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

71–325 2011

ARE EXCESSIVE ENERGY REGULATIONS AND POLICIES LIMITING ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, KILLING JOBS AND INCREASING PRICES FOR CONSUMERS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AGRICULTURE, ENERGY AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 

Small Business Committee Document Number 112–035 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

JEFF LANDRY, Louisiana 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

ALLEN WEST, Florida 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

ROBERT SCHILLING, Illinois 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

BILL OWENS, New York 

BILL KEATING, Massachusetts 

LORI SALLEY, Staff Director 

PAUL SASS, Deputy Staff Director 

BARRY PINELES, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS Page 

Tipton, Hon. Scott .................................................................................................... 1 

Critz, Mark ............................................................................................................... 4 

WITNESSES 

Mr. James Martin, Administrator, Region 8, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 6 

Ms. Helen Hankins, Colorado State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management ...................................................................................................................... 8 

Mr. David White, County Commissioner, Montrose, CO ..................................... 27 

Mr. David Ludlam, Director, West Slope COGA, Grand Junction, CO .............. 28 

Ms. Jennifer Bredt, Development Manager, RES Americas, Broomfield, CO .... 32 

Mr. James A. Kiger, Environmental Manager, Oxbow Mining, LLC, Elk Creek 

Mine, Somerset, CO ............................................................................................. 33 

Mr. Dick Welle, Manager, White River Electric, Meeker, CO ............................. 36 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Mr. James Martin, Administrator, Region 8, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................................... 55 

Ms. Helen Hankins, Colorado State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management ......................................................................................................... 58 

Mr. David White, County Commissioner, Montrose, CO .............................. 63 

Mr. David Ludlam, Director, West Slope COGA, Grand Junction, CO ....... 69 

Ms. Jennifer Bredt, Development Manager, RES Americas, Broomfield, 

CO .................................................................................................................. 74 

Mr. James A. Kiger, Environmental Manager, Oxbow Mining, LLC, Elk 

Creek Mine, Somerset, CO ........................................................................... 76 

Mr. Dick Welle, Manager, White River Electric, Meeker, CO ...................... 87 

Questions for the Record: 

None 

Answers for the Record: 

None 

Additional Materials for the Record: 

‘‘Mesa County’s job outlook poor’’ Durango County Herald .......................... 50 

RES Americas Statement for the Record ....................................................... 52 

FY 1984–2010 Energy Lease Chart ................................................................ 54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

ARE EXCESSIVE ENERGY REGULATIONS AND 

POLICIES LIMITING ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, KILLING JOBS AND INCREASING 

PRICES FOR CONSUMERS? 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, ENERGY AND TRADE, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in City 

Hall Auditorium, 250 North 5th Street, Hon. Scott Tipton (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Tipton and Critz. 

Chairman TIPTON. Well, good morning, everyone. We thank you 

for joining us this morning, and our hearing will now come to 

order. 

I want to especially today thank each of our witnesses for being 

with us and taking time out of their busy schedules, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Also joining us today is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Small Business over at Energy, Ag and Trade, Representative Mark Critz of Pennsylvania. Although Mark and I come 

from different parts of the country and we are of different parties, 

I know that he shares my passion for removing the hurdles that 

limit the growth and prosperity of America’s entrepreneurs, and 

both of our districts have vast amounts of natural resources that 

make our country’s uses of productive energy just that much more 

important. 

Mark, I really appreciate you making the trip out here today. 

And I do want to recognize, as Mark came in to Colorado, he was 

looking forward to having a good dinner, and by the time he got 

here last night he had to go to a gas station and get wiener schnitzel. [Laughter.] 

But he said it was great. 

So welcome to Western Colorado, Mark. We appreciate that. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine excessive Federal 

regulations and policies that are harming energy production in our 

country, killing jobs and increasing costs on all small businesses 

and consumers. The United States has been blessed with abundant 

energy resources and the technological capabilities to utilize these 

resources in an environmentally sound manner. Our growing dependence on foreign sources of energy, combined with intolerably 

high unemployment, demands that policymakers adopt an all-ofVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:39 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 071325 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

the-above approach to harness our domestic energy potential and 

create hundreds of thousands of desperately needed jobs in our 

country. 

Just last week, the House Resources Water and Power Subcommittee held a hearing on legislation that I recently introduced, 

the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, that I believe is just one part of the allof-the-above solution. 

The people and small businesses of the 3rd Congressional District need jobs and affordable energy, and we need them now. Last 

Tuesday, the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis released 

a report ranking the unemployment situation in Grand Junction 

362 out of 366, among the worst for the U.S. metropolitan areas 

in 2010. 

Unfortunately, there seems to be a disconnect between what’s 

going on in Washington and on the ground in our communities. 

Several witnesses testifying before the Committee today will discuss how they would create jobs if only the government agencies 

would stop standing in the way. 

Additionally, business owners need long-term certainty from government in order to take the risks and to be able to make the investments necessary to create new jobs. More needs to be done to 

provide that certainty, because right now small businesses are 

scared to hire new employees, and investors are sitting on the sidelines. 

Congress and President Obama have our roles to play as well, 

and I am sincere in saying that it is important that we work together on real solutions to our nation’s job and energy challenges. 

The President could contribute to this process by coming to terms 

with promises that he has made to reduce regulatory burdens on 

small businesses, with the onslaught of regulations that he and his 

administration keep proposing. 

More than 43 new major regulations were proposed last year, 

and another 219 regulations are in the pipeline, each costing more 

than $100 million. Additionally, the Administration proposed this 

year seven new regulations that would cost the United States economy, if implemented, more than $1 billion or more annually. Four 

of these were put forward by the EPA. A recent study showed regulation burdens to the American people cost about $1.75 trillion annually, with the cost to U.S. businesses of any size being approximately $160,000 each year, and the costs associated with small 

businesses for each employee to be on average $10,585 annually. 

Clearly, in too many instances, these regulations impose onerous 

burdens and costs on small businesses. 

Recently, my Colorado colleague, Congressman Corey Gardner, 

asked Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus of the EPA if the 

agency’s economic analysis appropriately considered the impact of 

proposed regulations on jobs. His answer? ‘‘Not directly.’’ Unfortunately, this is not the only instance, nor is the EPA the only government agency to have failed adequately to consider the effect of 

their proposals on small businesses and jobs. 

In Western Colorado, a number of small energy firms, including 

renewable energy firms, have reported that the Bureau of Land 

Management is implementing new regulatory burdens and barriers 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

to producing energy on Federal lands. In a chart that I have submitted for the record from the BLM website, you will see that the 

number of new leases in Colorado in 2009 and 2010 were the lowest totals in a 26-year analysis. The same trend can be seen nationally. 

[The information follows on page 54.] 

Experts in the industry tell me that this permitting process is 

slow, costly, and burdensome, often taking several years to be able 

to complete. Certain policies and procedures have held up development seven to eight months on an 11-month lease. This defies common sense. You wouldn’t lease a car for 11 months that you could 

only drive for the last three months of the year. 

I would now like to point out an article that I submitted for the 

record from the Durango Herald that featured unemployed oil and 

gas workers who used to earn upwards of $80,000 a year and were 

laid off as a result of new government regulations and policies. 

[The information follows on page 50.] 

These workers ate at our local restaurants, stayed at our local 

hotels, purchased pick-up trucks at our local dealerships and, most 

importantly, provided good-paying jobs for our local residents. 

In May of this year, Karen Kerrigan, president and CEO of the 

Small Business and Entrepreneur Council, testified before a House 

subcommittee that ‘‘nearly three-quarters of small business owners 

report that hard times at the pump are affecting them and their 

consumers.’’ Karen also stated that high gas prices are ‘‘making it 

very challenging for small businesses to compete, to grow, and even 

to be able to survive in what remains a very difficult economic environment.’’ 

It is critical that we bring an economic conscience to the debate 

about environmental regulation. Environmental regulation does not 

have to kill jobs and raise energy costs for the American people. We 

all care about the environment, the impact of energy exploration 

and production. But it is essential, especially during these tough 

and difficult economic times, that we work toward practical solutions to protecting our environment while decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. The Federal Government should 

foster an environment for increasing access to America’s energy 

sources that promotes an all-of-the-above response and commonsense growth approach. 

We are fortunate to have appearing before the Committee witnesses who will testify to real-world examples of how onerous and 

duplicative regulations are harming opportunities for small businesses and local communities. The issues they will discuss are very 

important to small businesses. I would like to remind my colleagues that small businesses create four out of five new jobs in our 

economy. They are the engine for innovation and job creation. 

Again, I would like to thank each of you for being with us here 

today, and I would now like to yield to Ranking Member Critz for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one quick comment. 

The chili dog and the chili burger I had at the wiener schnitzel was 

very good. I appreciate the breakfast at the Dream Cafe. I had a 

nice stay at the Main Street, and you have a wonderful town here. 

This is a beautiful—I have never been to Colorado, and Grand 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Junction is beautiful, a wonderful streetscape, although when you 

come in at 10:30 at night sometimes, there’s not a whole lot open 

to go see. But with that, I appreciate you having me out here. It’s 

a pleasure to be here. 

And with that, promoting a clean environment is critical, and nowhere is that more evident than here in Grand Junction. Like the 

people in my state of Pennsylvania, it is clear that—I hope I’m saying this right—Coloradoans? Or is it Coloradans? 

Chairman TIPTON. Whichever way you’d like. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. It is clear that the people of Colorado place a 

high value on protecting land, air and water. This is not only a 

quality of life issue but also makes good business sense in areas 

like Colorado, where outdoor activities are integral to the economy. 

Pursuing these objectives must be done cautiously, making certain 

we balance benefits against costs. 

Unfortunately, in the areas of environmental land management 

regulation, this has not always been the case. Too often, environmental regulations saddle small businesses with new burdens. 

Firms with fewer than 20 employees spend more than $4,000 annually complying with environmental regulations. This takes money 

out of entrepreneurs’ pockets, diverting resources from business expansion. 

There are laws on the books to address this problem, and while 

they have mitigated the impact of some rules, more must be done. 

Today we will examine a few notable examples at both the EPA 

and BLM. 

It has become clear that in developing its recent greenhouse gas 

rules, the EPA did not follow the law. This shut out small firms 

from being heard and deprived EPA the benefits of small business 

perspective. The agency’s rationale for skipping this step was that 

they would instead write the rule in a manner sensitive to small 

firms. 

Despite those efforts, SBA’s Office of Advocacy estimates that 

1,200 small businesses would still be subject to the greenhouse gas 

rules. In a few years, this effect and the overall cost on small firms 

could become even more significant. 

This is the case for another critical matter which I know is a concern here in Colorado, as well as my home state of Pennsylvania. 

The EPA, in its consideration of regulations for coal combustion 

waste, has failed to consider the impact it could have on firms that 

recycle and use coal ash. Many entrepreneurs have found ways to 

incorporate coal ash into building and construction products. If 

EPA designates this waste stream as hazardous, it would stop such 

recycling enterprises. I have seen firsthand the benefits, including 

green spaces, that were replanted and reclaimed, and EPA could 

not be more wrong on this subject. 

While these problems deal with specific regulations, there is another matter I look forward to discussing with EPA and BLM. Like 

here in Colorado, in Pennsylvania we have discovered large reserves of subterranean natural gas. Bringing these resources online 

has the potential to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign energy. This, in turn, could reduce energy prices, a top concern for 

entrepreneurs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

In a recent PNC Economic Outlook survey of small firms, 72 percent responded a sustained rise in energy prices would negatively 

impact their business, potentially restraining growth. However, two 

issues could block natural gas from taking hold: continued bureaucratic delays in the issuance of drilling permits, and the potential 

for Federal preemption of state regulation. 

On the latter topic, we need EPA to work with the states, not 

overrule them in their own backyard. If handled improperly, this 

could halt gas exploration, leaving our nation more dependent on 

foreign energy. 

Although there are laws on the books, we have recently passed 

legislation requiring the EPA to examine the full cost of regulations. This would ensure the agency considers the burden not just 

on those emitting greenhouse gases, but also those that would see 

higher energy costs. It is critical this information be available as 

the discussion on greenhouse gases continues. 

We also took steps to extend these reviews to land management 

plans, bringing greater attention to BLM actions. Under the bill, 

agencies would have to consider the impact of regulations on energy prices for small businesses. By strengthening these protections, we can have regulations that not only protect our communities but also limit costs imposed on businesses. 

During today’s hearing we will listen not only to regulators, but 

also to entrepreneurs who can describe their experiences with Federal agencies. Hearing small firms’ concerns is critical. I hope EPA 

and BLM will take similar actions to expand this type of outreach. 

With small businesses generating two-thirds of new jobs, or I 

think Scott said 80 percent, it is essential that the Federal Government carefully balance the costs and benefits of environmental and 

land management regulations so that economic progress is not 

slowed. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and with that, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Congressman Critz. 

Now I would like to explain—we have our lighting system in 

front, and explain how the lights work. Each of you will have five 

minutes for your testimony. The light will start out as green, and 

when you have one minute remaining, the light will re-turn yellow, 

and finally it will turn red, and at the end of your five minutes, 

if you could wrap up as quickly as possible, we would appreciate 

it, and we will try to be respectful of your time as well. 

Leading off our first panel is James V. Martin, who is Administrator for the EPA’s Region 8, comprising Colorado, Montana, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and 27 tribal nations. He has worked in the environmental field for nearly 30 

years, most recently as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Executive Director of the 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 

Prior to his career in public service, he managed a non-profit focused on energy, public lands, and water issues, and spent a decade as a senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Council. 

He also headed the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado School of Law. Mr. Martin has a Bachelor’s degree 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

from Knox College and a law degree from Northwestern Law 

School, Lewis and Clark College. 

Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Martin. If you would like 

to go ahead with your testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF JAMES MARTIN, ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 8, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; HELEN 

HANKINS, COLORADO STATE DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT OF JAMES MARTIN 

Mr. MARTIN. Chairman Tipton, Ranking Member Critz, thank 

you for inviting me to testify about the effects on small businesses 

and communities of certain EPA regulations. And I might add, welcome to Colorado, Congressman Critz. I appreciate the opportunity 

to discuss some of EPA’s proposals and to try to clear up some common misunderstandings about those efforts. 

First, with regard to coal combustion residuals, or CCRs, the 

EPA proposed last year to regulate the disposal of those materials 

to address the risks from disposal of such wastes in landfills and 

surface impoundments generated from the combustion of coal at 

electric utilities and independent power producers. That is an effort 

that was precipitated in no small part by the breach of a significant 

impoundment in Tennessee which led to the contamination of 

many acres and clean-up costs of several hundred million dollars. 

The agency proposed for public comment two options for the regulation of those materials. Neither option would change the May 

2000 Regulatory Determination, commonly known as the Bevill exclusion, for CCRs or coal combustion residuals that are beneficially 

used. EPA continues to support the safe and protected, beneficial 

uses of CCRs. 

At this time, the agency is reviewing and evaluating more than 

450,000 public comments that were received as a result of that proposal, and we are going to carefully review and examine all of 

those before deciding on the approach to take in the final rule. 

