S. HRG. 114–48 

REGIONAL IMPACTS OF EPA CARBON 

REGULATIONS: THE CASE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 23, 2015—BECKLEY, WV 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
REGIONAL IMPACTS OF EPA CARBON REGULATIONS: THE CASE OF WEST VIRGINIA 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

94–986 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–48 

REGIONAL IMPACTS OF EPA CARBON 

REGULATIONS: THE CASE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 23, 2015—BECKLEY, WV 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 23, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia ...... 1 

WITNESSES 

Jenkins, Hon. Evan H., U.S. Representative from the State of West Virginia .. 4 

Trisko, Eugene M., Attorney at Law, on behalf of the United Mine Workers 

of America ............................................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Patton, Charles, President and Chief Operating Officer, Appalachian Power 

Company ............................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Richardson, L. Jeremy, Ph.D., Senior Energy Analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists .................................................................................................. 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Van Nostrand, James M., Associate Professor and Director of the Center 

for Energy and Sustainable Development, West Virginia University College 

of Law .................................................................................................................... 87 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Farmer, Chuck, President, Rouster Wire, Rope and Rigging .............................. 98 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Union of Concerned Scientists: 

Policy brief: Strengthening the EPA’s Clean Power Plan ............................. 122 

Technical Comments on the Clean Power Plan ............................................. 130 

Report: National Landmarks at Risk .............................................................. 255 

(1) 

REGIONAL IMPACTS OF EPA CARBON 

REGULATIONS: THE CASE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Beckley, WV. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. I want to thank Congressman Evan Jenkins for 

joining me here today. It’s great to be in Raleigh County. I want 

to thank the Raleigh County Commission, the Sheriff’s Office and 

Judge Kirkpatrick for letting us use your chambers. I want to 

thank all of you for coming. I want to thank the witnesses for being 

here today. 

This is the first hearing that I’ve chaired as I’ve come back home 

as a United States Senator. But it will not be the last one, I can 

tell you that. This issue we have before us, which is the Greenhouse Gas Rule and the Clean Air Rule, falls right squarely in my 

subcommittee on the energy—or the Environment of Public Works 

Committee in the Senate. I’m going to be chairing that subcommittee. So all the data that we collect in our hearings is extremely valuable to us on the committee. And I want to thank everybody for their participation. But it’s no more important to all 

the folks that live in and around West Virginia, particularly Southern West Virginia. 

Last month, EPA acting administrator—assistant administrator, 

Janet McCabe, came before our committee, our EPW committee, to 

discuss the agency’s proposed carbon regulations for new and existing power plants. I asked her to explain why has EPA not had a 

public meeting on its proposed climate rules in West Virginia. We 

asked for that. I wasn’t alone. Evan asked for that—the Congressman asked for that—many of us did—to ask the EPA to come to 

West Virginia. 

And I was kind of surprised by her response. Because she told 

me that the public hearings were held where the agency officials 

were—and this is a direct quote—comfortable going. That was exceedingly unimpressive to me. While it may be uncomfortable for 

EPA officials to face the coal miners whose livelihoods and whose 

communities are threatened by these regulations, I think West Virginians deserve to have their voices be heard. So that’s why I’m 

here today. The public hearing on the Environment and Public 

Works is live streaming on our website, so it will be seen across 

the Country. 
2 

We’re going to hear the voices of West Virginians on the devastating impact on the regulations of our fellow West Virginians, 

because we know we receive 95 percent of our power from coal-fired 

power plants. The West Virginia coal industry supports families, 

strengthens our national security and affordably powers not only 

our State, but provides affordable electricity to our neighbors. 

West Virginia exports more than half of the electricity that we 

produce. And Charles can back me up on that. Just last week, AEP 

warn notices to—issued warn notices to employees at three West 

Virginia power plants; the Kanawha River plant in Glasgow, the 

Sporn plant in New Haven and the Cameron plant near 

Moundsville. All three plants will close within 2 months. These closures are ahead of schedule and early closures basically because of 

the EPA’s MATS Rule, which is a previous rule different than the 

one we’re discussing today, but still has a great impact. 

