can’t comment on that. I can only focus on what 

we do in Region 3. We focus on—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Lisa Jackson, was she not telling the truth there? 

Mr. GARVIN. I believe the administrator can speak for herself. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you think the statement she made, if you want 

to build a coal plant, you got a big problem, do you think that is 

accurate? 

Mr. GARVIN. I am not familiar with that statement, so I can’t respond to it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, I am reading it to you. Lisa Jackson has put 

forth a very powerful message. This is Curt Spalding who has the 

same job in Region 1 that you have in your region. He says, she 

said it plainly, if you want to build a coal plant, you got a big problem. 

Mr. GARVIN. I don’t know what statement he is referring to, so 

I can’t comment on it. 

Mr. JORDAN. It has to do with what the law and policy suggested. 

And it is painful. It is painful every step of the way. Do you agree 

with that statement or not? 

Mr. GARVIN. That is Mr. Spalding making a statement about 

what the administrator may or may not have said. I am not familiar with what the administrator said. So I can’t comment on that. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Mathur, is there a reason why Ms. Hedman 

was not able to join us today? Do you know why you are here? She 

is your boss; is that right? 

Mr. MATHUR. That is right. 

Mr. JORDAN. Why wasn’t she able to join us? 

70 

Mr. MATHUR. She had a longstanding engagement with senior 

members of 15 federal agencies that she found it very difficult to 

cancel. 

Mr. JORDAN. That is more important than coming to an area of 

the country where jobs have been lost because of policies from this 

Administration and speaking to a Congressional hearing? 

Mr. MATHUR. It is not more important. It had to do with—— 

Mr. JORDAN. No, no. By definition you said she had a longstanding meeting. She went there and didn’t come here, so obviously to her it is more important that she is there than to be in 

southeast Ohio talking about how jobs are impacted by this Administration in three states, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. 

She felt that was more important than coming here today and having to answer why she was at a rally accepting petitions from people who want to make it difficult for jobs to continue to be available 

in these three states. 

Mr. MATHUR. She was meeting, Mr. Chairman, with 15 senior officials of 15 federal agencies about the—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Yeah. I got that the first time. 

Mr. MATHUR. She was not able to cancel. 

Mr. JORDAN. I got you. 

Mr. MATHUR. She regrets not being here. 

Mr. JORDAN. 15 people in this Administration are more important than four members of Congress and the thousands of jobs at 

stake in southeast Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. I got 

that. 

Mr. MATHUR. I can’t speak for her beyond what I just said. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you think it was appropriate for her to stand at 

a rally and accept petitions and thank the people for giving us petitions that are going to impact the very jobs we are here talking 

about today? 

Mr. MATHUR. I know when she was first invited to meet with 

that group, she declined. It was only when they assembled outside 

our building in fairly significant numbers and were actually noisy 

and demonstrations that she decided to go down. I think she would 

have met with anyone who would have asked to meet with her 

under those circumstances. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, she wouldn’t meet with us. She might with 

anyone, but she won’t meet with us because we asked her. We 

asked her to come today. She said no, I would rather hang out with 

15 people in the Administration than talk with four members of 

Congress in southeast Ohio where jobs are being lost, plants are 

being closed and communities are being devastated because of the 

policies of this Administration. 

That is not just Jim Jordan talking. That is not the three members of Congress talking. That is the first panel talking that you 

just heard. That is one with 40 years of experience in the EPA who 

was hired by a Democratic administration saying the same thing. 

Mr. MATHUR. I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that I can respond to 

questions regarding Region 5 procedures to your satisfaction. 

Mr. JORDAN. We appreciate you being here. We do appreciate 

that someone from Region 5 was able to come here even though the 

administrator was not able to. 

71 

I see I am over time. I will yield now to the gentleman from 

southeast Ohio, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, thanks. 

I appreciate you gentlemen being here. I am actually sitting here 

kind of chuckling, Mr. Garvin, because of your arrogance and your 

tone of adversarialism in responding to the questions that have 

been proposed to you already. You are making the case that we are 

here trying to make to the American people and the people of eastern and southeastern Ohio and West Virginia and other places 

across this country that are dependent upon coal, your bury your 

head in the sand responses, ‘‘that is not my responsibility, it is not 

within my scope.’’ 

Let me ask you a question. I sat with one of your superiors not 

too long ago, and I asked them the question about the impacts of 

the regulations coming out of your department, out of the EPA, and 

its effect on industries that are critical to national security. That 

individual said to me, ‘‘Mr. Johnson, it is not my job to be concerned about national security. It is my job to protect the air.’’ 

Do you subscribe to that same philosophy Mr. Garvin, that you 

have no responsibility in your actions to the national security of 

the United States? 

Mr. GARVIN. I think we all have a specific role to play. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I asked a very specific question. I don’t want innuendo. I said, do you subscribe to the philosophy that that director 

said, that it is the EPA’s responsibility not to be concerned about 

national security, but to be concerned about the air? 

Mr. GARVIN. I have a certain role in the Administration and—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you concerned about national security? 

Mr. GARVIN. I think everybody is concerned about it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. I asked you, are you concerned in your role 

and responsibility about national security? That is a yes or no 

question, Mr. Garvin. 