Second, with regard to power plants, EPA has proposed Mercury 

and Air Toxic Standards to control emissions of toxic air pollutants 

from power plants. Mercury, depending upon the form and dose, 

may cause neurological damage, including lost I.Q. points in children who are exposed before birth. As proposed, the Mercury and 

Air Toxic Standards would prevent 17,000 premature deaths and 

12,000 emergency room visits and hospital admissions annually. 

These proposed standards are affordable, they are achievable within the time for compliance outlined in the proposed rule, and they 

are roughly a decade behind schedule. Moreover, the investments 

in a cleaner energy sector required by these standards will keep 

people working and create jobs. 

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, the agency is taking a 

commonsense, phased approach to meet our obligations under the 

Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution. Our focus is not on small 

sources, and I want to emphasize our focus is not on small sources 

and small businesses but solely on the largest emitters, and for the 

most part on the sectors that are responsible for the largest share 

of greenhouse gas emissions to the environment. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

Contrary to any claims you may be hearing, small sources are 

not covered by the greenhouse gas permitting program. In fact, 

EPA adopted regulations last year that will ensure that small 

sources are not subject to greenhouse gas permitting requirements. 

It is worth noting that the only greenhouse gas standards that 

EPA has issued under its current or its existing Clean Air Act authority will result in savings rather than increased costs for small 

businesses. Last year, EPA and the Department of Transportation 

issued greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for 

cars and light trucks for model years 2012 through 2016. By ensuring that new vehicles are more fuel efficient, these standards will 

save American drivers money at the pump while reducing America’s gas consumption, or oil consumption rather, by 1.8 billion barrels over the life of those vehicles. We estimate that the average 

American purchasing one of these vehicles will have a net savings 

of $3,000 over the lifetime of that vehicle. 

Finally, with regard to natural gas extraction, while natural gas 

is an important and growing part of our energy resource portfolio, 

we believe it is imperative that we access this resource in a way 

that protects human health and the environment. EPA has an important role in ensuring environmental protection and in working 

with Federal, state, and local partners to manage the benefits and 

risks of unconventional gas production, though I hasten to add only 

in the case of the use of diesel as part of the fracking fluid do we 

issue permits. 

We are committed to effectively addressing these concerns about 

the consequences of gas development using the best science and 

technology available. We believe that by doing so, as a nation we 

can establish a sound framework that allows for the safe and responsible development of a significant domestic energy resource 

with important national security, environmental, and climate benefits. 

I recognize—I would like you to acknowledge, sir, that I beat 

your schedule. I look forward to taking your questions. That is the 

sum and substance of my comments for this morning. 

[The statement of Mr. Martin follows on page 55.] 

Chairman TIPTON. All right, Mr. Martin. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Bureau of Land Management Colorado State 

Director Helen Hankins. A native of Council, Idaho, Ms. Hankins 

joined the BLM in Albuquerque, New Mexico, serving as a clerk 

typist in the agency’s student work study program in 1970. She 

went on to serve in increasingly responsible positions in Durango, 

Colorado; Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska; Washington, D.C.; 

Elko, Nevada; and Phoenix, Arizona. 

Ms. Hankins oversees 800 employees and administers 8.3 million 

acres of BLM public lands, and 27 million acres of mineral estate, 

which are concentrated primarily right here in my congressional 

district. 

She earned a Bachelor’s degree in geology from the University of 

New Mexico and was one of the first two women to complete the 

BLM’s five-month-long minerals law school program. 

Ms. Hankins, welcome back to our Subcommittee, and I appreciate you taking the time to be here, and we look forward to your 

testimony. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

STATEMENT OF HELEN HANKINS 

Ms. HANKINS. Thank you, Representative Tipton. And, Representative Critz, it is a pleasure to meet you also. I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak before the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade. 

BLM is responsible for the management of 240 million surface 

acres and more than 700 million subsurface acres across the country. Activities on these public lands and associated with Federal 

mineral resources are very important to the quality of our nation 

and to the economic health of our country and to rural communities 

across the West. 

Earlier this year, Department of the Interior published a report 

about the economic impacts of activities on public lands to the 

country. This is a summary of that report. I would like to address 

briefly those data related to the country as a whole, and also to 

Colorado. In my opening remarks, I will also touch very briefly on 

oil and gas leasing reform. More detailed remarks are in the written testimony previously submitted. 

With respect to conventional energy in our country, it is esti- mated that the economic impact is valued at $100 billion for activities related to coal and oil and gas exploration and development, 

resulting in some 420,000 jobs. $2.5 billion in royalties were taken 

in last year, and almost half of that was returned to the states 

where the activities occurred. In Colorado, that amount was about 

$112 million. 

Hard rock mining is also an important contributor to our coun- try’s economy, $14 billion in economic impact and some 59,000 jobs. 

Oil and gas development is very important. It is important to us 

economically, and it is important to our path to energy independence. But economic development must be balanced with environmental concerns. Earlier this year, the BLM initiated oil and gas 

leasing reform. The purpose of this reform, which is a policy, not 

a regulation, is to provide a more open and environmentally sound 

approach to oil and gas leasing on public lands. The public has an 

opportunity to be involved much earlier in the process of determining whether we will lease or not lease a parcel. 

We believe that these reforms will lead to increased certainty for 

both the public and industry, and will also reduce the number of 

protests. In the last decade, protests on our oil and gas lease sales 

have gone from 1 percent to 49 percent of the parcels. I believe you 

can understand that it is very costly to deal with protests and litigation on this scale. 

Early indications of the implementation of these reforms is that 

we are seeing a reduction in protests and a higher level of leases 

being able to be successfully issued. 

I would like to speak briefly now about Colorado. It is truly, as 

we all know, an amazing place. Public lands here are used for 

recreation, and many people gain their livelihood from public lands, 

whether it is ranchers, people in the mining industry, or in the oil 

and gas or coal industry. 

In Colorado last year, more than 3.8 million barrels of oil were 

produced, and more than 279 million mcf of natural gas. The economic impact of these activities to our economy was $4.8 billion 

and some 17,000 direct and indirect jobs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

It is important to note, though, that only about 10 percent of oil 

and gas exploration and development in Colorado occurs on Federal 

mineral estate. By far, the majority is on either state or private 

land. 

On the other hand, with respect to coal, 80 percent of the coal 

produced in Colorado comes from nine mines on Federal lands or 

Federal mineral estate. The economic impact of coal development 

in Colorado is about $1.2 billion, resulting in some 5,500 direct and 

indirect jobs. 

Hard rock mining is also important here, contributing some $26 

million and some 5,000 jobs. 

Clearly, in Colorado, energy development is important, as is recreational use, livestock grazing, and other activities. 

In summary, approximately $6 billion is the economic impact of 

activities on public land in Colorado, and some 28,000 jobs. Thank 

you for the opportunity to participate in your hearing. 

[The statement of Ms. Hankins follows on page 58.] 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Ms. Hankins, for your testimony. 

We appreciate that. 

We will now start our question period, and I will begin. 

Mr. Martin, I would like to direct my first question to you, if I 

may. The Craig Power Station in Moffat County, the nuclear power 

station in Montrose County currently store dry coal ash. Are you 

aware that the coal ash is regulated as a hazardous material under 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of the EPA, as they 

propose to do? The cost to operate these plants would increase significantly. 

And also are you aware, concerning these costs, there seems to 

be actually very little benefit associated with that? This would be 

passed on to rural electric consumers all over the Western Slope of 

Colorado in the form of higher electric prices. 

Before you answer, I would like to be able to convey to you just 

how important these facilities are to the Western Slope communities in which they reside. The Craig Power Plant is an example 

that employs 306 folks and 442 jobs in the Trapper Mine and surrounding area that are directly related to Craig’s continued operation. Craig also generates $8.9 million in tax revenue for Moffat 

County and other local government entities. The nuclear station is 

one of the largest private employers in Montrose County. It employs 60 people with wages and benefits amounting to about $7.2 

million annually. The nuclear generates about $1.1 million for 

Montrose County and other local government regions in the industry. 

Can you see really the benefit of some of this regulation going 

through, particularly when there is beneficial use for some of that 

ash? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, you covered a lot of ground in 

that question. I will do my best to respond. 

I visited with both Tristate and Xcel about the proposed rule and 

the two different avenues that the agency has to choose from in 

managing these wastes. I visited the Trapper Mine. I think I visited all of those different power plants at one time or another in 

my career, so I am familiar with their operations. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

I have conveyed to my colleagues in Washington, D.C. what I 

have learned from those conversations. I know that the Administrator is very carefully weighing and considering all of the factors 

that are involved here. She is committed to assuring that, in fact, 

we can continue beneficial use of these residuals, and I have explained to her that in most cases in the West we don’t use wet 

scrubbers, we use dry scrubbers, and that makes for a situation different than is encountered elsewhere; for example, at the site in 

Tennessee where they experienced that very significant breach and 

the resulting impacts to both land and water resources and the expenditure of several hundred million dollars in clean-up costs. 

I know the Administrator is weighing all of those things. I will 

convey to her again the concerns that you have expressed on behalf 

of—well, I guess on Tristate’s behalf. 

Chairman TIPTON. I think that is absolutely critical because we 

are seeing a continued impact locally here in terms of some of the 

costs, and a lot of us, myself, and I’m sure Congressman Critz 

assures this, when it gets down to the ultimate consumer, senior 

citizens on fixed incomes, struggling families, as we have regulations that are increasing those costs on a per kilowatt hour basis, 

we are seeing real impacts that are coming through. And so I 

would appreciate you passing that on. 

Next question to you, Mr. Martin, is a number of stakeholders 

have questioned the agency’s findings regarding the health benefits 

of the utility MACT rule. How does the agency determine the cost 

versus benefits of the proposed clean air rules? 

Mr. MARTIN. With respect, Mr. Chairman, principally to the Air 

Toxics proposal, or the MACT for utilities? 

Chairman TIPTON. Yes. 

Mr. MARTIN. Okay. Well, over the course of a long period of time, 

the agency’s process for identifying both costs and benefits associated with rules like this, and often with some significant assistance 

from the Office of Management and Budget, it has evolved and it 

has become progressively more sophisticated, I believe, and more 

precise. 

I would like to mention that back in the year 2000, it was a decision from the Environmental Protection Agency at that time that 

it was necessary to control mercury emissions in power plants. The 

last administration adopted a proposal for dealing with those emissions, and that was subsequently challenged in the D.C. Circuit. 

That is where these kinds of challenges are required to go, and the 

D.C. Circuit vacated that proposal, finding that it was inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act. 

So we are actually doing our best to try and implement this statutory requirement, that should have gone into effect in 2002, as 

carefully and thoughtfully as we can. I believe that the science of 

exposure to mercury and to other toxic gases is clear, and I believe 

that we have a very clear sense of which facilities are controlled 

and which are not. Forty percent are not; 56 percent are. We have 

controlled the other major sources of mercury, both medical, municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators. I think we 

can identify with a fair degree of confidence both the benefits, 

which range from $59 to $140 billion. So every dollar in investment 

yields about $5 to $13 in health benefits, and those range from reVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:39 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 071325 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

duced number of visits to emergency rooms to preventing that loss 

of IQ in fetuses that are exposed to mercury before birth. 

So there are significant health benefits both locally and at some 

distance from the source of mercury emissions. I know that during 

my term, tenure as Director of the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment, one of my least pleasant tasks was to 

post lakes and streams, lakes principally, across the State of Colorado with warnings to pregnant women and others to limit their 

consumption of fish from those lakes. And we know for a fact that 

long-distance transport of mercury is one of the causes of that problem. 

So we are hopeful that as these regulations go into effect, we will 

be able to protect or prevent those health effects both in the immediate area around these particular sources, as well as some distance downwind. 

Chairman TIPTON. I think we would all have unanimity of opinion that that is something we want to address. I was interested 

reading through some of your written testimony and other information that we have had available in terms of cross-state transportation, some of the heavy metals, and we are doing this on a 

science-based level. 

What is the suspension time for those heavy metals? How long 

can they stay up in the air? This may be unfair. You may not know 

the specifics. 

Mr. MARTIN. I confess I don’t know the answer to that question 

with any kind of precision. I would be happy to try and find the 

answer for you. 

Chairman TIPTON. I guess what I am really curious about is, you 

know, when we look at some of the industrial development, we 

have made great advances, great improvements here in the United 

States. But when we see some of the industrial development that 

is going on in China, India, are we seeing some of that residue 

coming in, and we are paying the price for it in the United States, 

expecting our industry to pay the bill? It is not ignoring the problem that may exist but putting pressure on those foreign countries 

to be able to address their operations. 

Mr. MARTIN. You may very well be right, Congressman, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. Does that enter into any of the consideration 

when we are asking our industry to be able to increase their ability 

to be able to screen out and to be able to filter impacts that are 

coming in that we simply are not able to control, and we would 

have a nominal impact in terms of increasing regulations on our 

industry? Does any of that in consideration? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, with all due deference, I would beg 

to differ. I think that the proposal for reductions in emissions, air 

toxins from power plants, will have a significant effect on the burden both near the sites and long-distance from mercury and other 

toxics that are emitted from coal-fired power plants. So while it is 

clearly a global problem, these regulations will have a very significant beneficial effect in reducing—— 

Chairman TIPTON. Do you have a percentage on that? 

Mr. MARTIN. I’m sorry, sir? 

Chairman TIPTON. Do you have a percentage of impact? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

Mr. MARTIN. I don’t, but I am happy to get it for you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. I think that would be interesting, and 

I would be interested to know if you can help us maybe achieve 

some of that, some of the impacts that we are feeling on our country coming in from outside of the United States, and the impacts 

actually on our businesses. 

When we are talking about some of the EPA’s greenhouse emissions, during your testimony you were saying that there is going 

to be some cost/benefit ultimately to the consumer. This goes back 

a little bit to my opening statement when Gardner had asked the 

question do we do a cost/benefit analysis, and you were talking 

about the benefit of increased gas mileage, reducing some of the 

barrels of oil. 

How much will the new regulation be reflected in the cost of a 

new car that is passed on to the consumer? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understood your 

question. 

Chairman TIPTON. Well, we are going to have a new regulation 

that cars are going to have to meet a certain standard. How much 

is that going to increase the cost of cars? We have $10,000 cars 

now. Are they going to cost $10,500, $10,250, $11,000? What is the 

cost to the consumer in terms of that vehicle? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I confess that I knew the answer to 

that question at one point, and if you give me a moment, I will try 

to dig it out. If I cannot find it in my briefing materials, I will submit that for the record as soon as we can find it. I know we have 

that data. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. I think that is going to be, when we are 

looking at cost analysis, cost/benefit analysis, we need to make sure 

that some of those costs are included as well. 

Going on, when you are saying that the regs, going back to some 

of the mercury, heavy metals and what-not, in your statement you 

made the comment that the regs, the regulations are going to be 

affordable. What is going to be the increased cost to the consumer? 

Mr. MARTIN. For the Air Toxics Rule, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman TIPTON. Yes. 

Mr. MARTIN. For the consumer? 

Chairman TIPTON. Yes. 

Mr. MARTIN. I don’t remember, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to 

look it up for you if you give me a moment. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. Yes, if we could find that out, I would 

appreciate that. 

