Statement of David D. Doniger 

Policy Director and Senior Attorney, Climate and Clean Air Program 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Public Hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's 

Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants 

Washington, D.C., May 24, 2012 

I appear here today on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council to support the 

Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon pollution standard for new electric power plants, 

the first national limits on carbon dioxide emissions from new fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. 

Already, more than 1 million citizens across this country- a record number in EPA's history- have raised 

their voices in comments to support action to curb the dangerous carbon pollution from our fleet of 

power plants. 

Scientists tell us that carbon pollution imposes staggering health costs. As my colleague Dr. Kim 

Knowlton has just testified, 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 other threats 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 

billion1 A new study by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and NRDC shows that the number of 

extreme rainstorms- storms dumping more than three inches of rain in a day- has doubled over the 

last 50 years in eight Midwestern states, causing huge flooding losses.' 

1 Knowlton, et ol., "Six Climate Change-Related Events In The United States Accounted For About $14 Billion In 

Lost Lives And Health Costs," Health Affairs, 30:11, pp. 2167-76 (Nov. 2011). See also 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 for the record. 2 Rocky Mountain Climate Organization & NRDC, "Double Trouble: More Midwestern Extreme Storms," May, 

2012, http://www rockymou ntai nclrmate.org/images/Dou bledTrou bleH igh. pdf. 

1 
The Supreme Court has found in two landmark cases, Massachusetts v. EPA3 and American 

Electric Power v. Connecticut.' that it is EPA's job under the Clean Air Act to protect the American people 

from dangerous carbon pollution, including the carbon pollution from the nation's fleet of new and 

existing power plants. The "new source performance standard" that EPA has proposed for new power 

plants under Section lll(b) is a critical step towards providing that protection. 

Power plants have long topped the list of categories of industrial stationary sources that 

contribute significantly to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. The Supreme Court 

held in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and that EPA must set standards 

to limit their emissions if it makes a science-based determination that these pollutants may reasonably 

be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 

EPA made that endangerment finding in 2009, because a mountain of scientific evidence 

demonstrates that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants are already harming, and will 

continue to harm, the health and well-being of our families, our children, and our communities. Fossil 

fuel-fired power plants are responsible for more than 2.3 billion metric tons per year of C02 emissions, 

approximately40 percent of total U.S. C02, and more than a third 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 power generation, 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 treatment of simple cycle gas turbines. We will address this further 

in written comments.) 

3 549 u.s. 497 (2007). 

'131 s.ct. 2527 (2011). 

2 
NRDC 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 a tighter level at no additional cost. New coal-fired EGUs equipped 

with carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) can also meet a tighter level, especially in light of the 

30-year averaging provisions that EPA has proposed. Our written comments will further address the 

lower emission rate needed to meet the statutory criteria. 

You will hear many claims that grouping natural gas- and coal-fired plants in the same category 

under the proposed new source standard is a "de facto ban" on constructing new conventional coalfired plants and that the standard will cause lost jobs and higher utility bills. These are phony 

arguments. The proposed new source 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 of coal-fired power are considerably higher than gas-fired power. This is not a theoretical 

matter: over the last decade, the electric power sector has responded by adding more than about 200 

gigawatts of gas-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 that trend even without the EPA 

decision." He continued: "Finally, because it only 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 that the nation will meet its electricity needs over the next two decades without 

3 
constructing 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 that the proposed rule "doesn't cause 

immediate concern" for the 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 market forecasts are robust. EPA's sensif1vity analyses in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

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 costly than 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 

if and when underlying market economics support a comeback for new coal-fired power plants, they will 

need to be designed with CCS. 

NRDC supports provisions EPA has proposed to facilitate construction of coal-fired plants 

equipped with CCS. NRDC agrees that CCS-equipped plants are technically feasible today and can be 

built even under current market conditions with subsidies provided under federal law. Further, NRDC 

agrees with EPA's assessment that further experience with CCS can bring costs down. We will offer 

further written comments on ensuring enforceability over a 30-year averaging 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's two most polluting 

5 See sources cited by Lash of, "Financial Analysts, Private Economists, and Government Forecasters All Agree: 

Market Realities, Not EPA, Driving New Power Plants Away from Coal," April 2012, 

http:/ I switchboard. n rd c. o rg/b logs/ d Ia sho f I fin an c1 a I_ analysts .. Private_ eco. h t mI. 

4 
sectors- the power plants that provide our electricity, and the motor vehicles that move us around. 

EPA's standards to cut mercury, soot, and smog pollution from our power plants will save tens of 

thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, heart attacks, and hospital 

visits. And when standards for new cars and light trucks are finalized later this summer, they will cut 

carbon pollution in half and double miles per gallon, saving car-owners thousands of dollars at the 

pump. 

Going forward, EPA also has the obligation under Section lll(d) to start cutting the 2.3 billion 

tons of dangerous carbon pollution from the existing fleet of power plants. Another false claim you will 

hear is that the Clean Air Act will wipe out existing coal plants by requiring them to meet the same 

standard that EPA has proposed for new plants. But this is not what the Act requires. The criteria and 

procedures under Sections lll(b) and lll(d) are different, and under the statute EPA and the states 

share the job of setting performance standards for existing 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