Mr. GARVIN. My role is to discharge the various statutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What you are telling me is no. Again, your arrogance and your tone of adversarialism and your waffling on the 

questions is proving exactly to the American people what we are 

trying to demonstrate here today, that not only does this Administration have a war on coal, but you have a war on the very idea 

of American exceptionalism and you have no concern whatsoever 

for national security and other implications of your actions. You 

should be ashamed, Mr. Garvin, you and everyone else in the EPA 

that subscribes to that philosophy. 

What is your background? What did you do before you came to 

the EPA? 

Mr. GARVIN. I worked in local government. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You worked in local government. In your testimony, you talked about how EPA’s decisions are based on valid 

science. How much education and experience do you have in 

science? Have you ever been a scientist? 

Mr. GARVIN. I have not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Have you ever worked in an industry where 

science was a requirement of your job? 

Mr. GARVIN. I have not. 

72 

Mr. JOHNSON. Have you ever worked as a chemist or biologist or 

any of that? 

Mr. GARVIN. I have not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Then you don’t know personally, do you, whether 

or not EPA’s policies are based on sound science? 

Mr. GARVIN. I do. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How do you know that? What are your qualifications to tell us? What is your expert opinion? 

Mr. GARVIN. I have been doing this for 15 years. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you have no background in science, Mr. Garvin. Tell us how you know that the EPA’s policies are based on 

sound science. 

Mr. GARVIN. Because I know the science, and I have—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, you don’t. You just testified that you don’t 

know the science, Mr. Garvin, because you never worked in a scientific field. How do you know that it is based on sound science? 

Mr. GARVIN. I have been doing this in this field. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You can testify to this Subcommittee what you 

hear from the EPA officials above you in terms of sound bites and 

talking points to advocate sound science when we can prove 

through industry proof that it is not sound science, that it requires 

compliance technologies that aren’t even available. You can testify 

to that, but yet you can’t answer simple questions that are directed 

to you by the Chairman of this Subcommittee and the representatives here about what your roles and responsibilities are. 

Let me submit something to you. You work for the EPA. The 

EPA is part of the Executive Branch of the United States, and the 

first and foremost responsibility of the Executive Branch is to ensure the national security of this nation. We do that through ensuring that we have a vibrant economy and that we have manufacturing and that we have energy in order to protect ourselves. For 

you and your Administration and for you and your leadership to 

say that you are not responsible for national security, I want to 

make sure I go on record because you just told me that is what you 

said. 

Mr. GARVIN. That is not what I said. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is exactly what you said, Mr. Garvin. You 

said my roles and responsibilities are such-and-such. You never answered my question directly about whether or not you were concerned about national security. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what we do about compelling these 

witnesses to answer our questions, but I am pretty frustrated. I 

will yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me pick up there real quick, if I could. Mr. Garvin, what was your undergraduate degree in? 

Mr. GARVIN. Political science. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you have a graduate degree? 

Mr. GARVIN. I do not. 

Mr. JORDAN. Have you ever worked for anyone in politics? 

Mr. GARVIN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Who did you work for? 

Mr. GARVIN. I worked for United States Senator Joeseph Biden, 

County Executive Dennis E. Greenhouse. 

73 

Mr. JORDAN. Is that the same Joe Biden who is now vice-president of the United States? 

Mr. GARVIN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. You still stick by the statement that there is no bias 

in this Administration towards green energy and against coal? 

That is what you said. 

Mr. GARVIN. We don’t have a bias against coal. 

Mr. JORDAN. Now you are changing. Do you have a bias? Pro 

green energy, pro wind and solar? 

Mr. GARVIN. Our responsibility is focused on the environment. So 

depending on how you characterize the green agenda will depend 

on how I answer. 

Mr. JORDAN. I just want to make the last point I think Mr. Johnson was making. You got an undergraduate degree in political 

science. You worked for Joe Biden. So no background in science 

other than political science. On our first panel, we had Mr. 

Hodanbosi who has an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering. He has got a Master’s degree in chemical engineering. He is 

a professional engineer in the State of Ohio. He is part of the 

American Institute for Chemical Engineers Air, Waste Management Association and has worked almost 40 years for both Democrat and Republican administrations, and his testimony was that 

there is certainly a bias in this Administration towards coal. Any 

response? 

Mr. GARVIN. He is entitled to his opinion. I stand by mine. 

Mr. JORDAN. I would just say the facts are the facts, and the 

background is the background. 

With that I will yield to Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. If we could, I wanted to just look at the footage 

again. Mr. Mathur, you are here because Ms. Hedman can’t be 

here; correct? 

Mr. MATHUR. That is correct. 

Mr. KELLY. If we could just go back to Ms. Hedman. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Hedman could have been here. There is a difference. She could have been here. She chose not to come. It wasn’t 

like she had a family emergency or anything like that. She chose 

to go to another meeting; is that right? 

Mr. MATHUR. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that she could 

not get out of the other meeting on the Great Lakes, regarding the 

Great Lakes. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. KELLY. Were you also there that day? 

Mr. MATHUR. Beg your pardon? 

Mr. KELLY. Were you there that day? 

Mr. MATHUR. I was not at the event. 

Mr. KELLY. But it was a group that showed up outside your office? 

Mr. MATHUR. That is correct. 