And then when we are going a little bit into some of the fracking 

issues that are going on, just recently Governor Hickenlooper, he 

is a former petroleum geologist. He came to the Colorado Oil and 

Gas annual conference. This is his statement. He said, ‘‘Everybody 

in this room understands that hydraulic fracturing doesn’t connect 

to the groundwater. It’s almost inconceivable that we would ever 

contaminate through the fracking process the groundwater.’’ The 

governor went on to blame inaccuracies and misinformation on this 

subject being reported by the media, and he even called out the 

New York Times. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

Is it your opinion, do you agree with the governor? Was he accurate in his comments, and do you have any knowledge of any Federal regulations that may be proposed regarding fracking? 

Mr. MARTIN. I’m sorry. What was the last part of your question, 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman TIPTON. Are you aware of any regulations that are 

being proposed or considered under the Federal Government that 

will be addressing fracking? 

Mr. MARTIN. The only regulations of which I am aware, Mr. 

Chairman—actually, they are not regulations, but we are working 

to identify the appropriate permitting structure for fracking operations that employ diesel, which is not part of the exemption adopted by the Congress when it otherwise exempted those kinds of activities from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act. But I am 

not aware of any other regulatory programs that are in the offing, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. And would you accept, do you embrace the 

governor’s assessment of that process? 

Mr. MARTIN. I would have to take a closer look at what the governor said. I am not in the habit of disagreeing with any of my political leaders, but I have not had a chance to look more precisely 

at what the governor said. I know that he did accompany his statement with a recommendation that the Oil and Gas Commission 

here in Colorado adopt some fracking disclosure rules. I do not believe those have yet been proposed in any kind of definitive form, 

but we look forward to working with all of our state partners in 

dealing with all of these issues here in the West. 

Chairman TIPTON. But would you concur that that probably is 

something better administered at the state as opposed to the Federal level? 

Mr. MARTIN. I believe that Federal, state and local governments 

all have a role here, and that I believe we are working in partnership with the states on these issues. But there are some issues 

where, for example, air emissions from the completion that follows 

fracking that are more likely more amenable to a national standard 

than to a local standard, Mr. Chairman. So I do not believe it is 

amenable to a yes or no answer. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, and I would like to now yield to 

Congressman Critz if he wanted to, and I have some questions for 

Ms. Hankins as well. But I will yield to Congressman Critz. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And just so you folks know where I come from, I am from Southwest Pennsylvania, a long history of steel-making and coal mining. 

When I grew up, we had orange skies and orange streams, and we 

thought it was okay. But at some point, someone realized that that 

wasn’t really good for our health. And in the years since, we have 

blue skies, we have clean streams that are now fishable, and we 

are doing really one heck of a job, and I think that you hit on it, 

Mr. Martin. It is everyone sort of working together. It is the Federal, the state, the local, it is industry, it is environmental, it is 

academia trying to work together to come up with solutions. And 

like I said, we have clean streams now. We have trails. Southwest 

Pennsylvania is a beautiful place to live. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

And also, the Clean Air Act actually started because of what was 

called the Donora smog in Southwest Pennsylvania, when several 

people died because of some sort of a blow-out at a local plant. So 

we are sort of the test case, and we have come a long way, and that 

is where I come to this point. 

And I have a couple of quick questions, just to make sure I understand. When we talk about the mercury rules, is the rule going 

to be that the mercury has to be in parts per billion? Is that correct, that it goes down, it is reduced to a parts per billion number? 

Mr. MARTIN. I believe that is correct, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about relatively small quantities. I’m sorry, Mr. Critz. 

Mr. CRITZ. That’s okay. You can call me Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

We have an agreement. 

Mr. MARTIN. We are talking about relatively small total quantities of mercury but which have significant effects on both the biology, the biota and humans. So I believe it is measured in parts per 

billion. 

Mr. CRITZ. Now let me ask you this, because what I have been 

told is that there is no way to measure parts per billion. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t—I’m sorry, Congressman 

Critz. I’m sorry, I don’t believe that is correct. During my time at 

the Department of Public Health and Environment, we worked 

with a number of utilities, including Xcel Energy, to install continuous emission monitors, as well as to begin to install mercury controls, principally injected carbon, and I believe they were able to 

detect the quantities of mercury in the flue stream and to install 

effective emission controls. And for the benefit of the Coloradans in 

the room, that is a technology that was developed here in Colorado 

and which is now being marketed around the world. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. So it is—okay. So that is misinformation that 

I received. 

Mr. MARTIN. I would hesitate to suggest that it is misinformation. But we believe that you can detect mercury in the flue 

stream, and you can efficiently and relatively cost-effectively capture the mercury before it is emitted into the atmosphere. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. I like how you said ‘‘relatively cost effective.’’ 

But anyway, as I told you where I am from, talking about the 

MACT rule that is going to be implemented, one of the results of 

a heavy industry which we have had in Western Pennsylvania, we 

have giant piles of waste coal sitting all around our neighborhoods. 

And for those of you who don’t know, in Pennsylvania what would 

happen is when a mine would open, a little town would pop up 

around it, and we would call them patches. So we have lots of 

patch towns all across Western Pennsylvania, and I know we have 

waste coal dumps across this country. 

And we have actually power plants that use that waste coal to 

generate electricity. And this MACT rule is going to shut those 

plants down because there is no way they can get that final—they 

clean up about 95 percent of the sulfur, but they cannot get the 

rest to meet the requirement based on the technology and cost-effectiveness. They cannot afford to do it. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

And what I would ask you is, is this picking winners and losers? 

In other words, we are going to shut these plants down because of 

the sulfur that they emit, but in the interim, or what that means 

really is that we are going to condemn all those people that live 

close to those coal ash piles, that they are going to have to live with 

them for generations to come. Is that a logical process that I 

thought through there, that those coal ash piles aren’t going anywhere when these plants shut down? 

Mr. MARTIN. Congressman Critz, this is an issue that I have 

never been aware of before. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. 

Mr. MARTIN. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I will 

be sure to—— 

Mr. CRITZ. Do you have waste coal piles out this way? Okay. So 

there are waste coal piles in your region. 

Mr. MARTIN. None that I am aware of, sir. 

Mr. CRITZ. Oh, is that right? 

Mr. MARTIN. I could be wrong, but none that I am aware of. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay, okay. I thought there was. That is why I 

brought it up, because we have plants that burn them, but I will 

just move on. 

In answering actually your question, Mr. Chairman, about does 

the government take into account air quality that is being blown 

in off of our shores, we are experiencing actually in Western Pennsylvania, especially because we are right on the Ohio border, that 

a lot of the power plants that are in Ohio, the emissions that they 

create blow into Pennsylvania, and it actually affects what we are 

allowed to do in Pennsylvania. 

So I can’t imagine that we are taking into account what is blowing across the ocean from China and India that is blowing into 

Washington and Oregon if we can’t even do it state to state, because that is an EPA-regulated event as well. So I would investigate that, and I would be curious to hear if EPA is really taking 

into account what is blowing across the ocean when we talk about 

China, the pollution that they are creating, because we know that 

there is an impact in Washington, and I know that across state 

lines it is impacting what we are allowed to do in Pennsylvania, 

just what is based in Ohio. 

But also moving on to fracking now, when fracking first really 

became prevalent was in the late ‘60s, and they used a load of diesel to do the fracking process. Over the years they have really 

cleaned that up and it is a much more—we will call it a concoction 

of many, many items, diesel being I think—I don’t know if diesel 

is even a part of it anymore. It might be somewhat of a part of it, 

but I don’t know. 

But I was looking through some testimony, and I believe it was 

in 2004 the EPA reported that the risk was very small for hydraulic fracturing. Are you aware of this report? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am, Congressman Critz. It was a report prepared 

by the Environmental Protection Agency related principally, I believe, if not solely to coal bed methane and the use of fracking to 

access that particular resource. So it was not examining shale gas 

or other unconventional gas resources. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

Mr. CRITZ. But the fracturing is the same process, though, 

wouldn’t it be? 

Mr. MARTIN. It has been my experience, Congressman Critz, having served on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in Colorado for almost four years, that different structures, different target zones, different operations all pose different risks and different 

benefits, and it is difficult to generalize across the spectrum of different unconventional gas resources. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay, okay. Well, the reason I bring it up is that, you 

know, I try to make sure that, as you may be aware, and I think 

the Chairman mentioned it, or maybe he didn’t, I mentioned it in 

my testimony that in Western Pennsylvania, actually in New York, 

Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, through the Appalachian region, we have the Marcellus Shale gas, and fracturing, 

hydraulic fracturing has become a huge sort of political football. 

And what I try to tell my constituency is that when you drill a 

hole—and I think in Western Pennsylvania we have sort of an understanding of this, is that it is heavy industry. This is not—they 

are not building a drill. They are drilling a hole in the ground to 

bring up natural gas. It is heavy industry, and there are going to 

be accidents. There are going to be—probably someone is going to 

die. Someone is going to get killed at some point or another. I 

mean, everyone doesn’t want that to happen, but it is heavy industry. You don’t drill a hole in the ground, flowers come out of it. I 

mean, that is the way it is. 

But it is in the industry’s best interest not to have it contaminate the well through the water table or whatever, because it is a $5 

to $7 million investment that then goes out the window if it is 

somehow fouled. So I think that, or my impression and what I have 

seen is that the industry is working very diligently not to have accidents, but it is going to happen. 

And it brings me back to the Tennessee coal ash issue, that that 

was a terrible issue, a terrible problem. I mean, when that impound burst through and contaminated, and you said $100 million 

worth of clean-up, I mean, that is absolutely terrible. 

Does it make sense to change the regulations for an entire industry because of one incident, or is it smarter to make the enforcement and the penalty for not following the current regulations 

make more sense? You know, we have a tendency at this level to 

do a one-size-fits-all solution, and it rarely works at every level. 

So my question to you is, because of the Tennessee blow-out, did 

the regulations need to be changed because of that, or should the 

enforcement and the penalty for what happened be stronger so that 

it would prevent people from violating the regulations that already 

exist? 

Mr. MARTIN. Congressman Critz, that is precisely the question 

that the Administrator, my boss, is struggling with right now. We 

are going to carefully review all 450,000 comments that we received. We are certainly taking a hard look at the comments we received from industry, as well as the industry that beneficially uses 

coal ash. There are clearly two, at least two options in front of the 

Administrator, neither of which will upset the Bevill Amendment, 

the 2000 Bevill exception for these materials. But I can’t, I honestly can’t tell you what the Administrator is going to decide beVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:39 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 071325 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

cause she has not reached that point. I don’t expect her to until 

into next year. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay, all right. And just one last question and I will 

turn it back over to the Chairman because, Ms. Hankins, you have 

had a free ride, so we have got to do something here. [Laughter.] 

But I was reading that BLM is congressionally mandated to 

issue a permit 60 days after a competitive bid process, and I was 

curious if BLM is meeting that requirement out here in your section. And then I am going to ask both of you to answer a question, 

because we see sometimes in the industries that we are talking 

about permits taking multiple years to be issued, which if you are 

in business, I don’t know how you project your costs, what the market is going to be when you get those permits, and I just want to 

find out from you what is a better way that we can address these 

ridiculously long permitting times. 

Ms. HANKINS. When you say competitive bid process and a 60- 

day timeframe, are you talking about lease by application for coal, 

or are you talking about oil and gas? I’m not sure, because—— 

Mr. CRITZ. Sided with oil and natural gas producers in ruling 

that while the Department of the Interior Secretary’s discretion in 

issuing oil and gas leases still must comply with a 60-day time 

deadline established by Congress. 

Ms. HANKINS. Okay. I believe you are referring to requirements 

in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and there are several factors that 

affect the rate at which we can issue a permit. The first one is how 

complete is that permit application when we receive it, and we 

have 10 days to review it and identify to the applicant if there are 

any deficiencies in their permit. Once we do that, then they have 

a 45-day period to address any issues that we raise, and at the end 

of that time or whenever we get a complete permit from the applicant, we are expected to process that in 30 days. 

That includes an environmental review. It can also include litigation. And so sometimes we do not meet that 60-day timeframe for 

a variety of reasons. But I do understand that that is the requirement in the Energy Policy Act. 

Mr. CRITZ. Would you say that you meet it 50 percent of the 

time? 

Ms. HANKINS. You know, I don’t have that figure. Some of our 

offices meet it 100 percent of the time. Some I don’t think meet it 

to that degree. But I can certainly provide you the data. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. But your estimation is that you do a pretty 

good job and you don’t have ones sitting out there 120, 150 a year? 

Ms. HANKINS. There are individual instances for some of the reasons I stated that have been pending for more than the period of 

time you stated. But generally speaking, there are other factors 

that cause that. Sometimes, as I said, the application is incomplete. 

Sometimes there is other information we need. Sometimes there 

are environmental reviews that need more time. So there are a variety of factors why they may take more time, but there are a few 

instances where the period is a long time. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. Mr. Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRITZ. I have a lot of coal mining in my district. We have 

permits that were applied for five, six years ago. I don’t underVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:39 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 071325 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

stand. I mean, I don’t understand how it could take that long to 

get a permit issued for a coal mine that will probably operate for 

two years. 

So in your region, do you have a set date that you have set that 

we need permits issued within two years, or we need permits 

issued—we either deny or we approve permits? 

Mr. MARTIN. Congressman Critz, we don’t typically issue permits 

for coal mines other than for—— 

Mr. CRITZ. Well, I mean any of your permitting issues. 

Mr. MARTIN. More generally? 

Mr. CRITZ. Yeah. 

Mr. MARTIN. The Clean Air Act, I believe, sets an outside limit 

of one year. We work very hard to efficiently process permit applications. We are a direct implementer in a number of places, including all of the American Indian reservations in our region. We have 

a significant permit burden, but we are working very hard at eliminating backlogs and processing them as effectively and efficiently 

as we can. 

We are actually the direct implementer for PSD for greenhouse 

gases in Wyoming, and I believe we are going to meet our goal of 

processing that part of the PSD permits in tandem with the state 

as it evaluates conventional air pollutants, and we will assure that 

there is no delay for those major sources. I think we have objectively been very efficient in evaluating other greenhouse gas air 

permits within our region. 

So that is my goal. We are a customer service agency, and I take 

that very seriously. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

I would like to drop back just a little bit. Just a couple more 

questions came to mind here, Mr. Martin. When you were talking 

about the 450,000 comments that came in, on specific instances 

were you receiving—if you had a comment on Prake, were you receiving comment coming in from New York on that, or do you give 

weight to local input more? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, we weigh every comment equally. 

Sometimes we get the same comment from multiple individuals or 

multiple entities, and then we count that as a single comment. But 

we weigh every comment as seriously as every other comment. 

And if you don’t mind, Mr. Chairman, I found the reference to 

at least one of the questions you asked me. You were inquiring 

about the cost impact of the Mercury Air Toxics Standards, and 

what I discovered is that we did, in fact, analyze that precise question, and our conclusion is that the MATS, the Mercury Air Toxic 

Standards, would raise electricity rates an average of 3.7 percent 

in 2015, and that would drop to 2.6 percent by 2020. And as a result of that relatively small change in average retail prices of electricity, they would continue to be at or below 2009 levels even after 

absorbing those costs. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. Just kind of curious. Have you ever 

seen prices go down once they go up, in reality, on your bill? I 

haven’t either. So it’s kind of a rhetorical question, I guess. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

Let’s see. I had one other question, and it is going back to some 

of the mercury standards. It is a problem. We know there are some 

issues with mercury and what-not, but I do have a concern in 

terms of how much we attempt to look to the United States to fix 

the world’s problems when we have a very responsible industry 

here in this country. 