The upcoming EPA regulations for carbon emissions for power 

plants that we are here to examine today will have even more devastating impact. I have grave concerns about these regulations. I’m 

concerned about their cost; the cost to the taxpayer, and the cost 

to the bill payer. 

Numerous studies by well-respected economic analysis firms 

made clear that the EPA has grossly understated the costs. Findings from these reports show that costs could go up to $479 billion 

over a 15-year period while causing double-digit electric price increases in 43 States. 

Over half of our Country’s power comes from coal. And EPA has 

gone so far to predict that by effectively eliminating one half of our 

energy generation, we will reduce electricity prices by 8 percent. 

That just doesn’t add up to me. 

Here in West Virginia, our monthly electric bills are roughly 23 

percent cheaper now than the national average because coal is 

cheap, reliable and plentiful. I’m very concerned that in formulating these regulations, EPA has not considered the impact on the 

reliability of the grid. 

We actually had a hearing on this last week in our committee. 

That’s one of the reasons I’m very pleased to have Charles Patton 

from Appalachian Power as one of our witnesses. In his statement, 

he does speak directly to the impact of these rules on our ability 

to keep the lights on. 

We also have small business owner, Charles Farmer, who will be 

here shortly. I’m very interested to see how he has borne the brunt 

of increased electricity prices on his business operations, and how 

it impacts him and his family and his business. 

And the United Mine Workers—we’re pleased to have Mr. Gene 

Trisko who is here to represent the brunt of the president’s war on 

coal in terms of the effect it has on the UMW and coal miners 

across the Country. 

So as we move forward, I’m also concerned—as we talk about 

emissions, and the lowering of emissions, I’m concerned that the 

United States is sort of out front here—not sort of out front. We 

are out front. What are the other nations doing? 

And is what we’re doing going to really make the impact that 

those who are putting these forward hope that it will? 
3 

So I think we’re not rushing this. There are legality issues. We’ll 

get into that today. But what we’re doing is really beginning to talk 

about the economic impacts to our families where the impact is 

most felt, and that’s here in West Virginia. 

With that, I’m going to ask Congressman Jenkins to make an 

opening statement, and then we’ll turn to the witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Capito follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Thank you all for being here today. A special thank you to our witnesses for coming to Beckley and to Congressman Jenkins for joining me. This is the first hearing 

I have chaired back home in West Virginia as a U.S. Senator, but it will not be the 

last. 

Last month, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe came before the 

Environment and Public Works Committee to discuss the agency’s proposed carbon 

regulations for new and existing power plants. I asked her to explain why the EPA 

did not hold a public hearing on its proposed climate rules in West Virginia, despite 

the large role coal has in our economy and the multiple invitations by Federal and 

State legislators. 

I was shocked, and frankly, appalled by her response. 

She told me public hearings were held where agency officials were ‘‘comfortable’’ 

going. 

While it may be uncomfortable for EPA officials to face the coal miners whose 

livelihoods are threatened by these misguided regulations, West Virginians deserve 

the opportunity to make their voices heard. 

This is why I am here today, holding a field hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is being live streamed on the Committee website. 

EPA will hear the voices of West Virginians on the devastating impact of their 

regulations on the just under 2 million hard-working West Virginians who receive 

95 percent of their electricity from coal-fired power plants. 

The West Virginia coal industry supports families, strengthens national security 

and affordably powers not only my State, but provides affordable electricity to our 

neighbors—West Virginia exports more than half of the electricity we produce to 

neighboring States. 