Mr. KELLY. You said because there were so many of them out 

there, that she felt like she ought to address them. 

Mr. MATHUR. That is correct. 

Mr. KELLY. So if we took our miners who are losing their jobs 

every day because of this war on coal—and there is a war on coal. 

74 

I wish we would stop tap dancing and call it what it is. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. This is a duck. 

Okay? 

Ms. Hedman, if she was so compelled to go out and meet with 

these folks and hold up all these petitions—and I am sure she went 

through each one to make sure they were valid. I am just wondering. You would think Ms. Hedman would feel compelled. Miners 

who were losing their jobs and there are people that own these 

mines that are closing down their mines and our electric power 

generation plants are closing down. If those folks showed up, do 

you think she would be compelled to go down there and thank 

them for showing up? 

Mr. MATHUR. I can’t speak. 

Mr. KELLY. I know you can’t speak. Neither one of you can speak 

for anybody. You sure as hell can’t speak for the American people, 

and you can’t speak for these miners, and you can’t speak for these 

people that own these coal mines. 

I want to tell you what a tough job is. A tough job is not a tough 

political environment. It is an environment that makes it so impossible for our job creators to even exist anymore. That is what a 

tough environment. Don’t give me this hogwash about oh, it is so 

tough being in one of these agencies enforcing all this stuff. I don’t 

buy that for one second. 

Now, Ms. Hedman couldn’t be here. I love Kurt Spalding talking. 

I even asked you, Mr. Garvin. I know you don’t like this. You want 

to build a coal plant, you got a big problem. Moreover, we understand the decision is painful. You got to remember if you go to 

West Virginia, Pennsylvania—he didn’t include Ohio, but Ohio is 

the same way—and all these places, you have coal communities 

that depend on coal, and to say we just think those communities 

should just go away, we can’t do that. But she had to do what the 

law and the policy suggested. 

You know the key to that is the policy suggested. I got to tell you 

we sit in these meetings. I wish you all would walk the same places 

we walk in our districts and look these folks in the eyes, and you 

tell them you are doing it in their best interest, and you tell them 

that it is okay to shut down these plants, it is okay to shut down 

their mines, it is okay to shut down their communities, tell them 

the biggest problem we have in this country is some people just 

don’t pay their fair share. 

I will tell you what they are not sharing is the pain. You want 

to talk about pain. You lose your job. You lose your ability to feed 

your family. You lose your ability to stay in the hometown that you 

grew up in in the state that you grew up in because of a government that has decided you are no longer viable. For anybody to 

walk around this district or any other district and say there is no 

loss of jobs, they are either outright liars or they are in severe denial and they need to see somebody else that has a degree in another field. I have sat in front of these too many times. 

I understand you don’t want talk about what somebody else said. 

I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat. We are all Americans. And you can tell me that you can sit there as an American 

and say that you think this is all right because you are enforcing 

a policy. I would quit that job as fast as I could. I would run away 

75 

from anybody that was taking the livelihood away from Americans. 

I am going to ask you a question. You are not going to answer it. 

You are just not. But we have it on tape. We know what they say. 

We know what other people are saying about this community, 

about there is no loss of jobs. Really? Really. Go to those homes 

where the dad isn’t working. Go to those homes where mom can’t 

make the budget anymore because dad doesn’t have his job. I want 

you to look them in the eye and sit before them. 

I represent 705,687 people in western Pennsylvania. I don’t know 

if they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian. I don’t 

know what they are. You know what I do know? They are all 

Americans. For this Administration, to pick out fossil fuels, specifically coal, and have a war on coal—your boss, Mr. Garvin, is very 

biased towards coal. You can’t deny that. The fact you work with 

him or worked for him many years, if you don’t think he was biased—I don’t see how you can sit here and say, I don’t think he 

has a bias. 

I think he has a bias. I think his boss has a bias. I think this 

whole Administration has a bias. That is why we’re here today. I 

believe America needs to understand what the bias is. 

I will tell you what, Mr. Chairman. People say to me Kelly, you 

seem like you are mad. I am mad. I am mad. I am not going to 

sit here and watch this great country go down the drain because 

of upside down thinking people and people that go out and distort, 

purposely lie to the public and try to hide what is going on because 

their party asked too much of them. President Kennedy said one 

time, sometimes your party asks too much. It is not about our 

party. It is about our people, these folks right here. If you think 

you represent anything other than the American people, you got 

raised by the wrong folks. 

I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman. Appreciate his passion. Go 

down to the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What I am detecting here is a little frustration both ways on 

this. I am hearing a lot of denial as it relates to employment. I saw 

in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette the other day there was an article 

there about the President is probably the most pro coal President 

we have had in years. I can’t comprehend that. I go back on that 

where they are saying that there is no layoff, there have been no 

layoffs in coal. And I ask, what world are people living in just sitting here based on some remarks you made, I saw layoffs with 

Consol, Arch Coal, Patriot, PBS Coal, Rocks Coal, Murray Coal, 

Murray Energy. They are all across America. There are coal companies that are laying off people here in Belmont County and West 

Virginia. 