Do we have any percentages of what Congressman Critz had 

asked on this again? I just wanted to clarify how much is coming 

in from foreign countries that is in our air impacting us. Is it half 

of what is up there? Seventy-five percent? Ten percent? Do we have 

any figures on that? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I am hesitant to hazard a guess. 

That is a number that we will get to you. I have written it down. 

It is a number that we will get to you. From my own experience 

at the Department of Public Health and Environment, I would say 

it is a much lower number, that this is principally a national and 

local issue here in Colorado. 

And I would like to add that here in Colorado during the debate 

during the last administration over how to structure that mercury 

regulatory package, the State of Colorado moved ahead. We put together a stakeholder process. I believe we had consensus from all 

of the utilities in the state, and we developed a mercury standard 

that is in the process of being implemented here in Colorado. We 

were ahead of the Environmental Protection Agency in that instance, and I don’t believe we have encountered any significant obstacles in getting that done. 

We have had the ancillary benefit of stimulating the development 

of that industry here in Colorado that specializes in installing that 

carbon injection technology that does not require significant 

changes in the system in order to achieve very significant emissions reductions. 

Chairman TIPTON. If you could get that number, I think that is 

important for us to know and to be able to reflect on. 

Mr. MARTIN. Be happy to do it. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. Appreciate that. 

Ms. Hankins, I don’t want you to feel left out either. I did have 

a couple of questions. 

When I was reading through your testimony, you were talking 

about in terms of onshore production from public lands, in the year 

2010 that production had increased by 5 million barrels from the 

previous fiscal year. More than 114 million barrels of oil were produced from BLM managed mineral estates, the most since fiscal 

year 1997. 

I was kind of curious about that given the comment that we continue to hear, particularly here in the Third Congressional District. 

Those producing facilities, when were those actually—when were 

the leases made, and when were they permitted? 

Ms. HANKINS. I will respond to your question in a couple of different ways. The figures that you quoted are, of course, national 

figures, not specific to Colorado. 

You know, the main thing that controls how many leases we 

issue and how many wells are drilled is determined by the market 

and by the national demand for energy and the price of gas and 

the price of oil. And so those are factors in why we have seen less 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

requests for leases and less proposals for applications for permits 

to drill in the last few years. 

And so I think it is important to keep those market conditions 

in mind. There are many reasons that industry has, and I think 

you have industry representatives later on your other panels that 

can talk about that as to when and where they choose to drill. But 

what we are seeing is that only about 70 percent of the leases 

issued at the present time are being drilled, and those are choices 

that industry makes, not the BLM. 

So I think there are a range of factors, much driven by industry 

in terms of when they seek the lease, when they choose to submit 

an application for permit to drill, and when they decide to actually 

drill a well. 

Chairman TIPTON. Right now, you know, I understand what you 

are saying. Since we are in the 3rd District in Colorado, this is 

your area. What are the Colorado numbers? 

Ms. HANKINS. In terms of number of leases issued? 

Chairman TIPTON. Productivity. In terms of that productivity. 

You were saying these are national statistics. What do we have for 

Colorado? 

Ms. HANKINS. I don’t have those immediately in my head, and 

I can certainly provide them. But our statistics, overall we have 

issued fewer leases in the last three or four years than, say, eight 

or ten years ago. We are also seeing less applications for permit to 

drill for some of the same reasons that I talked about nationally, 

and I will be happy to give you those exact numbers. 

Chairman TIPTON. I think that is probably not fair for you to 

even have to comment on because it was a product of Colorado 

State Legislature in terms of oil and gas regulations. We see our 

friends in North Dakota with 3 percent unemployment right now. 

They simply left our state, because I think we can certainly make 

a profound argument at the gas pump. I filled up my truck the 

other day, you know, $80 bucks, and it had a quarter of a tank and 

then topped it off. The costs are there, and given the rationale that 

it is market driven, that is a way to be able to drive down actually 

some of those costs. 

I would like to go back a little bit to some of your testimony that 

you submitted to us in regards to coal. You said the BLM is currently processing six applications for competitive coal leases in Colorado. Can you tell us where those are at now? 

Ms. HANKINS. I can provide you a detailed table that gives you 

the status of each one of those, but generally they are in some 

phase of the environmental review process: Some, the environmental review has been completed; some, it is ongoing. In one case, 

we completed the review, made the decision, and it is now being 

litigated. So it is variable, but I can present you a table that gives 

you the details for each one. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. Yes, because I think that particularly 

when we get down to the coal industry, if you have a moving wall— 

we were talking about that—once you stop, it gets incredibly hard 

to get that going. So that permitting process and being able to expedite that and do it responsibly is obviously incredibly critical for 

us there. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

Ms. Hankins, a lot of people in our congressional district and 

across the nation feel that our country, and we see it right here in 

Mesa County in particular, 10.5 percent unemployment. We are experiencing both a job and an employment crisis, and in terms of an 

energy crisis as well for this country. A little later, and I would certainly invite and hope that both of you might be able to just listen 

in to some of the follow-up testimony from our next panel as well, 

because I think it is going to be insightful. The rules and regulations have real impacts on real people, real jobs, real costs, impacting consumers at home. 

But they will be testifying on the second panel, and they claim 

that we have the potential to rapidly create thousands of jobs and 

bring new energy supply to the market. But there are onerous and 

changing Federal policies, including those instituted by the BLM 

that are a barrier, and I think you understand that. There are 

issues, and we understand your mission. 

But what is the BLM doing to be able to reduce permitting 

times? We currently have an average of 206 days to the 30 days 

required, going to your question, Congressman Critz, required by 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 206 days versus the requirement of 

30 days in terms of that permitting process. You have the lease. 

You have to be permitted to eventually turn that into production, 

a big span of time. 

So what is the BLM doing to reduce those permitting times right 

now, and how can the BLM enable job creation and economic development when we continue to have these extensive bureaucratic 

delays? 

Ms. HANKINS. I will be happy to address that question. I don’t 

believe that the figures that I have seen for the amount of time, 

once we have a complete application for permit to drill, are as high 

as you indicate, but I will verify that and send you the information 

that we have. 

With respect to issuing new leases and then subsequently processing applications for permit to drill, I think it is important to 

think about one of the reasons that we undertook oil and gas leasing reform, and that is that nearly half of the leases that we were 

offering for sale were being protested and in some cases litigated. 

When that happens, then we are not able to issue a lease or at 

least allow the company to exercise their rights under a lease until 

we resolve that protest or litigation. 

And so we were finding nationwide that that was a significant 

hindrance to issuing these leases because of all the protests and 

litigation that was occurring. We undertook oil and gas leasing reform with the idea that if we could involve the public earlier in the 

process and get their input on whether we should recommend a 

parcel for lease or not, and I stress get their input because the decision still rests with the agency, it has been our hope that that 

would reduce the number of protests. 

We have seen some indications in both Wyoming and Montana 

that that is the case. The percent of parcels being protested I believe in Wyoming is about 12 percent. In Colorado we are still in 

the process of implementing oil and gas leasing reform. Our situation is a little bit different than some of the other states because 

we are doing a lot of land use plans, and some of those are far 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

enough along that until we actually get to the final decision about 

resource allocation in those plans, we won’t be leasing some areas. 

So our situation is slightly different. 

But I think when we think about what leases we make available 

and where we can have drilling, first we have to think about oil 

and gas leasing reform is intended to make that process work better and more efficiently so that when we do put a parcel up for 

sale, then we don’t get the opposition and we are able to proceed 

with presenting it. 

Once those leases are issued, another step I have taken since I 

have been here in the last 18 months is I have looked at the numbers for how efficient our offices are and have asked for an internal 

review. I received some of the preliminary feedback last week, although I don’t have a report yet, and what that review tells me, 

as I indicated earlier, is in some of our offices we are doing exceedingly well in the processing of proposed parcels and the processing 

of APDs. In some other offices, I believe we need to increase our 

efficiencies, and it is my intention to work with those managers to 

help them do that. 

So it is front-end loading, the leasing process, and it is taking 

some steps internally to increase our efficiencies. So those are two 

things we are doing, I think, to help expedite the permitting. 

Chairman TIPTON. Since you brought up the litigation end of it, 

I am just kind of curious. How much of the BLM’s budget is consumed by litigation? Do you have a percentage? 

Ms. HANKINS. No, I don’t, although I wish I did. We have talked 

about that nationally because I can tell you that it is substantial. 

When we look at costs associated with responding to Freedom of 

Information Act requests, and then all the work associated with 

preparing administrative records, which is all the documentation 

related to a particular action, and then attorney time, both our solicitors and Department of Justice, plus whatever time in court or 

trying to work through settlements, it is extensive. 

Chairman TIPTON. Is anyone running a study on that to try and 

find that out, just extract the numbers? 

Ms. HANKINS. We have been talking about it at BLM at the national level, and they are starting to put together a database that 

will help us get at that information, but we don’t currently have 

that. But I can tell you—— 

Chairman TIPTON. Just maybe one other thought when you are 

kind of pursuing that number, it might also be interesting, just 

given your comments in terms of some of the oil and gas reform, 

to be able to expedite these, if we could label it defensive medicine, 

to try and inoculate yourself a little bit, not just paying for the lawsuit. How much of your valuable resources which might be better 

used elsewhere are being drawn off to try and defend yourself, that 

we could actually get to address some of the permitting, to be able 

to expedite that, take it from 206 days down to the 30 days, to be 

able to achieve that. 

Ms. HANKINS. That is a good comment. 

Chairman TIPTON. Just a bit of a thought that you might want 

to look at. 

In 2007, the Department of Interior established a Federal advisory panel comprised of a number of government and non-governVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:39 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 071325 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

ment stakeholders and made recommendations on siting wind turbines on Federal lands. This advisory panel reached a consensus 

recommendation in 2010. In its recently issued draft guidance, the 

agency appears to have jettisoned actually many of the recommendations. 

Can you explain to us why the agency took this step and why the 

Federal agency’s advisory committee’s consensus recommendations 

are being ignored? 

Ms. HANKINS. I don’t have specific information about that. But 

what I can tell you is that the BLM completed a Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement approximately five 

years ago, and in that document we identified some 20 million 

acres of land the BLM manages that are suitable for wind energy 

development. Here in Colorado, we have had several requests for 

rights of way to conduct wind testing to put up meteorological towers to evaluate wind velocities in constancy and so forth, and most 

of those have been in southern Colorado but some in Western Colorado. 

To my knowledge, so far we have not received a single application from either an individual or a company to develop a wind farm 

in Colorado, and we certainly would be open to that. So I don’t 

know that industry has defined that that is something that is economically viable for them here, but I would certainly be interested 

in seeing a proposal. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. Again, if you could maybe get back 

with us in terms of—I guess I would like to know why, when some 

recommendations are made, it seems that the advisory committee 

is just going in the other direction. 

Ms. HANKINS. Sure, I will be glad to. 

Chairman TIPTON. Just one last question for you. I am kind of 

curious, when we are talking about the big scope, the obligations 

of your agency and the EPA nationwide. We have an energy 

project, say, in Colorado, and we receive public comment coming in. 

I am just curious. When you receive comment from, say, Pennsylvania in regards to a project going on in Colorado—and this is the 

same question I actually asked Mr. Martin as well—do we give 

more consideration to the local communities, the local input, as opposed to someone who may live 2,000 miles from us, commenting 

on whether or not a project should proceed? 

Ms. HANKINS. You know, that is a question that I have been 

asked since I began with the BLM as a geologist and then as I 

moved into various management positions, because I think there is 

always a hope and a desire on the part of people who live closest 

to public lands that they should be the primary determiner for 

what should happen on those public lands. 

But the public lands that the BLM manages, they truly are the 

lands that belong to all of the American people. It is the taxpayers 

of all of our country who fund the management of these lands and 

who pay for improvements; for example, recreational facilities or 

other amenities. 

And so when we manage them, because they do belong to all of 

the American people, it is important that we get the input and consider, as Mr. Martin said, we consider the input of all Americans 

in our decisions. Sometimes local people have much more detailed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

knowledge of a particular proposal or a particular piece of ground, 

and so we clearly can factor that in in a different way because it 

is data and information that people from a distance don’t have. But 

we, like the EPA, must consider all comments equally and evaluate 

them in the context of any of our actions. 

Chairman TIPTON. Okay. I guess when you make the comment 

that local people have better insight, are more knowledgeable about 

it, but you are going to give equal value to somebody from wherever—you are right, these are our public lands, they have a right 

to comment. But I would certainly hope there would be a little 

more value given to people that are on location and their understanding of the situation that you are dealing with. 

So thank you, and I yield to Congressman Critz. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you. I just have one question. Ms. Hankins, 

you mentioned something that I think needs clarification, and this 

is also for you, Mr. Martin, because I guess the way to say this is 

what you were just commenting on the public lands, that they are 

the entire nation’s, and our job, especially in this Subcommittee 

where we are looking about small business, is that we represent 

the people of this country, so we have an obligation to the people 

to protect, to make sure where things are going, but we also have 

to look at the big picture. So when you are issuing permits or you 

are issuing regulations that drive up energy prices, we look at the 

jobs picture. We look at companies that will not open here because 

energy prices are too high. So we have to do our best to balance 

things. 

So you made a comment, Ms. Hankins, that from the point when 

a permit application is complete. Now, I have heard from industry 

that they say sometimes they don’t know when their application is 

complete only because they will fill out the application and then 

the agency comes back and says we need this, we need more, more 

than what they put in their initial application. 

And we are trying to be assets to both sides. We want to help 

you. We want to help industry as well. We are trying to balance 

these two things. So how do we help? And I am sort of a bareknuckles brawler kind of guy. Let’s get to the answer. What is the 

answer? If you are not going to issue a permit, then deny it. If you 

are going to issue a permit, then let’s get to it. 

So how do we get to the point where it is not this adversarial 

relationship between the people who are after the permits and 

those of you who are issuing it? How do we shorten that timeframe 

efficiently? Not to miss anything, we do not want to miss anything, 

but how can we help you move that process faster and turn this 

from this sort of give and take, like okay, the industry applies, you 

give back comments, they answer the comments, they get more 

comments. I mean, this is where we find industry really complains, 

that you say from the time when the permit application is complete. Well, for them, it’s from when they started, and that is 

where you get this protracted timeframe. 

So my question is how do we make this better, and how can we 

help make this better? 

Ms. HANKINS. I think there are a few things that can improve 

the process. One is based on this internal review that I did, I think 

we need to educate some of our staff. We have a lot of new employVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:39 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 071325 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

ees that are still learning, and I think part of our responsibility is 

to make sure they have the training and knowledge and understand all of their requirements. 

The other thing that I think is important is that old-fashioned 

thing, communication. One of the things that is sometimes problematic, not even just within the agency but with people in general, 

is that we don’t sit down and have a complete conversation about 

many things, and I think when we have a permit that we think is 

incomplete, a permit application, then I think we need to sit down 

with that company and have a face-to-face discussion, here are the 

areas that we think need to be addressed in your application, and 

that needs to be a conversation, not an email or some other impersonal way of communicating. 