Just last week, AEP issued WARN notices to employees at three West Virginia 

power plants—the Kanawha River Plant in Glasgow, the Philip Sporn Plant in New 

Haven and the Kammer Plant near Moundsville. All three plants will close within 

2 months. These closures are years ahead of schedule, and the early closures are 

because of the impact of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxins (MATS) rule. 

The upcoming EPA regulations for carbon emissions from power plants that we 

are here to examine today will have an even more devastating impact. 

I have grave concerns about these proposed regulations. I am concerned about 

their cost—the cost to the taxpayer and cost to the bill payer. Numerous studies by 

well-respected economic analysis firms make clear that the EPA grossly under-estimated the costs. Findings from these reports show costs could get up to $479 billion 

over a 15-year period while causing double digit electricity price increases in 43 

States. 

Over half of our country’s power comes from coal; yet, EPA has gone so far as 

to ‘‘predict’’ that by effectively eliminating one-half of our energy generation, we will 

reduce average electricity prices by 8 percent. That simply does not add up. 

Here in West Virginia, our monthly electrical bills are roughly 23 percent cheaper 

than the national average because our coal is cheap, reliable and plentiful. 

I am also very concerned that, in formulating these regulations, EPA has not considered the impact on the reliability of our electricity grid. That is one of the reasons I am pleased to have Charles Patton from Appalachian Power as one of our 

witnesses. He can speak to the direct impact that EPA regulations have on our ability to keep the lights on. 

EPA doesn’t have a great track record here. Look at the Mercury and Air Toxins, 

or MATS, rule. EPA predicted this regulation would result in the closure of about 

5,000 megawatts of generating capacity. Instead, the Department of Energy now 

says that between 50,000 and 60,000 megawatts of generating capacity will be taken 

offline. That’s a huge mistake that would have serious consequences. 

It’s not the EPA bureaucrats that have to deal with these consequences of a miscalculation. It’s the small business owners, like Mr. Chuck Farmer, who will bear 
4 

the brunt of increased electricity prices on his business operations that not only impact him and his family, but his employees, their families and the surrounding community. It’s the United Mine Workers of America that Mr. Trisko is here to represent who will bear the brunt of the President’s ongoing war against coal. 

Only at a government agency, run by unelected bureaucrats would it make sense 

to impose regulations that cost billions of dollars, increase the costs of electricity, 

negatively impact grid reliability, undermine global competitiveness and kill jobs. 

Concerning is that estimated emissions growth from China and India render any 

of these perceived ‘‘benefits’’ pointless. 

President Obama is rushing through extreme environmental initiatives without 

regard for the real-life consequences. Today we are beginning to talk about these 

economic impacts, to families here, where the impact is felt and our communities 

are impacted. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EVAN H. JENKINS, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Representative JENKINS. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. And 

thank you for the wonderful turnout and the interest. Let me first 

start by thanking Senator Capito for holding this important hearing. She has been a steadfast voice for West Virginia and continues 

to lead the fight against the administration’s regulatory overreach. 

She’s a real champion for our cause. 

I also want to thank her and her staff for taking the initiative 

to hold this important hearing so that the committee can hear the 

voices from real West Virginians, people who really care about our 

State’s future and understand the issues that we are facing as a 

State. 

As you know—as Senator Capito mentioned just a moment ago, 

her efforts to try to encourage the EPA to take a proactive position 

to come to West Virginia. I too had that opportunity, and questioned Administrator McCarthy just a couple of weeks ago, and 

candidly begged her to come to West Virginia to see the real consequences of her agency’s policies and what they will have with regard to the people of West Virginia. And as Senator Capito has run 

into, she simply says no, unwilling to come. 

The EPA continues to overstep its legal authority waging a war 

on coal. And, yes, it is a war on coal that has destroyed the livelihoods that we have known for generations in West Virginia. 

For example, the EPA is retroactively vetoing already issued permits. The permit for the mine in Logan County was issued by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after an intensive deliberative process. Families in that area were counting on those new jobs that the 

mine would help provide and sustain. 