I heard you say something about science, and it caught my attention, Mr. Garvin, because I am interested in science as an engineer 

and in training science. We looked at in Washington the TCLP ratings, Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Profile. We have listened to 

the pushback of the Administration time and time again, Lisa 

Jackson saying how coal is toxic. She says it is toxic because of the 

mercury content. But the mercury content in coal is .17 parts per 

76 

million. There is more mercury in a can of tuna fish at .39 parts 

per million. 

Would you suggest that tuna fish is toxic? Should there be an ad 

run about toxicity for tuna fish? 

Mr. GARVIN. There has been a recognition when looking at impacts of water that consumption of tuna should be—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Mr. Garvin, if she is trying to make flyash and 

coal a hazardous material, has the Administration talked about 

doing that with tuna fish? 

Mr. GARVIN. We are trying to find ways to deal with what is 

causing the mercury in tuna fish as well as in humans and other 

things that are drastic sources. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. It has been around. I have known about it. I 

have known that the mercury level in tuna fish and other marine 

products is high. But we don’t see the attack on that. We see something going after the jobs, something that is creating jobs for Americans, just as some of the Congressmen have said here. Let me go 

back here. Two quick points. 

In a hearing we had before the Energy and Commerce Committee, it was interesting that a representative of the EPA was 

saying we need more research into clean coal technology. I thought 

that was a great position. That is what we have been saying all 

along. Let us keep doing that. Yet the President and Secretary 

Chu, in my opening remark—perhaps you heard that—they cut 

funding for clean coal technology 41 percent this time and 39 percent last year. 

Do you think people are talking to each other in Washington? Is 

the EPA talking with Chu and the Department of Energy? 

Mr. GARVIN. I know there is coordination between our agencies, 

yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Go back to that earlier remark. We are adults 

here. This idea of going into denial is just really a waste of time. 

We have got Secretary Chu’s own remarks. He said time and time 

again that coal is his worst nightmare. When he testified before the 

Committee, I remember turning to him. I will say the same thing 

to you. With all due respect, I think the EPA and the DOE are the 

worst nightmare for the working men and women of America in the 

coalfields all across America. It is not the reverse. It is not coal. 

It is the actions, the overregulation with it. 

Let me conclude with one thing. I am just curious where the EPA 

may be going. Maybe you can give me some insight into it. When 

the EPA’s own website says that indoor air quality can be as much 

as 96 times more hazardous to people’s health, why aren’t we paying more attention to some of those issues instead of going after 

the industry that are employing men and women all across America on the outdoors? I would think that 90 percent of our time we 

spend indoors. But yet the EPA and some of the individuals come 

to us in Congress and our Committee and say that the outdoor air 

is causing asthma, is causing deformities in our childbirths, it is 

causing premature deaths, it is causing lack of school days. 

How do you differentiate that when 90 percent of your time is 

spent indoors where you are not exposed to the greenhouse gas exposure that perhaps you have on the outside? How do you differentiate that when someone says, I have got asthma that was caused 

77 

because of coal-fired powerhouses, not because I was breathing 

dust mites or aerosols or formaldehyde emission inside my house? 

How do you differentiate that from the EPA’s position? 

Mr. GARVIN. Well, we are focusing on both indoor and outdoor 

air. We do know the chemicals that cause certain issues as well as 

environmental issues inside the home. We are trying to focus on 

addressing all of those issues. You talked about kind of focusing on 

jobs and focusing on coal. And what we have been focusing on in 

Region 3 is working with our states and working with industry. So 

at least from the coal mining side of that, we can still find a way 

to extract the valuable energy resource by doing it in a way that 

protects public health and the environment. That is what we are 

working on. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I think you are picking on an old dog, something 

that has generated jobs. It was the backbone of this America. It is 

one that fueled our economy in the industrial revolution, coal. Having that science that you claim the EPA uses, I wish you would use 

it to fight the right area, where people truly do have issues. It is 

not the outdoor air quality. It is that exposure to indoor air quality. 

We ought to take a much harder look at that before shutting down 

our powerhouses and threatening our manufacturers. 

With that I yield back my time. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you gentleman. 

Mr. Garvin, I want to go back where Mr. Kelly was on Mr. 

Spalding’s statement. Again, Mr. Spalding is a colleague of yours 

representing the region just to the north of you. He is New England. 

Mr. GARVIN. New England. He is two up from us. 

Mr. JORDAN. Your area again, give me the states in your district. 

Mr. GARVIN. Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, 

Maryland and the District of Columbia. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Spalding stated, this is a quote, ‘‘Lisa Jackson 

put forth a very powerful message to the country. If you want to 

build a coal plant, you got a big problem.’’ Spalding goes on to explain that the decision was painful because you got to remember 

if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania and all those places, you 

have coal communities that depend on coal. And to say that we just 

think these communities should go away, we can’t do that. But you 

have to do what the law and the policy suggested. And it is painful. 

It is painful every step of the way. 

Let me ask you: Do you think it is painful? I am not asking 

whether you agree with Mr. Spalding necessarily, but do you think 

it is painful to implement the law and policy as they are suggested 

by this Administration? 

Mr. GARVIN. Our focus in Region 3 has been focusing on the law 

and science, and as we focused on mainly the clean water, that is 

really the issue of implementation. We have been focusing on ways 

in which the industry can continue to extract the resources, but do 

it in a way that is protective of human health and the environment. That is what we have done in West Virginia. That is what 

we have done in Pennsylvania. 