And then industry has the chance to ask questions, clarify what 

we want, and we have that same opportunity. So I think that is 

something that is really important. 

It wouldn’t hurt to take a look at the regulatory requirements 

and make sure that they are not ambiguous and so that it is very 

clear what we want. I say that because I haven’t personally looked 

at those in some time, but I think that is always an option, is to 

make sure what you are requiring is crystal clear. 

So those are three things I think we could all work on to help 

improve the process, and that communication thing is a two-way 

street. We have had some companies who have contacted me and 

some of our district managers and say these are things we think 

the BLM needs to address in a different fashion, and those kinds 

of conversations are very helpful to me and to our managers because then we are hearing directly from industry what would be 

useful to them, and I would encourage that as well. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. Congressman Critz, I guess I have two observations. One is that under the statutes that the Environmental Protection Agency administers, the vast majority of permits are issued 

by state agencies under delegated programs from our agency. So 

while we very carefully monitor the permit backlogs that exist 

under different programs and in different states, or in some cases 

on reservations, the majority, the vast majority of the work is done 

at the state level, and we are responsible for overseeing only the 

work that they do. 

Having done that, for those permits that are issued by the regional office, we strongly encourage permit applicants to do a prepermit application meeting with us so that we can better understand what they are proposing and make sure we do our best to 

explain what would be required to be contained within a permit. 

Throughout the permit process, we encourage a dialogue between 

our staff and staff for the permit applicant. We work as hard as 

we can to make sure that everybody understands what everybody 

else is talking about so that once the permit application is complete, we can process it relatively quickly and relatively efficiently. 

Sometimes, unfortunately, we have to say no, but we work very 

hard at saying yes with the appropriate emissions controls so that 

we can all move forward together. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

Mr. CRITZ. Two comments. Do you want to come work at Region 

3? No, just kidding. [Laughter.] 

But the comment would be is that everyone likes to push blame 

somewhere else, and one of the things that we try to do is make 

smart decisions based on knowledge, not based on what he said, 

she said. 

One suggestion I would make, because this happens in my area, 

is that everyone blames EPA for something that is going on, and 

it is true, and I had forgotten about that point, that most of the 

permitting happens at the state level, although they blame EPA for 

delays because they kick it to EPA and say, hey, EPA has had it 

for 60 days. 

It might not be a bad idea that—I don’t know if you can do this— 

every time you get a permit, let the company know that you just 

got it so that they know that it wasn’t you that was sitting on it, 

because sometimes the state agency might say, hey, we got to them 

30 days ago when, in fact, they didn’t do it. 

We are trying to get to the bottom of this, and you can obviously 

see from my questioning I have huge permitting issues. I mean, we 

are talking about years of permitting, and I don’t understand how 

it could possibly take that long to issue a permit. I mean, all the 

regulations are in place. 

We do have some issues because it seems like regulations seem 

to be changing, and the Chairman told a story about sausage earlier today that sort of highlights. You have these regulations. Ten 

years later, we have new regulations. Ten years later, we have new 

regulations. In the meantime, industry has spent half a billion dollars to upgrade their plant or whatever, to meet regulations, and 

you come back, by the time you finish that, they are being told they 

have to do more. It is not a good formula. 

But, okay. I am trying to figure this out, and I appreciate your 

testimony. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. Well, thank you both very much for your testimony here today. Again, I would invite you, or at least have a 

member of your staff perhaps stay. I think our next panel can provide, I think, some insights that you may not hear on a regular 

basis. I appreciate your testimony. 

And I would now like to call up our second panel, if we may. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. I appreciate the second panel 

being able to attend here today, and we will just get right to it. 

First up on our second panel is Mr. David White, Montrose 

County Commissioner. He was elected to his position in 2008. Prior 

to his service to Montrose County in this capacity, he served as a 

member of the Montrose City Council from 2004 to 2008, and also 

served as mayor of Montrose from 2007 to 2008. 

Commissioner White holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from Auburn University and has attended 

graduate school in public affairs at the University of Colorado. 

So, David, Mr. White, appreciate you being here today. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

STATEMENTS OF DAVID WHITE, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, 

MONTROSE, CO; DAVID LUDLAM, DIRECTOR, WEST SLOPE 

COGA, GRAND JUNCTION, CO; JENNIFER BREDT, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, RES AMERICAS, BROOMFIELD, CO; JAMES 

A. KIGER, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER, OXBOW MINING, LLC, 

ELK CREEK MINE, SOMERSET, CO; DICK WELLE, MANAGER, 

WHITE RIVER ELECTRIC, MEEKER, CO 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WHITE 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

with both of you. 

Briefly, I would like to—I have submitted written testimony, but 

to briefly go over what is going on in Montrose County at this time. 

A little background. Montrose County is home to 42,000 citizens, 

encompassing 2,242 square miles. We, fortunately or unfortunately, 

depending on your point of view, see that about 69 percent of our 

county is controlled by Federal or state agencies, BLM, U.S. Forest 

Service, et cetera. 

Like so many areas of the country, we have experienced a substantial economic downturn, and that is reflected throughout Western Colorado and the 3rd Congressional District. Simply put, we 

need more private sector employment because we all know that 

county, city, state, and Federal governments are financially 

strapped. We have to do things ourselves as local citizens. 

I have had the opportunity to hear from many of my constituents 

firsthand about these problems. A classic example that we are currently faced with, Energy Fuels Resources has proposed building 

the Pinon Ridge uranium and vanadium processing mill in Western 

Montrose County, which is in my district. The new mill would create jobs that provide economic prosperity to an area that has been 

hit hard for many years, and many years before this current downturn. 

Energy Fuels demonstrated that it can build and operate a mill 

in a manner that is both protective of human health and the environment. Montrose County issued a special use permit for the mill 

after hours and hours of public testimony, after reviewing dozens 

of documents and having studies performed. 

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

conducted a comprehensive review considering short and long term 

impacts of the proposed mill, including radiological and non-radiological impacts to water, air, and wildlife, as well as economic, social, and transportation related impacts. CDPHE approved the radioactive materials license in January of this year. 

Despite these findings and permits, the EPA reopened a comment period on this proposal at the behest of an organization based 

outside of our county. This has held up the mill and caused unnecessary delays. CDPHE acted in conjunction with agreements with 

the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, yet EPA became involved. 

This is unfortunate because Energy Fuels Resources has indicated that the mill would directly employ close to 90 people, with 

annual salaries between $40,000 and $75,000. The company also 

estimates 250 to 300 additional jobs. Yet we have this conflict with 

the Environmental Protection Agency and others. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

I would like to reemphasize that the Pinon Ridge mill would be 

built and would enforce safeguards mandated by current regulations. Regulations that govern nuclear power generation and its associated industries have been put into place by the DOE and the 

NRC. 

The point I’m trying to make is that with this, even when businesses are successfully able to comply with mandated regulations, 

additional interference from Federal agencies can create unnecessary delays in the process and hampers desperately needed job creation. 

Next up is solar energy. Our community is home to BrightLeaf 

Technologies, which is a company that has perfected a new generation of concentrated photovoltaic cells that have three times the efficiency of the chips found in solar flat panel systems. Taken as a 

package, BrightLeaf Technologies has performed very well with 

this new technology. 

The company currently employs 25 people and expects to staff up 

to 400 to 500 employees by 2015 in Montrose County. The people 

of Montrose and the Montrose Economic Development Corporation 

are excited about this opportunity. Yet again, the biggest contract 

that BrightLeaf has is with Pinon Ridge Mill, and until that mill 

is approved, those jobs will not be created. 

Lastly, we have in Montrose County Intermountain Resources, 

which is the largest and last of the large timber mills in Colorado. 

The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service 

have, through their policies, created a problem for the operation of 

the mill in that the mill is unable to obtain the resources that it 

needs in order to continue to process. Again, my written testimony 

outlines so much more of this. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you all today. Thank 

you. 

[The statement of Mr. White follows on page 63.] 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. 

Our next is Mr. David Ludlam, Executive Director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association’s West Slope chapter. As Executive 

Director, Mr. Ludlam is responsible for promoting and enhancing 

oil and natural gas production in the Piceance Basin. In this role, 

he represents the member companies throughout Western Colorado 

who operate in or provide services to natural gas and oil production 

in Piceance Basin. 

Prior to his current position, he worked as a public lands consultant in the energy and tourism sectors. Mr. Ludlam is a graduate 

of Mesa State College and resides here in Grand Junction. 

It is a pleasure to have you with us today here. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID LUDLAM 

Mr. LUDLAM. Thank you, Chairman Tipton and Ranking Member 

Critz, for this opportunity to testify before you in the 3rd Congressional District. 

Congressman Critz, with 10 percent unemployment, I fear you 

are not the only one who is going to be eating wiener schnitzel here 

if we don’t get these burdensome regulations fixed and get our people here back to work. So thank you for coming to Grand Junction. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

Earlier this month the President of the United States submitted 

to you all a jobs plan for America. 

One of the things that really stood out for our organization was 

that no mention was made, and no meaningful policy was proposed, 

to allow America’s energy sector to get busy doing what we do best, 

and that’s making energy and creating jobs. 

Our organization can deliver you a much more practical jobs plan 

right now. It is simple. Appointed Federal agency heads in Washington should remove and reverse roadblocks to energy development in Western Colorado and throughout the West and stop bridling their hard-working field offices with implementing these 

roadblocks. That is a simple plan, and it can deliver thousands of 

jobs, it can deliver billions in revenue and help reduce the nation’s 

trade imbalance, all the while getting our community here back to 

work. 

Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper just engaged in a statewide economic development planning process, and unlike the White 

House’s top-down jobs plan, the Governor’s plan called for a county 

by county, bottom-up planning process. This refreshing project 

asked Colorado and its local communities a very simple question: 

How can Colorado get out of the way of job creation? 

If only the Secretary of the Interior could take a cue from the 

Governor and ask the same question. 

Northwest Colorado responded to the Governor’s bottom-up process and our greatest need was made clear. The counties of Northwest Colorado asked the state to help pressure the Federal agencies to loosen their stranglehold on the expansion and approval of 

domestic energy jobs, and I have a feeling that your committee 

wants to help do the same thing. 

As a business sector, we have always pointed out that regulating 

for regulation’s sake kills jobs, and there are some who would always claim that such positions are merely industry fear-mongering 

or posturing. But the Obama Administration’s September withdrawal of EPA’s ozone regulations is an affirmation of our point, 

and it is also a recognition by this administration that wrong regulations at the wrong time can and do prevent the creation of jobs. 

I have also submitted for the congressional record another document that liked the outcome of Governor Hickenlooper’s bottom-up 

plan that provides a litany of examples where Federal regulations 

prohibit jobs and create uncertainty. This document is the Blueprint for Western Energy Prosperity. It was developed by the Western Energy Alliance. Released in July, the blueprint clearly describes the roadblocks to energy job creation in the West, and it 

proposes a way forward to remove them. By implementing their 

policy directives, the Alliance believes that America could create 

over half-a-million energy jobs by 2020. 

Stepping back for a moment, I imagine that part of the reason 

you are in Grand Junction today is because we are quite literally 

in the middle of the largest energy reserve in the world. Just to the 

north are the nation’s largest oil shale deposit. To the south and 

west, as has been noted, are the nation’s best reserves of uranium 

and vanadium. Across the way in Delta County, one of the nation’s 

cleanest coal mines. According to data from NREL, Western ColoVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:39 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 071325 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

rado has immense potential for geothermal and solar energy applications. 

But most important to our organization are the natural gas and 

oil deposits that exist in every direction from where we sit today, 

a resource that, as I mentioned, continues to reveal itself as an increasingly important catalyst for job creation. 

Mr. Chairman, if your committee is looking for a poster child of 

regulation and uncertainty standing in the way of job creation, 

then I urge you to look no further than Northwest Colorado. In 

Moffat County, the Department of Interior derailed a local, bottomup land use plan for the energy-rich Vermillion Basin. It took 

seven years and a broad array of stakeholders in Moffat County to 

create the compromise. It took 24 hours and an interestingly timed 

press release to reverse it. 

According to the county and state projections, this decision alone eliminated the potential for $87 million in Federal revenues and 

hundreds, if not thousands, of local jobs in one of the most economically challenged regions of our state. 

In Garfield County, the Department of Interior has failed to approve the most balanced, studied, and debated energy compromise 

ever contemplated in Colorado, and likely the nation. This project 

is within the former Naval Oil Shale Reserve and is parochially 

known as the Roan Plateau Compromise. This shovel-ready project 

would result, by the agency’s own analysis, in up to $1.3 billion in 

Federal revenue and would create thousands of local jobs. 

Rio Blanco County contains the richest oil shale reserves, and as 

you know, the devastating uncertainty created by the agency resulted in its own congressional field hearing last month. 

And in Mesa County and countless counties throughout the Rockies, a recent Secretarial order, a top-down initiative, would have 

created a de facto wilderness dubbed ‘‘Wildlands’’ in many areas of 

our region that have natural gas underlying the surface. 

More generally and sadly, there are times throughout Western 

Colorado and, indeed, in the Rockies when even the most basic environmental review can take years to complete, if not decades. And 

policies aside, just the mere rhetoric from the Department of the 

Interior alone has often worked at cross-purposes for job creation. 

Recently, the Department of the Interior sent out a press release 

publically criticizing the industry for not developing existing Federal leases. Industry trade groups like ours were quick to note that 

it is the agency’s own policies and permitting schedules that limit 

lease and project development, not the lack of will from the companies who risk their own capital to invest in them. 

But after the press release, the damage was done and the message was quite clear. Federal leasing for minerals would and has 

come to an intentional standstill. 

In fact, each lease sale in Colorado since the new reform act was 

instituted has been protested. Look no further than Colorado’s last 

three lease sales to understand our concern. 

In March of 2011, two parcels were nominated. Both were postponed and one was deferred and then removed from consideration. 

In May 2011, 12 parcels were nominated. Of these 12, 10 were 

deferred, all were protested. 

In August 2011, five parcels nominated, four deferred. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

And for the upcoming November 2011 lease sale, all of the parcels will be protested, as reported by the Grand Junction Daily 

Sentinel. 

This spells bad news for future long-term planning and investment for our member companies, who need certainty and who need 

the availability of Federal acres to invest in our public lands and 

create jobs. 

In another area of unpredictable Federal policy, there is potential 

to hamper job creation by limiting the use of one of the nation’s 

most important technological advancements in a generation, hydraulic well stimulation or hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is used in the development of 90 percent of natural gas wells 

today in the United States, and any regulation that reduces or prohibits the use of hydraulic fracturing will reduce access to the 

country’s vast energy potential. 

So as Federal agencies continue to analyze hydraulic fracturing, 

I would note that states have made incredible progress on hydraulic fracturing disclosure laws. Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arkansas, Texas are just examples where either a disclosure law exists or one is in the works, and anything that removes regulatory 

authority from the states and their experts and shifts to the Federal agencies we believe is bad for the energy sector and bad for 

job creation. 