But then 4 years later, the EPA swooped in and retroactively vetoed this already issued permit by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

That was the first time in history that the EPA has ever taken 

such an action. But the effects of EPA’s decisions weren’t limited 

to just the mine operation. They also took away the promise of 

good-paying jobs and more affordable energy for West Virginians. 

Coal is an abundant resource in America. Why are we forsaking 

one of our largest sources of affordable energy to put ourselves at 

an economic disadvantage? Why is the EPA forcing consumers to 

pay more for electricity and for all the goods and products that require electricity to be produced? 

The Clean Power Plan we’re going to be talking about today— 

the focus of today’s hearing will bring even more economic harm to 

West Virginia communities. States are being asked by the EPA to 
5 

decrease emissions by an unrealistic amount. They are being asked 

to do it in an unreasonable timeframe. If they are unable to comply, they will be fined. All sorts of stakeholder corps, from utilities 

to State regulators to grid operators have overwhelming concerns 

over cost, reliability, transmission and grid problems. 

Prior to President Obama, coal provided 48 percent of our Nation’s electricity. Today we’re at 40 percent due to the Mercury 

Rules and others. Under CPP, coal would be reduced to 30 percent. 

This has direct impact on coal jobs. We have already suffered disproportionately under this Administration’s policies. 

From 2009 through 2013, the State of West Virginia lost nearly 

9,000 coal jobs. Americans deserve to know the full picture before 

the EPA moves forward on this aggressive and unprecedented plan. 

The costs associated with CPP are staggering. The U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy estimated that it 

would lead to 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs on average every year 

through 2030. Worse, it would force U.S. consumers to pay $289 

billion more for electricity in that same time period. 

The coal industry has gone through highs and lows before and 

has recovered. The difference now is that we have a Government 

pushing policies that is picking winners and losers in industry and 

forcing utilities to stop using coal. 

I look forward to the hearing today and hearing from the witnesses to hear the issues that they are facing and to understand 

things from their perspective. 

Once again, I would like to thank Senator Capito for inviting me 

to this hearing. This is an important moment for the Appalachian 

region, for Southern West Virginia, for all of West Virginia and for 

our Country. This is an important moment. It is critical that we 

work to preserve our way of life for our children and our grandchildren here in West Virginia. 

Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Congressman. We will begin—I 

would ask the witnesses—I think most of you have probably testified. Your full statements are submitted into the record. If you 

could, give us a 5-minute—around a 5-minute synopsis of your full 

statement. We’ll start with that, and then we’ll go to questions. 

So I’m going to start with Gene Trisko, who is counsel for the 

United Mine Workers of America. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF EUGENE M. TRISKO, ATTORNEY AT 

LAW, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF 

AMERICA 

Mr. TRISKO. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Capito and Representative Jenkins. I’m Gene Trisko. I’m an attorney in private 

practice. I’m here on behalf of the United Mine Workers of America 

whom I’ve represented in environmental and climate matters for 

some 30 years. 

The UMWA greatly appreciates this opportunity to testify on the 

impacts of EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan. This proposed regulation is a neutron bomb aimed directly at the heart of West Virginia’s economy and the coal miners, communities, electric generators and allied industries that depend on coal for their livelihoods. 
6 

EPA’s carbon rule proposes an overall CO2 reduction equivalent 

to a 30 percent cut from 2005 emissions with reductions measured 

against each State’s 2012 emission rate in pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of fossil electric generation. West Virginia is assigned a 

20 percent reduction by 2030 based on the combined building block 

approach that EPA developed. 

EPA’s data indicate that West Virginia’s electric utilities and 

independent power producers achieved a 20 percent reduction of 

CO2 emissions measured in tons emitted between 2005 and 2012. 

In other words, if you were given a fair baseline, you’re there. You 

have already achieved EPA’s reduction. 

EPA’s proposed rule gives no credit for these reductions because 

it uses a 2012 baseline for determining required emission reductions. 