Mr. JORDAN. I understand that. Yes or no. Is it tough? Is it painful? Is it difficult? 

78 

Mr. GARVIN. I don’t know how to qualify that. I mean, we focus 

on the impacts of decisions we make. We make our decisions based 

on sound science and basis of law, and it is protecting both, focusing on both what the industry is trying to do and we are protecting 

the public health of the citizens that live in that area. 

Mr. JORDAN. Is your answer you don’t think it is difficult for 

these policies to be implemented? The impact it has, you don’t 

think it’s difficult for —— 

Mr. GARVIN. I am not sure how to qualify that question. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Mathur, do you think it is difficult? 

Mr. GARVIN. I am not sure of the question. We do our job and 

we do it to the best of our ability and we focus on all the various 

impacts. 

Mr. JORDAN. I understand that. What I am asking, is it difficult 

when you do your job on the policy that is there? Do you think it 

is difficult for the folks in the field? The folks who were on the first 

panel, do you think it is difficult for them to implement your policy? I mean, your colleague Mr. Spalding does. 

Mr. GARVIN. I think we all generally want to have the same outcome which is —— 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you know Mr. Spalding? 

Mr. GARVIN. I do. 

Mr. JORDAN. What is his background? Does he have a political 

science degree, or does he actually have a degree in some kind of 

science? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can’t answer that. I don’t know. 

Mr. JORDAN. But you know him? 

Mr. GARVIN. I know him. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you think he is a sharp guy? 

Mr. GARVIN. Yeah. 

Mr. JORDAN. You disagree, you don’t think what he said here is 

accurate? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can’t really respond to what he said. 

Mr. JORDAN. I don’t know why it so difficult to respond. He is 

saying it is tough. You were here for the first panel. You heard how 

tough they are saying it is. The people that had to lay off, the difficulties they have had to deal with. You heard from the state representative who represents people in this area. It is not difficult? 

Mr. GARVIN. I am not sure I understand the question, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. I am just flabbergasted. Is it you don’t understand or you won’t answer? 

Mr. GARVIN. I don’t understand. 

Mr. JORDAN. Can you give me a yes or no? Do you think it is difficult to implement the policies that come from this Administration? You heard in the first panel from someone who has 40 years 

experience at the Ohio EPA who says this Administration is making it more difficult than any he has ever dealt with, and he has 

dealt with several since 1973. But you don’t think it is more difficult? 

Mr. GARVIN. I think we are implementing the statutes that are 

passed by Congress, the regulations that have been promulgated 

and basing it on sound science. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you think that is harder for the people who have 

to live under those regulations? 

79 

Mr. GARVIN. More difficult than what? 

Mr. JORDAN. More difficult than previously. 

Mr. GARVIN. I think we are basically dealing with the same laws 

and the same regulations that we have dealt with. 

Mr. JORDAN. Now you said it. Now you said it. This is the point. 

The Clean Water Act has been around for a while. Suddenly, according to Mr. Hodanbosi and according to the witnesses on the 

first panel, they say now it is more difficult for sure them to deal 

with it. Mr. Hodanbosi says this Administration is taking this to 

a level he has never seen before. That is the question. 

Mr. GARVIN. I can’t answer what he thinks is more difficult or 

not difficult. We are implementing the statutes that were passed 

by Congress. 

Mr. JORDAN. Are they just out to lunch? They don’t get it? If you 

are just implementing the law and the policy and if that is the 

same as it has always been, then why do these four people—do you 

think they are lying when they testified on the panel? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can’t speak for them, Congressman. 

Mr. JORDAN. That is what you are saying. 

Mr. GARVIN. That is not what I am saying. I am saying we are 

implementing the laws and regulations. 

Mr. JORDAN. And they are saying the laws and regulations you 

are implementing are much more difficult than they have been 

under any previous Administration, and that is the punt of the 

whole question. I am asking, do you think that is accurate? 

Mr. GARVIN. Again, I can’t speak to that. 

Mr. JORDAN. Your region includes West Virginia and Pennsylvania; is that right? 

Mr. GARVIN. Correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. Some of the folks here have people who work in 

those states. Do you think part of your job is to listen to what they 

say and take that back? 

Mr. GARVIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. JORDAN. And take that into account? 

Mr. GARVIN. Absolutely, and I have done that. 

Mr. JORDAN. We hope you do that. We really do. 

I will yield now to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Garvin, when did you work for now Vice-President Biden, 

what years? 

Mr. GARVIN. From 1989 to 1991. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to ask you a question probably a little 

bit easier because it is based on your extensive scientific background that we talked about here. In 2007 Vice-President Biden 

said that coal is more dangerous than high fructose corn syrup. 

Based on your scientific assessment of that, is that true? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can’t respond to that. 

Mr. JORDAN. It is science, Mr. Garvin. 

Mr. GARVIN. I can’t respond to that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You won’t respond to that. 

Mr. GARVIN. I can’t. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I got it. You said just a few minutes ago to the 

Chairman that in your region, you are implementing the statutes 

that had been passed by Congress, but that is not what one of your 

80 

colleagues in Region 1 says. He says that you are making policies 

based on what the law suggests, not what the law says. 

