Statement of David D. Doniger Policy Directorand Senior Attorney, Climate and Clean Air Program Natural Resources Defense Council Public Hearingonthe Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants Washington, D.C., May 24, 2012 I appear here todayon behalfofthe Natural Resources Defense Council to supportthe Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon pollution standard for newelectric power plants, the first national limits on carbon dioxide emissions from newfossil fuel-fired electric generating units. Already, morethan 

### 1 million citizens across this country- a record number in EPA's history- have raised theirvoices in comments to support action to curb the dangerous carbon pollution from ourfleet of power plants. Scientists tell us that carbon pollution imposes staggering health costs. As my colleague Dr. Kim Knowlton hasjusttestified, carbon pollution contributes to more severe heat waves and worsens smog pollution, which trigger more asthma attacks and other life-threatening illnesses. Carbon pollution contributes to increasingly extreme weather, including more devastating storms and floods, rising sea levels, and many otherthreats to life, limb, and property. Case studies of six extreme weather events over the last decade- heat waves, wildfires, floods, smog episodes, hurricanes, and disease outbreaks- demonstrated health costs of more than $14 billion 1 A new study by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and NRDC shows thatthe numberof extreme rainstorms- storms dumping morethan three inches of rain in a day- has doubled over the last 50 years in eight Midwestern states, causing huge flooding losses.'

1 Knowlton, etol., "Six Climate Change-Related Events In The United States Accounted For About $14 Billion In Lost Lives And Health Costs," HealthAffairs, 30:11, pp. 2167-76 (Nov. 2011). Seealso NRDC, "Health and Climate Change: Accounting for Costs," Nov. 2011, http:/ /www.nrdc org/health/accountrngforcosts/files/accountingcosts.pdf. We will submit these and other referenced materials forthe record. 2 Rocky Mountain Climate Organization & NRDC, "Double Trouble: More Midwestern Extreme Storms," May, 2012, http://www rockymountainclrmate.org/images/DoubledTroubleHigh.pdf. 1The Supreme Court has found in two landmark cases, 

### Massachusetts v. EPA3 and

### American Electric Power v. Connecticut.' that it is EPA'sjob under the Clean Air Act to protectthe American people from dangerous carbon pollution, includingthe carbon pollution from the nation'sfleet of new and existing power plants. The "new source performance standard" that EPA has proposed for new power plants under Section lll(b) is acritical step towards providing that protection. Power plants have long topped the list ofcategories ofindustrial stationary sources that contribute significantly to air pollutionthat endangers public health and welfare. The Supreme Court held in 

### Massachusetts v. EPA thatgreenhouse gases are air pollutants, and that EPA must set standards to limittheir emissions if it makes ascience-based determination thatthese pollutants may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health orwelfare. EPA made that endangermentfinding in 2009, because a mountain ofscientific evidence demonstrates that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants are already harming, and will continue to harm, the health and well-being ofourfamilies, our children, and our communities. Fossil fuel-fired power plants are responsible for morethan 2.3 billion metrictons peryear ofC02emissions, approximately40 percent oftotal U.S. C02, and more than athird of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. By any standard, power plants contribute significantly to dangerous greenhouse gas air pollution. NRDC supports EPA's determination to establish a single category that includes both natural gasfired generating units and coal-fired generating units. As EPA has found, these units perform the same function of base-load and intermediate-load powergeneration, and prospective owners and operators have the flexibility to choose among these technologies when building new plants to serve this function. (EPA has asked for comment on the treatmentofsimple cycle gas turbines. We will address this further in written comments.)