EPA’s regulatory impact analysis for this rule shows total U.S. 

coal-generating capacity declining from 317 gigawatts in 2010 to 

195 gigawatts in 2020. That is an overall reduction of 122,000 

megawatts of capacity. Of this total, 49 gigawatts can be attributed 

to the Clean Power Plan with the balance of 73 gigawatts due to 

compliance with the 2011 Mercury Rule, lower natural gas prices 

and other factors. 

EPA projects that the carbon rule would reduce coal production 

in the overall Appalachian region—this region stretches from Pennsylvania to Alabama—by 35 percent, from 140 million tons to 91 

million tons in the year 2020. West Virginia alone traditionally produces well over 100 million tons of coal a year. Under this rule, the 

entire Appalachian region would produce 90 million. 

The fundamental problems that the EPA carbon rule poses for 

West Virginia are twofold. First, the majority of West Virginia’s 

coal production is shipped to other States that have even larger 

emission reduction requirements than West Virginia. 

Second, as Senator Capito noted, the majority of the coal-based 

electricity generated in West Virginia is exported to other States 

affected by the rule. 

In 2013, West Virginia produced 116 million tons of coal. West 

Virginia’s electric utilities and independent power producers consumed 30 million tons of coal from all sources. That’s equivalent to 

just a quarter of the State’s total coal production. The rest of it 

goes somewhere else. You have no control over that. 

In 2014, West Virginia power plants generated 88,000 gigawatthours of electricity. Your total in-state retail electricity sales were 

29,000 gigawatts. That’s about one-third of total generation. Twothirds of it goes to other States. You have no control over it. 

In short, there is no compliance option for West Virginia, including potential interstate agreements that can effectively mitigate 

the adverse impacts of the EPA rule attributable to the compliance 

actions of other States. 

The stakes for West Virginia’s economy and jobs are very high. 

Coal mining in West Virginia generates more than $15 billion of 

gross State output. Nearly $4 billion of household income, and 

75,000 direct and indirect jobs. 

EPA’s proposal for major expansions of State energy efficiency 

and renewable energy programs interfere with traditional State au-
7 

thority and energy planning and appear to be well beyond the 

agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act. 

We are mindful in this regard of the cautions recently raised by 

the Supreme Court in UARG versus EPA concerning an overly expansive interpretation of EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse 

gases under the Clean Air Act. 

Finally, we do not know the extent to which other nations will 

be willing to commit to a truly global program of greenhouse gas 

reductions. All indications from the United Nations’ climate negotiation process point to an extremely difficult outcome in Paris 

later this year. It is doubtful that those negotiations will lead to 

meaningful or enforceable emission reduction commitments by the 

developing countries that are now the world’s largest emitters of 

greenhouse gases. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trisko follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Now, I’d like to ask Charles Patton to make his opening statement. Charles is president of Appalachian Power Company. Welcome. Thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES PATTON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

OPERATING OFFICER, APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY 

Mr. PATTON. Thank you. Chairman Capito, I’d like to thank you 

for inviting me here today. And it’s always a pleasure to see you, 

Congressman Jenkins. We appreciate the energy and enthusiasm 

which you bring to represent the State of West Virginia. 

I appreciate this opportunity to offer the views of Appalachian 

Power Company on the carbon dioxide rules for existing power 

plants that have been proposed by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Headquartered in Charleston, West Virginia, Appalachian Power 

Company serves approximately 1 million customers in West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. We are a subsidiary of American 

Electric Power. AEP and its six other subsidiary utilities deliver 

safe, reliable and affordable electric service in eight additional 

States, making AEP one of the Nation’s largest generators of electricity. 