Is that what you do in your region? Do you base your decisions 

in your region based on the words of the statute or what the statutes in your interpretation suggest? 

Mr. GARVIN. We do it based on statute, regulations. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So you disagree then with what the gentleman 

from Region 1 said, right? 

Mr. GARVIN. I can only speak to what we are doing in Region 3. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I got that, too. Mr. Garvin, do you have any responsibility, sense of responsibility to the job creators and the businesses and the consumers in the district that you represent or the 

region that you represent? Do you have a sense of responsibility to 

them? 

Mr. GARVIN. We take that all into consideration when we implement the statutes and the regulations, finding ways to work with 

the states and with the industries to protect human health and the 

environment and continue to have a healthy—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right on your mission statement; right. 

You got that down pretty good. 

Who do you work for, Mr. Garvin? 

Mr. GARVIN. I work for Lisa Jackson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Does it ever occur to you that you work for the 

American people? 

Mr. GARVIN. I do. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You do? Yet you can’t tell me you have got a responsibility to the job creators that are in your region? How can 

you say you work for the American people when all you know how 

to do based on your extensive scientific background and experience 

is to read talking points that someone has given to you? How can 

you say that you stand up, man up to that responsibility? 

Mr. GARVIN. We focus on our responsibility of protecting human 

health and the environment as well as the economic impacts. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You do consider the economic impacts? 

Mr. GARVIN. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What do you say then to policies that threaten 

thousands of coal-related jobs? What do you say to the families that 

are associated with those kind of policies? Because now you are 

contradicting yourself. 

Mr. GARVIN. We focus on the Clean Water Act. We focus on the 

402 permits, the NPDES permits and the 404 permits which are 

the fill permits. We look to find ways to avoid, to mitigate and to 

minimize, avoid, minimize and mitigate to allow a project to move 

forward so it is still protecting the human health and the environment of the people. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Memory is a tricky thing, isn’t it? When you can’t 

remember those talking points, it gets tough trying to evade these 

questions. 

Mr. Chairman, this is going nowhere. I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Let us go back to the science again, that issue. 

The standards set forth by the EPA using the TCLP, very clear 

about what levels of toxicity in barium, arsenic, mercury, selenium, 

lead, other heavy metals. They are very clear. But coal doesn’t 

81 

achieve any of those. It has always below in all tests. Virtually 

every coal, whether it is from the Powder Ridge Basin out west or 

the northern Appalachian coal, it all tests below those in all that, 

but yet the EPA continues to refer to coal as being toxic. It doesn’t 

meet the standards of toxicity. It is below the standard. 

Do you think coal is toxic? 

Mr. GARVIN. I believe that burning coal has an environmental 

impact that we are looking to—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. No. Is it toxic? Does it exceed the TCLP of your 

own standard? Does it exceed the standards you set up, the EPA 

set up for toxicity? Does it exceed it? 

Mr. GARVIN. I have to refer that back to our scientific experts. 

I can give you an answer to that question. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. It just causes uncertainty what you are saying 

there. You know, it doesn’t reach those toxicity levels, but yet it is 

commonly referred to as a toxic material. I have already demonstrated to you that the mercury level in a can of tuna fish—there 

is more mercury in a can of tuna fish than there is in an equivalent 

can of flyash, but yet over here we are trying to class it as a hazardous material and this we serve it to our children to eat. 

Maybe you remember the statement I made earlier, perhaps you 

do, and that was just because you can doesn’t mean you should. 

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. The EPA has a 

tendency of continuing to swirl the uncertainty because it can. It 

can create any standard that it wants. They don’t answer to us in 

Congress. They only answer to the President. You know that. We 

can’t correct it. We can offer alternatives. We can offer legislation, 

but we can’t get them to repeal an EPA standard. I don’t know 

where you are going with the EPA. 

With the soot standard, the soot rule, we want to go from 15 milligrams per cubic meter down to 12. We are going to spend billions 

of dollars to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air. 

Why stop at 12? Why not 10? Why not 5? Because as soon as industry, the powerhouses or the manufacturing plants once they 

achieve 12, then you say I am going to issue another standard. 

Then they have to go change their technology, different baghouses, 

different electrostatic precipitators, different devices. 

It is uncertainty that you keep creating at the federal level just 

because you can, not because you should. They have testified before 

us in Energy and Commerce. They can’t justify on the health 

standard to make a reduction in particulate matter from 15 to 12. 

But you are allowed to do it because the President has authorized 

the EPA to promulgate these rules. But there is no basis of them. 

Where are you going with this? Is there a reason that we just 

do it incrementally? Why not tell industry that 20 years from now 

you are going to get down to 5 micrograms per cubic meter and 

they can plan for that instead of incrementally. You keep changing 

the rules as we go along. What is the thought process there with 

the EPA? 

Mr. GARVIN. As I told you in my opening statement, our job in 

the regions is implementation. We don’t create or promulgate the 

rules. That is done by the policymakers in D.C. So I can’t really 

respond to that. 

82 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I guess we will have to deal with it another day. 

When you come to Washington, we can carry on this conversation. 

You can see how frustrating it is. We know the EPA is promulgating the rules. If we want to parse our words and say it is the 

regulators doing it, it is what the EPA is doing. 