3 549 

### u.s. 497 (2007). '131

## s.ct. 2527 (2011). 2NRDC supports setting a single emissions-rate standard applicable to all new plants in the category. EPA has asked for comment on the proposed 1000 lbs/MWh standard and a range of levels around this mark. NRDC supports setting the new source standard below 1000 lbs/MWh because modern new NGCC plants can meet atighter level at no additional cost. New coal-fired EGUs equipped with carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) can also meet atighter level, especially in light ofthe 30-year averaging provisions that EPA has proposed. Our written comments will further address the loweremission rate needed to meetthe statutory criteria. You will hear many claims that grouping natural gas- and coal-fired plants in the same category underthe proposed newsource standard is a "defacto ban" on constructing new conventional coalfired plants and thatthe standard will cause lostjobs and higher utility bills. These are phony arguments. The proposed newsource standard actually will impose no additional costs on the industry

or on electricity rate-payers and will have no adverse impact on jobs. The reason is that market realities have already driven decisions on new power plants away from coal. As Brookings senior economist Peter Wilcoxen explained in April: "To put it simply: the lifecycle costs ofcoal-fired power are considerably higher than gas-fired power. This is notatheoretical matter:over the last decade, the electric power sector has responded by adding more than about 200 gigawatts ofgas-fired capacity and about 2 gigawatts of coal. The US now has considerably more gasfired capacity than coal-fired capacity and low gas prices will accelerate thattrend even without the EPA decision." He continued: "Finally, because itonly rules out an expensive option that wouldn't have been used anyway, the EPA rule will have no significant effect on electricity prices." Analysts from government departments, the power industry, and the financial world all agree in forecasting thatthe nation will meet its electricity needs overthe next two decades without

3constructing new coal-fired plantss Power companies simply aren't planning to build new coal plants due to the availability of low-cost natural gas, strong growth in wind and solar power, big opportunities to improve energy efficiency, and even the potential for nuclear power. For example, the country's largest current C02 emitter, American Electric Power, stated thatthe proposed rule "doesn't cause immediate concern" forthe company. "We don't have any plans to build new coal plants," said AEP spokesperson Melissa McHenry in March. She continued, "Any additional generational plants we'd build for the next generation will be natural gas." These marketforecasts are robust. EPA's sensif1vity analyses in the Regulatory ImpactAnalysis show that power companies will not choose to construct any new conventional coal-fired plants before 2030 even if natural gas becomes 4-5 times more costlythan it is today and power demand increases faster than expected. The proposed new source standard reinforces what most power company executives and investors already understand- that carbon pollution and climate change are serious concerns, and that ifand when underlying market economics support acomeback for new coal-fired power plants, they will need to be designed with CCS. NRDC supports provisions EPA has proposed to facilitate construction ofcoal-fired plants equipped with CCS. NRDC agrees that CCS-equipped plants are technicallyfeasible today and can be built even under current market conditions with subsidies provided underfederal law. Further, NRDC agrees with EPA's assessment thatfurther experience with CCS can bring costs down. We will offer further written comments on ensuring enforceability over a 30-yearaveraging period. The proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants is another important step that EPA has taken under President Obama to clean up and modernize the nation'stwo most polluting

5 See sources cited by Lashof, "Financial Analysts, Private Economists, and Government Forecasters All Agree: Market Realities, Not EPA, Driving New Power Plants Away from Coal," April 2012, http:/

### Iswitchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dIashof

### Ifinanc1aI_analysts

..Private_eco.htmI. 4

### sectors- the power plants that provide our electricity, and the motorvehicles that move us around. EPA's standards to cut mercury, soot, and smog pollution from our power plants will save tens of thousands oflives and prevent hundreds ofthousands ofasthma attacks, heart attacks, and hospital visits. And when standards for new cars and light trucks are finalized laterthis summer, they will cut carbon pollution in halfand double miles per gallon, saving car-owners thousands ofdollars atthe pump. Going forward, EPA also has the obligation under Section lll(d)to start cutting the 2.3 billion tons ofdangerous carbon pollution from the existingfleet of power plants. Anotherfalse claim you will hear is thatthe Clean Air Act will wipe out existing coal plants by requiring them to meetthe same standard that EPA has proposed for new plants. But this is notwhatthe Act requires. The criteria and procedures under Sections lll(b) and lll(d) are different, and underthe statute EPA and the states share thejob ofsetting performance standards forexisting sources. Nonetheless, significant, costeffective reductions in the heat-trapping C02

### from existing power plants can and must be made, and EPA must begin that process forthwith.

5