Additionally, AEP’s transmission network is the Nation’s largest 

and most robust with over 400,000 miles of high-voltage transmission. As one of the Nation’s largest utilities and one of the Nation’s historically most coal-dependent utilities due to our proximity 

to this abundant and stably priced natural resource, we have been 

active in the conversation surrounding the appropriateness of the 

Clean Power Plan as a policy direction for reducing the carbon footprint of the Nation’s electric power supply industry. 

I have filed some 26 pages of testimony outlining our concerns. 

As a major coal burner, I’m sure that you will not find it surprising 

that Appalachian Power and our parent company, AEP, has serious 

concerns around the proposed EPA plan. 

In that 26 pages of testimony, I have listed some concerns. Are 

EPA’s technical assumptions correct? 

Has the EPA appropriately quantified the cost of its proposal? 

Are there significant reliability concerns that are not receiving 

appropriate attention? 

Has the EPA overreached its legal authority? These are questions and issues that are raised in my testimony. 

Having reviewed a significant number of the comments filed by 

States this past fall, it is clear that the concerns delineated a great 

deal in my testimony are also shared in some form by the vast majority of the States in this Nation. 

Therefore, in lieu of offering you a laundry list of concerns, I 

would like to share with you my personal experience which gives 

me great pause regarding the appropriateness of the EPA’s proposal. 

Approximately 5 years ago, I became the president and chief operating officer of Appalachian Power Company. When I arrived, it 

was on the heels of a $2.2 billion capital spending program placing 

scrubbers on our large baseload coal-fired generating stations. At 

that time, given the prevailing cost of alternatives, it was the best 
14 

option for our customers. A position that was endorsed by State 

regulators and key stakeholders involved in the regulatory approval process. 

Despite being the least cost solution—yes, that’s right, coal is the 

least cost solution. The results were electric rates that did increase 

on average 40 percent. These investments and resulting rate increases were common for utilities with large coal fleets at that 

time. 

States like Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and West 

Virginia have the highest average residential electric consumption 

rates in the Nation. There are logical reasons for this outcome; the 

rural nature of these States, the lack of retail natural gas in rural 

areas for gas heating, and a strategic cost advantage of electricity. 

And, unfortunately, also the socioeconomic factors related to the 

quality of the housing stock in those States. 

In West Virginia, over 400,000 low income and middle income 

families spend 20 percent of their after-tax income on energy. Approximately 25 percent of my residential customers are delinquent 

on their electric bills. 

Additionally, many of my customers in the metals industries 

which have electric-intensive production processes are also struggling to remain profitable. In fact, the West Virginia legislature 

has enacted legislation specifically targeting its large energy-intensive industries to help address this reality. 

Congressman Jenkins, you were there when that—you were part 

of passing that legislation. 

But how much more can they afford? I’m not sure. However, as 

we proceed in addressing carbon, I would ask that this committee 

and all of Congress consider the following. Economics and existing 

EPA regulations have resulted in a profile where today 60 percent 

of AEP’s generating capacity is coal compared to well over 80 percent in 2000. By 2026, the percentage is expected to drop to 45 percent. 

Then if you go back to 2005, you will find that our decrease to 

date in carbon output is somewhere north of 21 percent, not including future closures planned in 2015 as a result of our efforts to 

comply with EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. 

APCO and AEP do not dispute the legitimacy of pursuing policies 

that reduce our Nation’s carbon footprint. However, we would suggest to you that we have grave concerns regarding the affordability, 

technical assumptions and need for the Clean Power Plan as it is 

proposed. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Patton follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Dr. L. Jeremy Richardson, who is the senior 

energy analyst, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, DC. 

And I understand your father is in the audience. I want to welcome 

him as well. Welcome, Dr. Richardson. 

STATEMENT OF L. JEREMY RICHARDSON, Ph.D., SENIOR ENERGY ANALYST FOR THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Mr. RICHARSON. Thank you very much, Senator Capito and Representative Jenkins. 