Mr. JORDAN. The previous question I asked you was part of your 

job was to listen to what constituents in your district have to say. 

I think we were on the first panel. So which is it? Are you going 

to listen to them and take the information back? You can only do 

what they say. Or are you going to actually take that information 

back and try to impact those regulations because you heard from 

people who you represent or at least you are supposed to represent? You heard from them on the first panel. 

Mr. GARVIN. Absolutely. As I said, we will take that information 

back and we will provide that to those who make the decisions. My 

point to the Congressman from West Virginia was I can’t respond 

to how the ultimate decision is going to be made, but we can help 

provide information on what we are seeing in our regions from various areas and sectors on issues and concerns that are related to 

those. 

Mr. JORDAN. Before the decisions were made on Utility MACT 

and other rules that have been promulgated by this Administration, did you seek input from West Virginia and Pennsylvania? Did 

you pass that up the line to those folks? 

Mr. GARVIN. We had our staff that was passing along information based on our engagement. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you? Did you pass it along? 

Mr. GARVIN. Not personally, no. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Garvin, in your discussion I think with Congressman McKinley, you said not only environmental impact, but you 

also look at the economic impact. 

Mr. GARVIN. Yes. 

Mr. KELLY. So what are the metrics? Tell me when you look at 

the economic impact, where is the cut-off point? Where do you say 

we are trying to achieve something that doesn’t make sense economically? 

Mr. GARVIN. There is not a matrix. What I am referring to is we 

have an applicant that comes before us with a permit, be it either 

a 402 which is direct delegated authority from EPA to the states 

or a Corps permit in which EPA is engaged in the process. We look 

at the project that they are looking to implement, and we try to 

find ways to work with both the state, the Corps and the applicant 

to figure out how best to protect the environment as well as continue to move forward with their projects. 

I will give you an example. The Hobath Mine that was permitted, 

we were all able to successfully work together to minimize, to reduce 50 percent of the impacts and still getting over 91 or 92 percent of the coal take that the company was looking for. When I talk 

about economics, that is kind of—— 

Mr. KELLY. In business time is always of the essence. Permitting 

times, I have friends that do this. And they tell me it has gotten 

to the point right now—it may be that there is not enough people 

to review permits. I don’t know. But this idea it can take whatever 

83 

amount of time it takes to get something reviewed, I mean, you 

could stall anybody for about as long as you want. 

In the coal business, these people have done this, some for generations, and are experiencing a tie-up in getting permits. There is 

no permit authority. I will tell you that that may be okay for you 

to say, but when you are actually on the field, there is a tremendous tie-up. These folks cannot keep their machinery idle and their 

working crews idle while the Department, whether you or the 

Army Corps of Engineers, continues to sift through this permitting. 

You don’t think it is taking longer to get permits? 

Mr. GARVIN. In Pennsylvania—— 

Mr. KELLY. Just yes or no, because I don’t want to put you 

through this too much longer. 

Mr. GARVIN. No. In Pennsylvania basically there are no Corps 

permits, no 404. There is no mountaintop mining. It is all subsurface and all longwall mining. 

Mr. KELLY. So these people that are telling me it is taking longer 

to get permitting—— 

Mr. GARVIN. I can’t speak for the process for the state to get it 

to us, but we have a 30-day clock to do a general objection, then 

a 90-day clock to address that. We have had 113 permits from the 

same period of 2011 to 2012. In Pennsylvania we had one objection 

which has been resolved. So I am not sure what that is based on. 

Mr. KELLY. I will tell you what it is based on is going out and 

actually talking to people in the business and saying to them so 

how much tougher is it for you now than it was before, and they 

are telling me it is much more difficult. They have no reason to tell 

me that other than the fact they are trying to make payrolls, they 

are trying to be profitable and they are just trying to keep their 

business alive. 

What they keep saying to me is, what can you guys do to help 

us? So returning to this, if we are not studying the economic impact of some of this policymaking that we are doing, how do we 

know it is beneficial? Is there no determination of where we are 

trying to get to? And at what point do we say it is no longer economically feasible to do it? I think that is what we are doing with 

a lot of these folks. We are putting them out of business. They can’t 

continue to do what we are asking them to do, because we are raising the bar all the time for them. 

I wish the DOE had used the same type of a metric when they 

were talking to all these people with renewables. We threw billions 

of dollars away. Do you not look at that? I know you can’t speak 

what is going on in other regions, but I would think that you all 

get together from time to time and you talk about best practices 

and what would be more efficient and what would be more effective. 

Is there any consideration given to the job creators as to what 

would be better for them? 

Mr. GARVIN. Again, what I know we focus on, we focus on trying 

to look at it, but trying to do it working with the states and the 

applicants. 

Mr. KELLY. So the people that are in the business, that is not 

part of the equation? 

84 

Mr. GARVIN. Well, the projects are in the equation which then 

engage the folks who going to do the projects. Our focus is trying 

to move the projects along, but protect the environment. 

Mr. KELLY. I guess somewhere you said that would be on them, 

talking to people that actually have to make a living and actually 

sign those paychecks. I will tell you that until you have been in 

that position—you fellows work for the government. I don’t think 

you guys ever miss getting paid. I can tell you there are many 

times I have not paid myself and made sure that the guys and gals 

that work for me get paid first. I wish we could flip that around 

in this government. I wish we could hold up the paychecks until 

this becomes more effective and more efficient and doesn’t run $1.7 

trillion a year in the red. And that same group of people that is 

running that model is trying to tell these folks how to run theirs? 