While typically the voice of our organization stays within the 

confines of the valleys, canyons and plateaus of Northwest Colorado, our hope is that your committee advances our jobs plan, our 

simple jobs plan throughout the halls of Congress. It is a plan that 

doesn’t require printing money. It is a proposal that doesn’t require 

any stimulus. In fact, it is a plan that, when implemented, would 

create jobs in a matter of weeks and not years, and to implement 

that plan, all the Federal agencies have to do is allow our member 

companies to invest the capital in our public lands and in our Federal mineral estate to make energy and create jobs. 

Thank you for this opportunity. Your presence here today reinforces that some members of Congress are indeed committed to real 

job creation, a commitment that recognizes that the nation’s energy 

sector must be at the foundation of our economic recovery. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Ludlam follows on page 69.] 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. 

I would now like to introduce Jennifer—is that Bredt? Okay, 

good. The Development Manager for Renewable Energy Systems 

America. 

Ms. Bredt has been in the renewable energy industry since 2004, 

and has been in her current position with RES Americas since 

2008. Her development region spans Western Electric Coordinating 

Council’s region with emphasis on Colorado and Arizona. Prior to 

joining RES Americas, she worked for CH2M Hill as a renewable 

energy project manager. She also spent over three years working 

as a Tribal Renewable Resource Specialist for the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs at the Division of Energy and Mineral Development office in Lakewood. 

Ms. Bredt holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geological Sciences from 

the University of Colorado-Boulder, and a Master of Science in 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

Global Energy Management from the University of Colorado-Denver. 

Thanks for being with us today. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BREDT 

Ms. BREDT. Thank you. Chairman Tipton, Ranking Member 

Critz, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jennifer Bredt, and I am a Development Manager with Renewable Energy Systems Americas, 

also referred to as RES Americas in my testimony. 

Headquartered in Colorado, RES Americas has 250 full-time employees. We have built more than 10 percent of the operating wind 

farms in the U.S., and we currently have several thousand 

megawatts of wind and solar projects under development, which is 

enough to supply the electricity needs of more than two million average American homes. 

The Committee has asked RES to provide a statement regarding 

regulations that may be negatively affecting small businesses in 

the wind industry. In June, RES’ CEO, Susan Riley, testified before 

the House Natural Resources Committee at an oversight hearing 

on ‘‘Identifying Roadblocks to Wind and Solar Energy on Public 

Lands and Waters.’’ RES’ statement today will echo that testimony, 

with a few updates. 

We encounter many obstacles to developing renewable energy 

projects, but the number one obstacle our industry faces is uncertainty. When the uncertainty is created by an unclear regulatory 

regime, the negative consequences are particularly frustrating, because they could have been avoided. 

A recent example is the regulatory uncertainty created by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department’s 2011 ‘‘Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance’’ and ‘‘Land Based Guidelines for Wind Energy.’’ RES’ written testimony from the June hearing referenced 

above provides greater detail about the many problems these two 

documents have created for the wind industry. 

Some progress has been made, particularly with regard to the 

Land Based Guidelines; however, several serious issues regarding 

the Eagle Guidance remain. Taken together, the eagle regulatory 

program created by the Land Based Guidelines and the Eagle 

Guidance affect wind projects throughout the contiguous U.S., and 

has placed an estimated $68 billion, with a ‘‘B’’, in wind energy investment at risk. 

RES has already suffered financial losses due to the uncertainty 

created by this eagle regulatory program, and those impacts have 

consequences for many of the other small businesses we employ in 

connection with our projects. It is not uncommon for RES to utilize 

the services of 25 to 50 subcontractors and suppliers in the process 

of developing and constructing a wind or solar facility, and payments to these subcontractors and suppliers often run into the tens 

of millions of dollars. The types of small businesses involved span 

a wide range, from environmental consultants, to materials and 

equipment suppliers, to firms that pour the concrete foundations, 

build roads, build substations, and install electrical collection systems, to name just a few. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

RES Americas has several wind projects that are currently being 

directly impacted by the uncertainty surrounding the eagle regulatory program, and we believe that the changes to the permitting 

process regarding eagles will ultimately impact the majority of our 

projects, creating delays and millions of dollars of additional costs. 

Many other developers report that they are in a similar situation. 

The wind industry is appreciative of the commitment shown by 

Secretary Salazar and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe to 

finding a resolution to the problems identified. However, until the 

problems are actually resolved, our industry will continue to be 

negatively affected by the uncertainty they create. 

In closing, I would like to emphasize RES Americas’ strong support for reasonable protections for wildlife. RES Americas’ business 

is developing and constructing renewable energy projects that benefit the environment, and our corporate ethos is grounded in sustainability. So this isn’t about cutting corners or trying to sidestep 

reasonable regulations, but the key word is ‘‘reasonable.’’ Both conservation and renewable energy are critical, but there has to be a 

balance between the two agendas. 

The American people want domestically produced, clean, renewable energy, and we want to supply it to them. But our industry 

faces market uncertainty at the national level, and we are thwarted by regulatory uncertainty during the development process. In 

the immediate term, the Eagle Guidance, combined with the Land 

Based Guidelines, are significant obstacles to our industry. 

The renewable energy industry has the power to drive investment—particularly in the manufacturing sector—and to create 

tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of jobs. 

Chairman Tipton, Ranking Member Critz, and other members of 

the Committee, we thank you for your interest in, and attention to, 

these issues, and look forward to any assistance you may be able 

to provide. 

[The statement of Ms. Bredt follows on page 74.] 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. 

Our next witness, Mr. James Kiger, is Environmental Manager 

at Oxbow Mining, LLC, Elk Creek Mine. He has 32 years of environmental management experience in Colorado underground and 

in the surface coal mining industry, dealing with organizational 

management and diverse environmental mine permitting, supervision, and reclamation issues. 

His experience includes development and maintenance of environmental programs and coal leasing programs to maintain continuous compliance with the Clean Air and Water Acts, the Resource 

Conservation Recovery Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and various other Federal, state and local laws and 

regulations. 

He received his Bachelor of Science in Wildlife and Range Management from Humboldt State University, and his MBA from the 

University of Phoenix. 

Welcome to the Subcommittee, Mr. Kiger. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES KIGER 

Mr. KIGER. Thank you, Chairman Tipton and Ranking Member 

Critz, for the opportunity to speak with you today. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

Coal is an essential American industry that provides over 45 percent of America’s electricity at reasonable prices and provides 85 

percent of the U.S. geo resource on a BTU basis. Thus, it creates 

economic opportunity for millions of American businesses and consumers. 

What I would like to do today is talk about how a number of 

agencies are creating head winds to the industry rather than tail 

winds to help it out, to provide roadblocks or at least hurdles to 

the development of our coal resources. 

The EPA, either alone or along with other Federal agencies, have 

launched a series of regulatory actions that directly affect our coal 

mines in this nation. 

Starting this year, we have had to start collecting greenhouse 

gas inventory information from our methane drainage that is used 

to ventilate the mines to provide a safe working environment for 

our miners. We have had to start monitoring those emissions, and 

we are understanding that next year we will have to file for a Title 

5 Air Emissions Permit with the EPA and the State of Colorado. 

The outcome of that, we are not sure what will happen, but we believe eventually it will impact our ability to mine coal safely unless 

we put in retrofit technologies. 

Water quality standards are being modified, such as the arsenic 

values, which are below the detection limit of .02 parts per billion. 

Many laboratories can’t even analyze to those levels, and that level 

is a thousand times higher than drinking water standards. But 

that is an example of some of the water quality standards that the 

mines are going to have to start complying with in our discharge 

permits. 

We are also looking at stringent stream conductivity standards. 

We are looking at more stringent selenium values in receiving 

stream standards. 

The regulatory agencies are also pursuing more onerous process 

water classifications of routine surface storm water drainage from 

mining areas, which can impact our ability to get permits. 

The Corps of Engineers, along with being influenced by the EPA, 

is pursuing suspension of the Nationwide Permit 21 for surface 

mines in the Appalachian Region. Coal mines rely on Nationwide 

Permit 21 and Nationwide Permit 50 for underground mines to be 

able to meet Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting requirements 

in an expedited manner. 

The Office of Surface Mining has proposals that will increase 

their oversight over state programs. They are looking at doing inspections apart from when they used to inspect with the state regulatory agencies. They are proposing to change the 10-day notice requirements to where they could revoke state permits with a 10-day 

notice program. 

OSM is looking at stream buffer zone requirement changes which 

could affect basic mining activities of fills, stream channel reconstruction, activities in ephemeral drainages, and construction of 

refuse piles. 

The EPA by itself, as you know, is working on changing national 

standards. There is the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which requires 27 states to reduce air pollution. And we understand that 

PJM is the eastern distributor of electrical power. They are saying 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

that this rule potentially could shut down 25,000 megawatts of 

eastern power plants. 

We as an industry here in Delta County in the North Fork 

mines, we ship at least 10 million tons of coal to those customers. 

So obviously that could impact our ability to mine coal if our customer base is reduced. 

EPA has revoked the 404 permit for the Spruce No. 1 mine in 

West Virginia arbitrarily after a number of years of environmental 

analysis and the mine had already opened. So those kinds of activities to revoke permits are creating a lot of uncertainty. 

In my comments I have provided a table at the end, compliments 

of Arch Coal, that kind of displays the train wreck that can happen 

with all of these conflicting regulations and timelines. 

The EPA has proposed a coal combustion rule where ash from 

power plants would be regulated, potentially regulated under Subtitle C rather than Subtitle D of RCRA. 

The EPA also entered into a consent agreement with the EPA to 

establish greenhouse gas emissions for electric utilities. But my understanding is now they have delayed that deadline, which was 

originally September 30th, the end of this month. 

Those kind of regulations will create uncertainties for the future 

of coal mining and the burning of coal. 

The efficiency of the Federal land management agencies has been 

problematic. The Clinton Roadless Rule has caused us issues when 

the rule itself has been enjoined by Federal court, and it is now in 

the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, but we are still getting delays 

with the U.S. Forest Service on normal, routine permitting matters 

in IRAs. 

Nuisance lawsuits by the environmental community has delayed 

permit approvals. The representative from the BLM talked about 

a lawsuit that one of the mines is having to fight, and that is our 

mine. We have a small LVA lease application for merely 4 million 

tons of coal for one year of longwall mining, and it has been appealed by the LBA, and we are in the middle of that litigation. 

We believe that nuisance lawsuits and appeals by the environmental community need to be dealt with, and I think part of that 

is the Equal Access to Justice Act which creates the ability of many 

of these large attorney firms to fight these issues and get their lawsuits paid for by the Federal Government. 

Chairman TIPTON. Mr. Kiger, if I could, I apologize. So we can 

stay kind of in some of our time commitments here, if we could 

have you wrap up. We have got our little lighting system there. 

Mr. KIGER. Okay. Thank you. 

That really takes care of my comments, and I do have my written 

comments that you could review. 

[The statement of Mr. Kiger follows on page 76.] 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you so much. 

Rounding out our second panel is Mr. Richard Welle, General 

Manager of White River Electric Association, located in Meeker, 

Colorado. 

WREA is a rural distribution cooperative with 33 full-time employees. He began his career at WREA in 1973, moving up through 

the ranks from journeyman lineman to operations manager, and in 

2001 began his tenure as general manager. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

Mr. Welle has guided the cooperative from a total asset value of 

$16.2 million in 2001 to over $58 million in total assets in 2011, 

and over the past 10 years annual electric sales at WREA have 

grown from 138,243 megawatt hours to 977,862 megawatt hours. 

Mr. Welle, thank you for testifying for the Subcommittee today. 

STATEMENT OF DAN WELLE 

Mr. WELLE. Thank you. Chairman Tipton and Ranking Member 

Critz, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

It is crucial for the U.S. House of Representatives and other interested parties to fully appreciate how government regulations affect the day to day lives of all Americans, and specifically White 

River Electric consumers. With that said, the answer to your question is yes, excessive energy regulation and policies limit energy 

independence, kill jobs and increase prices for consumers. 

The White River Electric service territory is about the size of the 

state of Delaware, with 935 miles of line, serving approximately 

2,500 members and about 3,248 electric meters. These numbers result in an average of 3.46 consumers per mile. The natural resource diversity in this region includes open spaces, abundant fish 

and wildlife populations, lush forestry, various mineral deposits accompanied by agricultural, coal, and natural gas production. We 

live and electrically serve the energy-rich United States in our territory at White River Electric. 

Our electric load profile reflects this type of diversity with electric service to generational cattle and sheep ranches, wheat farms, 

coalmines, oil and gas producers, and Meeker’s historical residential base. 

White River Electric was formed in 1945 in response to a national directive to electrify the rural west. The Federal Government 

and the founding cooperative members believed that reasonable 

and affordable access to safe and reliable electricity was necessary 

for economic and social sustainability and prosperity. 

The mission of White River Electric is to work to provide its 

member consumers with safe, reliable, and responsible electric energy and other services at the most reasonable cost possible, while 

remaining committed to customer and community service. 

Recently, in a customer satisfaction survey conducted in our 

service territory, our members indicated a satisfaction rate of 97 

percent with White River Electric as an electric utility. We are very 

proud of that mark. They also indicated implicitly that they care 

about the environment and they wish to see innovation in clean 

coal technology and renewable energy sources, but they simply cannot afford to see their electric rates increase. 

The mandate for our leaders should not be how to regulate an 

industry so that it kills the industry and punishes the consumers. 

It should be how do our leaders create long-term energy policy and 

market stability so that the resources can be applied to energy innovation and job creation. 

I am here today to give voice to our membership and our mission 

in hopes that Congress hears our plea for balanced, reasonable regulation that improves and incentivizes the overall electric utility industry. Regulation that kills jobs, the economy, and jeopardizes the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

societal and economic prosperity that is at the historical heart of 

this industry is unacceptable. 

It is estimated that proposed EPA regulations will result in the 

closure of coal-fired power plants across the country, with an estimated capacity of 30 to 70 gigawatts. That is 10 to 22 percent of 

the total generation capacity available in the U.S. today. Overreaching regulation that abandons scientific and common sense will 

be a direct threat to Northwest Colorado’s economic stability and 

sustainability. 

In the past 10 years, White River Electric’s annual sales have 

grown, as you had indicated earlier, to almost 10-fold of what we 

served in 2001. Response to increases in electric demand associated 

with natural resource extraction and processing in the Piceance 

Basin resulted in the construction of miles of new transmission 

lines and seven substations for enhanced service and reliability. 

Rising to these challenges and opportunities shows how a small 

company of 34 employees can surpass expectations through hard 

work and a can-do attitude. 

During my 10 years as general manager, White River Electric 

has passed on seven wholesale power rate increases to its membership. Wholesale rate increases since 1998 represent a 60 percent 

increase in the total cost of a residential kilowatt hour. These increases impact every family’s monthly bottom line. 

One general manager in the State of Colorado reports as much 

as 20 percent of their retail rate is allocated toward regulatory 

compliance. 

Today, I hope I will leave you with the commonsense philosophy 

of ‘‘think before you vote.’’ While the lofty goals for regulation may 

be public interest, public safety and the environment, every legislator should be challenged to ensure that each vote for further regulation is necessary based on common sense, and allows for industry innovation and excellence without punishing the end consumer 

and the economy. 

This balancing act is not easy. Our forefathers believed that electricity was essential for economic and societal stability and prosperity. We have the obligation to take that light bulb into the future. 

Thank you for your time today. 

[The statement of Mr. Welle follows on page 87.] 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you, sir. 