As you said, I’m a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS is the Nation’s leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. I have 

a very unique perspective on the issues before you today. As a scientist, I understand the urgency to reduce carbon emissions to protect the planet’s climate. As the brother, son and grandson of West 

Virginia coal miners, the question of how we go about tackling climate change is deeply personal to me. 

First, on behalf of UCS’s more than 450,000 supporters, I want 

to say today that we strongly support the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s efforts to limit carbon emissions from power plants under 

the Clean Air Act. Simultaneously, however, we want to emphasize 

the need for special consideration for the families and communities 

that are facing the negative consequences for the transition away 

from coal. 

Human-induced climate change is already having impacts that 

are being felt by people here in West Virginia, our Nation and 

around the world. If we collectively fail to make deep reductions in 

our carbon emission, we will greatly increase the risks of serious 

economic, health and environmental consequences from accelerating sea level rise, storm surges, heat waves, drought, wildfires, 

frequent heavy downpours and increase hurricane intensity. These 

impacts are a direct consequence of the increasing concentration of 

greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in our planet’s atmosphere 

primarily caused by the fossil fuels that we burn for energy. 

These facts compel us to act and to act decisively. In doing so, 

however, we must recognize that some regions of our Country are 

facing a heavier burden than others in this transition to a less fossil-intensive electricity system. 

The proposed Clean Power Plan provides a sound and flexible 

framework for reducing emissions from the power sector. But it is 

not ambitious enough in its overall result of a 30 percent reduction 

in emissions by 2030. 

Our analysis shows that EPA significantly underestimated the 

potential for renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal energy 

resources that emit no carbon and are already delivering safe, reliable and affordable power to consumers all around the Country. 

As we all know, the coal industry faces challenging times. Many 

blame environmental regulations entirely for the downturn. But 

the truth is that regardless of who occupies the White House, the 

industry faces strong and persistent headwinds. Multiple market 

factors are making coal fired power too expensive relative to other 

cheaper, less polluting options like natural gas, renewable energy 
42 

and energy efficiency. Thankfully, West Virginia has many assets 

that it can leverage to diversify its economy. But we must let go 

of the idea that coal is all we’ve got. 

Communities all around coal country from Beckley to Welch to 

Pikeville are eager to have this conversation. They realize that 

times are changing and they are calling for leadership. Over 200 

people from a wide range of perspectives attended a forum that 

UCS organized in September 2013 to talk about the State’s bright 

future. Participants pointed to the State’s topnotch work force, its 

natural resources, of course, a multitude of opportunities for recreation and tourism, emerging opportunities in advanced manufacturing and much more. The conversations have continued from the 

ground up. 

Williamson is remaking itself as a healthy community focused on 

sustainability. Communities across West Virginia have been participating in a series of dialogs called What’s Next West Virginia. 

And a few leaders are listening as evidenced by initiatives in Eastern Kentucky and in Southern West Virginia. Even the President’s 

budget includes significant investments in the Appalachian region. 

Together with Federal policymakers, States, especially West Virginia, should help ensure that economic diversification and resources for workers in communities are an important part of their 

compliance plans. Fortunately, there are a variety of policies both 

within the context of State compliance plans and through complementary policies enacted by State legislatures that can help, including market-based mechanisms and tax policies, like West Virginia’s Future Fund that was established last year. By working together, we cannot only establish a strong standard to protect the 

planet’s climate, but also ensure that workers in communities have 

a fresh economic opportunity as market forces continue to drive a 

shift away from coal. 

I do not accept this as an either/or proposition. Our children and 

our grandchildren will face the risks of a vastly different climate 

caused by our failure to act to reduce emissions today. 

My young niece, and maybe someday her children and grandchildren, will face an uncertain future if we fail to invest in the 

workers and communities that have built this Nation’s wealth. It 

is much harder, but it is imperative that we do both. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Richardson follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Dr. Richardson. 

Our next witness is James M. Van Nostrand. Did I say that correctly? 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Van Nostrand, Senator. 