I would guarantee you if all of you didn’t get paid because of poor 

performance, you would see the performance level rise real quick. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. Good point. 

Mr. Mathur, Dr. Hedman, she is chairing a Great Lakes restoration initiative, is that why she couldn’t come to the meeting, the 

reason she gave for not being able to be with us today? 

Mr. MATHUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. She is chairing a committee of 

15 federal agencies. 

Mr. JORDAN. Where is that? Where is that meeting taking place? 

Mr. MATHUR. I am not sure of the location. 

Mr. JORDAN. We are looking at her schedule from yesterday. It 

says will chair the annual budget meeting for the federal agencies 

involved in implementation of the Great Lakes restoration initiative. That was yesterday at 12:00 noon, 12:05. Is this a 2-day meeting? 

Mr. MATHUR. I was under the impression the meeting was continuing today. 

Mr. JORDAN. But there is no way she could have gone from 12:00 

to 5:00, five hours yesterday at this meeting, flew to Columbus, 

then here, and then flew—we understand this meeting is in Chicago—back to Chicago? She just couldn’t do that? 

Mr. MATHUR. I can’t speak to her schedule. 

Mr. JORDAN. Obviously she told you. She said, I am not going. 

You are going to have to go take what they are going to give to 

Mr. Garvin and what they would have given to me. You have to 

take this. I don’t want to be there. I would rather chair a meeting 

that takes place five hours the day before and I am going to make 

sure I stay overnight and be there for the second day because I 

don’t want to talk to the members of Congress who are going to 

talk about the jobs that have been lost because of the policies of 

this Administration. 

Mr. MATHUR. She actually asked me last week to represent her 

here today. After consultation with appropriate folks in Washington, I am here. She wanted to make sure I can answer your 

questions on how Region 5 does its business. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mathur, I might remind you that you are under oath. 

Mr. MATHUR. Yes. 

85 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you saying you do not know whether your 

boss’ meeting was yesterday or today? When was the meeting, Mr. 

Mathur? 

Mr. MATHUR. I honestly don’t know exactly what were the dates 

of her meeting with the other federal agencies. All I was made 

aware of was that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Where is she today? Where is she physically 

today? Most everybody that has a boss checks in periodically. You 

are the deputy administrator. So she is probably pretty anxious 

about hearing how this hearing went. 

Where are you going to be calling her? Where is she today? 

Mr. MATHUR. I honestly don’t know where she is today. 

Mr. JORDAN. This is a meeting that happens periodically? 

Mr. MATHUR. A face-to-face meeting happens infrequently. 

Mr. JORDAN. No. I am talking about the meeting she is at. This 

happens periodically. Is it typically a 1-day meeting, a 2-day meeting, 5-day meeting, all week meeting? Only a 2-day meeting when 

you have to come in front of a committee of Congress? 

Mr. MATHUR. Particularly they meet by telephone. Face-to-face 

meeting is infrequently held. I cannot tell you how long. 

Mr. JORDAN. This is a face-to-face meeting? 

Mr. MATHUR. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Is it typically one or two days? 

Mr. MATHUR. It can go either one or two days. It has gone both 

ways in the past. 

Mr. JORDAN. But you don’t know if this meeting is a one or two 

day? 

Mr. MATHUR. I do not. 

Mr. JORDAN. She didn’t tell you were coming here till last week? 

She didn’t tell you were going to be in front of this Committee until 

last week? 

Mr. MATHUR. I was made aware that I was going to attend this 

meeting I think very soon after the Committee requested her presence at the meeting. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you guys discuss this meeting, what you would 

say, the response you would give or the fact that you wouldn’t give 

an opening statement? Did you discuss all that? 

Mr. MATHUR. Not with Ms. Hedman. That was discussed 

with—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You are the number two at the region, is that correct? 

Mr. MATHUR. That is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. If this is an indication of the infrequency that you 

communicate with the boss, then it is no wonder that people in the 

field have a misunderstanding of what is going on. If that is the 

kind of communication that we have with the region, I think it is 

understandable why people are confused about this as well. 

Mr. MATHUR. I think the preparation for this meeting was discussed more with the Congressional folks in Washington. 

Mr. JORDAN. Further questions? Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is not untypical that we ask witnesses to respond back with answers to questions that they don’t know the answer to. 

86 

Mr. Mathur, we are going to be here for a few minutes after the 

adjournment of this meeting. Can you find out where your boss is? 

Can you call the office and find out where she is today? 

Mr. MATHUR. I most certainly will do that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We would like to know. Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Members will have 7 days to submit questions and 

information to the Committee. 

Mr. JORDAN. I want to thank our guys. I know it is not always 

pleasant. But it is the nature of this job. We appreciate you coming 

here and taking the time. I know you have busy schedules as well. 

We appreciate you coming—it is an important part of the country 

on an important issue—and participating in this morning’s hearing. 

I thank all our members for being here. I want to thank the audience and members of the first panel, those who are still here. We 

appreciate you all being here today. 

With that we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