Appreciate all of you taking the time out of your day to be able 

to come in and testify. 

I’ll start off with the questioning, and I guess it would be for Mr. 

White first, out of Montrose. Again, thanks for being here. 

Much of the land obviously in Montrose County, as we see 

throughout the West Slope of Colorado, I think on average we 

touch more of it, we can say with pretty good confidence that 70 

percent of our lands are either Federal, state, or tribal lands on the 

Western Slope of Colorado. When we are talking about government-owned land, Federal Government land, much of this land is 

obviously unavailable for direct development by local communities, 

so that means that very few tax dollars are generated to that local 

base. We are not able to count on payments coming in on a regular 

basis as well. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

So how important are the shared royalties that are provided 

throughout multiple energy sources? How important are those royalties for Montrose County? 

Mr. WHITE. Well, they certainly help defray the costs. When you, 

again as we discussed, when you have 70 percent of your land mass 

that is still required by the county to maintain roads and other infrastructure, culverts and ditches and so on and so forth, it has a 

distinct impact from a revenue standpoint because the roads are 

still used by the public who access Federal lands, whether they are 

natural forest or BLM. The impact is also felt in some of the other 

districts, such as fire districts. They have to provide service. They 

have to use our roads to get there, and we don’t have the revenue 

coming in from these other sources, whether it is the Federal Government or the royalties that are generated by mining activity that 

would take place on these lands. 

Chairman TIPTON. And I wanted to follow up just a little bit, if 

we can, because you were going through the Pinon Ridge Mill Energy Fuels. 

Mr. WHITE. Right. 

Chairman TIPTON. And I just want to run through that again 

just real quickly to make sure I understand it correctly. The county, you approved it. 

Mr. WHITE. We did. 

Chairman TIPTON. You moved that forward. Then the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment, they approved it. 

Mr. WHITE. That’s correct. 

Chairman TIPTON. And now it is being stopped by—— 

Mr. WHITE. EPA. 

Chairman TIPTON [continuing]. By the EPA. 

Mr. WHITE. Correct. The CDPHE, as I mentioned, they have 

agreements with the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to, scientifically speaking, review all of the data, 

make sure that it complies with all of those agencies’ requirements. 

Chairman TIPTON. Do you feel—you are a commissioner. You live 

there. I know you. You care about the people that live there. The 

State of Colorado, are they responsible? Can we trust you to really 

care about our communities? 

Mr. WHITE. I would hope so. I believe so. The State of Colorado 

certainly—as a former representative yourself, you understand 

what goes into the process and how agencies are structured, how 

they are regulated, and there are certainly innumerable laws on 

the books in the State of Colorado to protect the health and welfare 

of the citizens of this state, and I don’t believe that anything that 

has been done so far would compromise the integrity of that process. 

Chairman TIPTON. Just kind of curious. Do you have a general 

idea of—I don’t want to put you on the spot—what the unemployment rate is right now in Montrose County? 

Mr. WHITE. Well, it has certainly fluctuated. Right now it is just 

below 10 percent, but if you factor in the unemployable or the 

chronically unemployed, people that just quit looking for work, our 

best estimates are that 13 or 14 percent is a more accurate figure 

of the unemployment level. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

Chairman TIPTON. So with comprehensive due diligence, concern 

for the community, you and the Colorado Department of Health 

tried to facilitate an opportunity to be able to create 90 jobs, not 

to mention when we are talking about BrightLeaf Technologies, 25 

employees that they deal with, whose primary customer, it is my 

understanding, their contract is with Pinon Ridge Mill. 

Mr. WHITE. Right. 

Chairman TIPTON. What is that, 115 jobs off the top. Is that important to Montrose County? 

Mr. WHITE. Absolutely. Given the unemployment rate, given our 

population base, given the historical nature of the county with mining and mineral extraction, everything we have in this world, the 

monitor you are looking at, the desk you are sitting at, the dais I 

should say, everything comes from the earth, and we certainly have 

been and want to be good stewards of those resources. 

But at the same time, where are we going to be as a society and 

locally? We can’t—our Health and Human Services Department is 

at capacity relative to the number of people that have applied for 

food stamps and assistance. Where does it stop? 

We have to bring our regulations into line, stop, put a moratorium on new regulations. As we said earlier, just when everybody 

is in compliance, here come some new regulations and everybody 

is out of compliance. 

Chairman TIPTON. Moving goal posts. 

I just wanted to make a comment when you were talking about 

the timber mill. I know at our office, we have talked with the BLM, 

the Forest Service on the importance of the mill not only for jobs 

but for forest health, public safety, water quality, in the event that 

we were to have a massive fire, to be able to get in and be able 

to deal with that. So you brought up a very important issue as 

well, and I respect the challenges that you are certainly facing in 

Montrose. So thank you for being here. 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you. 

Chairman TIPTON. Mr. Ludlam, I would like to ask you. We have 

a lot of critics of natural gas drilling, and frequently the claim 

seems to be that the industry is essentially unregulated and that 

people don’t care. I have actually gone out and toured some of the 

facilities, and I am seeing people that live here, work here, eat 

here, drink the water, breathe the air, they want to be able to do 

it right. 

I was just wondering, could you just perhaps give myself and 

Congressman Critz just a rundown of the Federal and state environmental laws and agencies that regulate the companies that you 

represent? 

Mr. LUDLAM. I will. 

Chairman TIPTON. A quick rundown? 

Mr. LUDLAM. Chairman Tipton, I think I also would point out 

that very few sectors in the United States have come as far, as 

fast, as the natural gas and oil sectors have in terms of using technology to reduce environmental impacts and come up with new 

best management practices to reduce those impacts. 

As Daniel Yergen, the journalist and author of ‘‘The Prize: A History of the Oil and Gas Industry’’ pointed out, we do need strong 

regulation, and our industry agrees with that. We have to have a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

strong regulatory authority for structure, continuity of development, and to protect the public interest. 

But there are a tremendous amount of overlapping regulations 

that we deal with internationally, Federally, state and local, and 

even at the municipal level that constantly challenge. 

To talk about some of those regulations, the heart of your question, I think you would need a longer hearing. But I can just simply say that the regulatory authorities that we deal with at any 

given time would be the Forest Service, the BLM, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment, county governments with their 

land use code, and I could go on and on and on. 

But I think the point to your question is that we are a heavily 

regulated industry, and we should be. But regulations have to have 

a measureable public health benefit, or otherwise they are just regulations for regulations sake. 

Chairman TIPTON. Just a quick follow-up. It takes a lot of money 

to be able to develop some of these resources. Does an ever-changing regulatory environment impede the ability, increase costs ultimately to the consumers in terms of the products that we buy at 

the gas pump? 

Mr. LUDLAM. Perhaps more than any other factor, uncertainty 

prohibits investment, more so than regulations that are difficult to 

comply with, I think in some cases more so than price, because 

both of those factors you can account for. Uncertainty is the number one challenge we face in Western Colorado, and I believe it is 

the number one challenge we face nationally within our sector. 

Chairman TIPTON. Ms. Bredt was talking about that as well in 

regards to hers. 

Just one more question, if I may. You know, there is a lot of talk 

particularly in Washington, and it is my sense, Republican and 

Democrat, it makes no difference, we want to be able to get America back to work, and part of the process, the paths that we are 

going to go down in order to be able to get Americans back to work 

right now is simply that important. But a lot of talk recently was 

around shovel-ready projects. 

When we are seeing here an opportunity to be able to develop 

American resources on American soil, to be able to create American 

jobs and to be able to get our people back to work, and particularly 

here on the West Slope of Colorado and in our state, how many 

jobs do you believe could be created if the Department of Interior 

stopped throwing up regulatory barriers to be able to develop jobs 

right now and get people back to work? 

Mr. LUDLAM. Chairman Tipton, I can state with confidence the 

examples that I gave you earlier in my testimony, that I believe 

there would be thousands just right here in our region. And if you 

extrapolate that to multiple basins in multiple states, which the 

Western Energy Alliance has done in the blueprint that I submitted for the record, I believe that, per their recommendation, we 

could get up into the half-million energy jobs by, I think—don’t 

quote me on this, but if I look at my testimony I think it was by 

2020. 

Chairman TIPTON. Great. And I traveled this area so much. I 

have walked Main Street in Grand Junction and Craig, and when 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

we are seeing businesses close up, it is not just the boots out in 

the field but the collateral jobs that are created as well that now 

are suffering that we could reinvigorate as well. So thank you for 

that. 

Ms. Bredt, could you go into a little more detail for us on how 

small businesses, independent contractors are used in the development of wind energy, and how some of the policy issues that we 

are discussing today might impact some of those businesses? 

Ms. BREDT. Absolutely. I will start with the second part of your 

question first. The bottom line is the uncertainty created by the 

eagle regulatory program is jeopardizing an estimated $68 billion 

in wind energy development, and that is a lot of work for small 

businesses and independent contractors that won’t be created if 

those projects are not being created and built. 

Another sector I did not mention in my testimony is the supply 

chain. A single wind turbine contains some 8,000 parts, and many 

of these are manufactured by small businesses across the country. 

So the negative consequences for job creation and economic development are significant. 

In terms of specific examples in the development stage, qualified 

small businesses and independent contractors are used where 

available to perform wildlife, cultural, socioeconomic, and other development-related studies. During construction, RES has a habit or 

a process of holding job fairs in the communities in which we work 

to be able to use local content whenever possible. 

An example right here in Colorado which we are very proud of 

is our recently completed 250-megawatt Cedar Point wind farm 

which is located southeast of Denver, near Limon. This is a $535 

million project, and it created 365 construction jobs. More than 230 

vendors, including more than 30 local and regional vendors, were 

used to complete this project, and many of these are small businesses and independent contractors. An estimated $35 million has 

been directly spent in Colorado communities in relation to the 

Cedar Point wind farm, and that’s just one example of one wind 

farm in Limon, Colorado. 

Chairman TIPTON. Great. Thanks. 

I would just like to get your opinion, if I may. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Agency drafted a siting guidance, an eagle guidance. Do 

they create overlapping layers of regulation, in your opinion? 

Ms. BREDT. They do to a certain extent. We have to do—similar 

to oil and gas, we have local permitting, state permitting, and Federal. So depending on who wants to defer to who, we could have 

overlap and kind of contradicting regulations or guidance. 

Chairman TIPTON. I would like to open that maybe, if I may, to 

everybody, if you have an example of that, because I know in testimony before our Committee in Washington on natural resources as 

well, one of the issues which often comes up is you have one regulatory body with a set of regs that may be in conflict or overlapping, and if it is overlapping when you are trying to get an answer, 

you can never get an answer because they defer to the other party, 

and it goes back and forth and there is never a solution, never an 

answer. 

Would any of the rest of you like to comment, or do you have an 

example of that? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

Mr. KIGER. In any of our coal leasing activities, we will have to 

get input from Federal agencies like BLM, and oftentimes they 

have to get information from Fish and Wildlife Service on species 

or water use, those kinds of things. So one agency may delay another agency, which will then end up delaying state permitting and 

those kinds of things. So, yes, it can happen. 

Chairman TIPTON. Has it been your experience when that happens—Congressman Critz and I were talking about you have a 30- 

day requirement to be able to get a permit once it is in process, 

and that is extended to 206 days. A little different industry, obviously, but have you seen, because of those overlapping regulations, 

that further extending your ability to be able to get a project going 

and moving? 

Mr. KIGER. The way it works with the state agencies when we 

are permitting is that they have a time limit. But what they will 

do is ask us to extend that time limit so that they can get proper 

input from the agencies. So this can go on with multiple extensions. The option is they deny your permit for lack of information. 

So you have two choices, take it or leave it. 

Chairman TIPTON. As long as you have your microphone on, I did 

have another question there. According to the Americans for Clean 

Coal Electricity, coal energy companies are expected to invest $125 

billion through 2015 to comply with current air rules. That is investment that is coming out to comply. Do you believe that further 

regulation will doom coal as an energy resource? 

Mr. KIGER. Well, it will substantially reduce its ability to burn 

coal. The heartland is going to have to make an economic decision 

as to whether or not they can afford to retrofit and pass those costs 

on to their customers, or the option may be fuel switching. So they 

are going to have to make those decisions with all the power stations. 

Chairman TIPTON. I would like to follow up on that retrofit or 

shut down. Are we in a position in this country right now? Winter 

is coming. We are going to have to turn up the heat, and we want 

the lights on. If we start having coal generation units that are simply not going to be cost effective to be able to retrofit, we are going 

to be able to shut this down, are we in a position right now to be 

able to fill that energy void that the American consumer frankly 

needs? And correct me if I am in error, but I believe that your per 

kilowatt hour cost is among, if not the most affordable energy 

source that we currently have. 

Mr. KIGER. Right. I think you are correct, that the cost per kilowatt hour for coal at our plants is the cheapest in the nation. I 

can’t speak for all the power stations across the U.S., and particularly the Eastern U.S., but my understanding is that many of those 

grids are at their limit as far as electrical production, and if they 

have to start shutting down their power plants, that is going to create availability problems for consistent electrical energy. 

Chairman TIPTON. We have some of the cleanest coal in the 

world, don’t we, right here in Colorado? 

Mr. KIGER. Yes. We have low sulfur, super-compliant coal in Colorado, less than 1.2 pounds of SO2 per million BTUs, and it is also 

very low in mercury, and the coal in the North Fork Valley is over 

12,000 BTUs, and I have heard it called the rocket fuel of coal. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

And so, yes, we have some of the best coal in the United States, 

and that is why it is in such high demand back East. They can use 

it as a blending fuel to meet Clean Air Act standards. But particularly like the MACT rule, it will require maximum achievable control technology. So my understanding is that will eliminate the 

ability to fuels blend. Rather than a fuels blend with low-sulfur 

Western coal and low-mercury Western coal, they will be required 

to absolutely place expensive controls on their power plants, which 

makes that decision non-economic. 

Chairman TIPTON. I am consistently concerned because when I 

look at senior citizens on fixed incomes, young families trying to 

provide for their families right now, and the energy costs, do you 

think it would be fair to say, when we are talking about some increased energy costs, that we are really seeing taxation via regulation? It certainly gives me a lot of concern in terms of driving up 

costs for the ultimate consumer. Right now when I hear particularly some in Washington seem intent on just eliminating coal as 

an energy fuels source at all. 

Mr. KIGER. Well, there is no free lunch, and any time they have 

to retrofit or spend capital to do what they need to do to meet the 

new regulations, they have to pass those costs on, and it is the ultimate consumer that turns on their light switch that is going to pay 

the freight. 

Chairman TIPTON. You commented in your written testimony 

that a member of your organization lost eight years on a ten-year 

lease just trying to comply with preliminary environmental review. 

Is there any recourse for companies when you lose that much time? 

Mr. KIGER. Well, there isn’t. I mean, our particular alliance—— 

Chairman TIPTON. No extensions? Nothing? 

Mr. KIGER. No. With our coal resource the way it is, we can mine 

until about 2017, and then we are just done, and some of the coal 

resources we have tried to permit are resources for the end of the 

mine life. So rather than shutting down the mine in 2018 or 2017, 

we may have to shut it down sooner. That is your option. 

Chairman TIPTON. Well, that gives us some concern. You hear 

concern right now about rolling blackouts across the country given 

the grid and the importance that coal plays as a vital clean energy 

source that we can actually be able to use in this country. So I 

thank you for your comments. 

Mr. Welle, from what sources do you get electricity? 

Mr. WELLE. We are a member of Tristate Generation and Transmission here in Colorado. We are one of the 43 member systems, 

and primarily Tristate is a coal-based utility for its base load generation. I would say this year, probably 70 to 80 percent of the electricity transmitted and purchased from Tristate was coal, probably 

25 percent was hydro. There are some renewables in that mix. 

This was a big hydro year. Most of Western, Northwestern Colorado at least provided a lot of snow melt and springtime flows into 

the hydrology in that region. So those WAPA allocations lie with 

Tristate, so this year was a pretty big hydro year. But in general, 

80 percent or greater would come from coal. 

Chairman TIPTON. I think that is important. You may not be 

aware of it. There are some who do not count hydroelectric power 

as a clean, renewable energy source. In fact, legislation that I just 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

introduced hopefully will be able to help along that on a variety of 

different levels, so that is interesting to know. 

Some have estimated that the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations 

would substantially increase the cost of electricity from coal-fired 

and natural gas generators. What kind of an impact would this 

have on the rural coops? 

Mr. WELLE. As I indicated earlier, we have sustained about a 60 

percent increase in wholesale power costs in the last decade. We 

are a non-profit, cost-based utility. So most of our costs, especially 

in the last decade, have come from power supply. So a lot of the 

costs that are being driven at the power supply is the uncertainty 

of regulatory process and other items. 

Chairman TIPTON. So when you have that 60 percent increase, 

you are required, you have to pass that on. 

Mr. WELLE. Yes, we do. We have an all-power requirements contract with Tristate. Obviously, we do have some influence with Tristate. We have a member of our board sits on their board, but it 

is cost-based as well. So that is a pass-through type rate increase 

that directly affects end consumers. 

Chairman TIPTON. So a lot of the regulations, all of the regulatory costs that we are seeing right now are being passed on to 

the consumer, who is struggling to be able to pay their bills. We 

are increasing their costs right now, and we have an affordable energy resource. 

Mr. WELLE. That is correct. 

Chairman TIPTON. That is correct. Great. 

In terms of renewable energy sources like wind and solar energy, 

how forgiving is the grid to get these sources of energy to consumers? 

Mr. WELLE. I think as Mr. Kiger interjected earlier, there are a 

lot of constraints in the existing transmission grid across the nation, and out here in the West, places that do test really good for 

solar and wind have got challenges of building transmission to get 

those resources to a market, and we are seeing several examples 

of that in Colorado today. And it doesn’t have to be necessarily connected to renewable resources. 

Building transmission and getting renewables to a marketplace, 

plus for the lack of storage technology is another big roadblock for 

dispatchable electric type service in lieu of base load generation. 

The capacity we were talking about earlier of coal plants being 

shut down due to regulation, those are base load facilities in most 

cases, and there is not much base load generation capacity being 

built in this country right now, no matter what flavor you would 

prefer. 

So I think we are nearing a time where we are endangering the 

reliability of the transmission grid by losing coal-based resources at 

this time, especially due to regulatory mandates. 

Chairman TIPTON. Well, thank you all very much, and I now 

yield to Mr. Critz for his questions. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Welle, you had mentioned that 75 to 80 percent of the power 

is generated by coal-fired power plants. That means that anytime 

anyone uses electricity in your grid, 80 percent of that electricity 

is probably coming from coal at some point. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

Mr. WELLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. Mr. Kiger, you had mentioned that you have 

the rocket fuel of coal. Is that all of your mines? Is that most of 

the mines? 

Mr. KIGER. The three mines in the North Fork Valley, they 

produce—with a thousand miners, they produce about 13 million 

tons of coal a year. That’s the best coal in the state. And so that 

would be the North Fork Valley mines. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. And you are selling the majority of that to the 

East, or does it sort of spread around this area as well? 

Mr. KIGER. I am told about 85 percent of it goes east to TVA or 

those kinds of customers back east. I don’t believe this year we will 

have any coal sold in Colorado. It mostly goes east or southeast. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. Now, you heard some of my earlier questions 

to BLM and to the EPA folks about permitting issues and the timing and all that, and I heard when you were answering a question 

that the Chairman asked about the reference to litigation at BLM 

is actually your mine. Could you expound on that just a little bit? 

Mr. KIGER. We have a lease application, and the BLM went 

through the EA process, and they are prepared to go forward with 

the competitive lease sale subject to their 30-day appeal period, 

and an appeal was filed with the BLM. So now they are tasked 

with defending their decision, and most of the comments from the 

folks that filed the appeal, which is the environmental community, 

most of the comments centered around greenhouse gases and air 

emissions issues. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. How about have you—let me figure out how to 

phrase this. I have heard testimony from other sources that the 

EPA is, I guess, becoming more strident in some of the things they 

were doing. That has taken place really over the last decade, that 

through the ’90s it seemed like things were a little more businesslike, and throughout the 2000s it is becoming tougher and tougher 

to get permits through the EPA. What is your impression? 

Mr. KIGER. Clearly, the State of Colorado, through the Department of Health, has to do a lot of the permitting issues. Their policies can be driven certainly by EPA mandates. BLM has had comments from EPA during the EA processes, recommending they analyze for greenhouse gases, that greenhouse gases to the EPA is an 

issue, so BLM has had to respond to that. 

Like I said in the early part of my comments, we are in the process of collecting greenhouse gas emissions information on our fans 

and our methane drainage wells, and we anticipate having to go 

through Title 5 air emission permits here in the next couple of 

years. The impact of that is uncertain, but clearly it is going to create some issues for us. 

Mr. CRITZ. And I think that you mentioned the methane, and I 

am assuming—I think I’m right in that a lot of that was driven because of the Massey Mine explosion. Is that—— 

Mr. KIGER.That we ventilate the mine. 

Mr. CRITZ. Right. 

Mr. KIGER. And as we mine with longwall, the subsidence of the 

overburden, most of our methane is above the coal. It is not in the 

coal. So when we subside the overburden, a lot of that gas then is 

released from those layers, and they come into the mine. So what 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

we do is, in addition to the normal mine ventilation to exhaust the 

mine—we move about a million cubic feet a minute—we also drill 

methane drainage bore holes on the surface, which are slotted pipe, 

fitted with a pump that as we mine through an area we can ventilate the subsided overburden areas to get the gas up to the surface 

and out of the mine rather than get it out of the mine through the 

ventilation system. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. Ms. Bredt, what has been the community reaction? You were talking about the half-a-billion dollar project you 

had to put up some turbines. What has been the community reaction while you were placing these? Are these so far out that they 

don’t really impact residential areas or anything like that? 

Ms. BREDT. The community reaction varies from place to place. 

I think that Limon has been extremely welcoming to wind. Our 

project has 250 megawatts, and there is an additional 500 

megawatts proposed in that same area. So the actual turbines are 

being put in Lincoln County, and they are very receptive to it. They 

have seen the construction impacts, and they are going to start seeing tax payments, et cetera, coming in for the next 20 years of this 

project, and the other 500 megawatts subsequent. 

There are other communities where I think it is a lack of understanding, really, of the wind industry because it is so new. So it 

takes—from a developer standpoint, I need to go in and educate 

and take what they have heard or what they have been told and 

say you are right on that, or here is really what is happening, here 

is really what we are going to do. So I think a lot of the hesitation, 

community hesitation can be fixed with education. It is just a simple unknowing fear that the community has. 

Mr. CRITZ. Well, the reason I bring it up is that we have some— 

we are on the Appalachian mountain range, and there is some rich 

talks that are being used, and we have actually had some areas of 

very vehement pushback from residents who wanted that beautiful 

blue sky and nothing in the way. And I thought that was interesting, as we try to get more renewables online. 

I have read that the goal is to get about 20 percent renewable 

energy, 20 percent I think of wind energy, to generate the electricity in the United States over the next maybe 15 to 20 years. 

What percentage does RES consider they will get? And I guess do 

you sell into the White River Electric grid, or where does your electricity go? 

Ms. BREDT. RES Americas has developed nationwide. So what we 

will typically do is develop a project and sell that power to a utility. 

So the Cedar Point wind farm in Limon, 100 percent of that power 

is being bought by Xcel, Public Service Company of Colorado, and 

it varies from location to location. We do sell to the local utility 

typically. Going forward you might start to see power exported into 

the load areas of Vegas and Southern California. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay, all right. 

Ms. BREDT. Up to this point, it has been to the local utility. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. All right. Mr. Ludlam, how is the natural gas 

industry—I don’t know this area very well, so with you being on 

the oil and gas, is the industry moving forward? I think the price 

per cubic foot of gas right now is fairly low. It is about $3.60 a 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

cubic foot, something like that. So has that had an impact on the 

industry here? 

Mr. LUDLAM. It has indeed had an impact, not as much as regulatory uncertainty, but it has had an impact on operations throughout all of our basins. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. All right. Well, starting with Mr. Welle and 

working my left to right, your right to left, do you think that the 

U.S. government should play a role in subsidizing different industries, and in this case the energy industry, to give certain types of 

industry a leg up and get them started? 

Mr. WELLE. Well, I am kind of a free market guy, but I understand that there are subsidies that exist in all energy forms. I 

would more rather see that government subsidies be utilized to 

definitely push forward technology and innovation. I think we are 

running into mandates or using some energy sources that will not 

sustain themselves in a free marketplace, and I think that is probably a bad signal to be sending to the American public. 

I know there are subsidies in coal, there are subsidies in other 

forms. It might be the time to start over and say no subsidies for 

any energy source and let them be free market based. 

But I would like to see significant money put forth for, like I indicated earlier, storage technologies for renewables that would 

make them dispatchable, would make them actually a base load resource instead of a variable resource, and I think that is going to 

be the day that renewables will really start taking a much larger 

role in the national electric supply. 

Mr. CRITZ. Mr. Kiger. 

Mr. KIGER. I am a free market kind of guy myself. A market 

economy should determine the winners and losers and not government. I do not believe that government should be making decisions. 

There is a role for government in basic research in technology to 

help out to move the research along through universities and those 

kinds of things, but then let the free market determine how best 

to use those technologies if they are developed and if they are competitive. 

Mr. CRITZ. Ms. Bredt. 

Ms. BREDT. The production tax credit, which is what the wind 

has primarily used, the one industry has primarily used, has really 

helped the industry grow. When the production tax credit is threatened, the wind industry slows down. So if we don’t see the production tax credit go forward, the wind industry will—I don’t want to 

say stand still because that scares me from a job perspective, but 

it will tentatively come to a halt, and that is seen in the graphs 

that show when the PTC is extended for multiple years or single 

years. There is hesitation on investment by the wind industry 

when they don’t know the future of that production tax credit. So 

the tax credit has played an important role for our industry. 

Mr. CRITZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Ludlam. 

Mr. LUDLAM. Thank you, Congressman. I think that the question 

speaks to a societal judgment that we are not necessarily always 

in the business of making. We are committed to producing clean 

natural gas for society to use in whatever way and manner that soVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:39 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 071325 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

ciety dictates is necessary and whatever way the market calls for 

it. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. Mr. Commissioner. 

Mr. WHITE. Well, in my world, which is probably not too different 

than yours, it is called stop the spending, and that is what we are 

being told. And so from my perspective, the free markets should 

reign, and let the best source win, and I think that will sort itself 

out, as it has historically. 

One of the messages that is being sent from the administration 

who is subsidizing the nuclear power industry with two new plants 

in Georgia on one hand, on the other hand agencies of that administration are interfering in the process of the mineral extraction 

that is necessary for those power plants to exist, and it is an energy policy decision on top of it. So from a subsidy standpoint, until 

there is some rationality coming from the Federal Government and 

from the administration, the current administration in particular, 

I don’t see where anything is really going to change. 

You gentlemen can certainly foster some change from that standpoint, but markets will drive themselves if left alone. 

Mr. CRITZ. Okay. Well, the reason I asked that is that many people have seen the T. Boone Pickens plan to get more natural gas 

online and talking about the government stepping in and helping, 

and obviously with wind and solar subsidies as well, coal is sort of 

the target, the elimination of coal as an energy source, which I find 

unusual simply because we have so much of it. If you start doing 

research and let’s figure out how to do it better, cleaner, more efficiently, I think there is a road ahead. 

And that is why I was curious, because we get a lot of—we hear 

a lot of white noise, people saying we want this, we want that, and 

we get it from all sides, and it is nice to see people in different sectors of this industry wading through it as well. It helps us make 

decisions. 

With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TIPTON. I thank the Congressman. 

I will just follow up, I guess, with one last question. Ms. Bredt, 

if you could tell, do you know—and you may want to get back to 

us. I am not familiar with it, about the Cedar Point wind farm. Did 

that go through the permitting for that pretty quickly? 

Ms. BREDT. That wind farm—and I am glad you asked. That 

wind farm is 100 percent on private land. 

Chairman TIPTON. On private land. 

Ms. BREDT. And we also have, in addition to the wind farm, 

which is 139 turbines, we have 41 miles of transmission, which you 

heard Mr. Welle speak about how difficult it is to permit transmission, and that is also on 100 percent private. Because of that, 

permitting was facilitated. Federal would take much longer. 

Chairman TIPTON. Thank you. Again, I would like to thank all 

of you for taking the time today to give witness and testimony 

here. 

Energy production is vital for a nation’s economic and national 

security. The evidence presented here today will help policymakers 

better understand the risks and challenges faced by energy producers and how decisions in Washington will impact our communities at the local level. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

I would like to especially thank my colleague, Ranking Member 

Critz, for making the trek out to Colorado. I look forward soon to 

being able to reciprocate in Pennsylvania as well. These are issues 

that impact us here at home, and in your home as well, that we 

certainly need to be visiting on and looking through a clear prism 

on. 

I would like now to ask for unanimous consent that members will 

have five legislative days to submit statements and supporting materials for the record. With no objection, so ordered. And our hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 71325A.001
51 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 71325A.002
52 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 71325A.003
53 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 71325A.004
54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 71325A.005
55 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 01 here 71325.006
56 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 02 here 71325.007
57 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 03 here 71325.008
58 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 04 here 71325.009
59 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 05 here 71325.010
60 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 06 here 71325.011
61 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 07 here 71325.012
62 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 08 here 71325.013
63 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 09 here 71325.014
64 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 010 here 71325.015
65 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 011 here 71325.016
66 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 012 here 71325.017
67 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 013 here 71325.018
68 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 014 here 71325.019
69 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 015 here 71325.020
70 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 016 here 71325.021
71 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 017 here 71325.022
72 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 018 here 71325.023
73 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 019 here 71325.024
74 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 020 here 71325.025
75 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 021 here 71325.026
76 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 022 here 71325.027
77 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 023 here 71325.028
78 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 024 here 71325.029
79 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 025 here 71325.030
80 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 026 here 71325.031
81 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 027 here 71325.032
82 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 028 here 71325.033
83 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 029 here 71325.034
84 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 030 here 71325.035
85 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 031 here 71325.036
86 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 032 here 71325.037
87 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 033 here 71325.038
88 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 034 here 71325.039
89 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 035 here 71325.040
90 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 036 here 71325.041