Senator CAPITO. He is Associate Professor, Director of the Center 

for Energy and Sustainable Development, West Virginia University 

College of Law. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. VAN NOSTRAND, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR ENERGY AND 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY 

COLLEGE OF LAW 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Thank you very much, Senator Capito and 

Congressman Jenkins. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak 

today. 

Before I start off, I want to share your frustration with the inability to get anybody from EPA to come to this State. We had a 

conference back in February 2014 focusing on the then anticipated 

EPA 111(d) Rules. Senator Manchin was our keynote speaker. We 

tried for weeks to get an EPA speaker to come to our conference. 

We started off with Janet McCabe and kind of kept working our 

way down. And we were unsuccessful in having them come to our 

State. So it is frustrating. 

As everyone knows, we have a big basketball game coming up on 

Thursday night in Cleveland, Ohio. I thought today would be a 

good chance to not only talk about the Wildcats and the Mountaineers on the court, but let’s talk about West Virginia versus Kentucky. I guess I would call my testimony a tale of two States; why 

West Virginia is losing the battle for our energy future. 

In Kentucky—I think we all saw the Senate race last year where 

Senator McConnell and Alison Grimes were fighting about who 

hated the EPA the most. Most recently, Senator McConnell encouraged States to not cooperate with the EPA in the implementation 

of the 111(d) Rules. So we have that going on at one level. 

But within the State of Kentucky, there’s a tremendous bipartisan effort going on led by Governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat, 

and Congressman Hal Rogers, a Republican. 

Several years ago, Governor Beshear started on a policy of an allof-the-above energy strategy in the State of Kentucky. And most recently, he and Congressman Hal Rogers have encouraged the 

SOAR project which is shaping our Appalachian region. 1700 people showed up for the SOAR convention in Pikeville, Kentucky on 

the issue of the 111(d) Rules. They were basically talking about the 

future of Kentucky, moving toward a different future and having 

a broad bipartisan support taking on these tough issues of a transition. 

On the 111(d) Rule, Kentucky was one of the leading States in 

the country. They shared a white paper with the EPA in October 

2013 saying we know these rules are coming down the road and 

this is what’s going to work for Kentucky. These are the things 

that we need to make this rule work for Kentucky. We are going 

to have a disproportionate impact, but these are the rules. Kentucky became a national leader in terms of a State getting out in 
88 

front on the 111(d) Rules. We invited John Lyons, the head of the 

Energy and Environment Cabinet for Kentucky, to come to our conference back in February a year ago. 

Now let’s look at West Virginia. We have no comprehensive energy planning in this State. Our legislature just recently repealed 

the renewal portfolio standards, which would have encouraged renewal energy. They are rolling back net metering. And while many 

utilities around the country were selling off their coal plants for 

pennies on the dollar, in West Virginia we’re buying additional coal 

plants and putting them into our rate base and actually paying 

more than their fair market value for them. 

I understand Charles Patton is talking about the interest of AEP 

and diversity. Well, we’re not seeing that diversity in West Virginia. The AEP subsidiary, Wheeling Power, just acquired the 

Mitchell plant. The AEP subsidiary, Appalachian Power, just acquired the Amos plant. Mon Power acquired the Harrison plant. 

These are all plants—for our foreseeable future, most of our electricity is going to be generated by coal. We’re not seeing any 

event—any fuel diversity. We’re not seeing any of the effects of the 

shale gas revolution. 

We’re not really sharing in those lower energy prices. Both utilities operating in West Virginia filed for double-digit rate increases 

last year. And that’s before we get to the impact of these coal 

plants being added to our rate base and the increase in compliance 

caused under MATS and of the 111(d) Rules. 

Our response on a legal front is, our attorney general has filed 

a lawsuit joined by 11 other States to destroy the EPA rule in 

court. We’ve joined the Murray Energy lawsuit. I don’t think the 

courts are going to be able to stop climate change, and I don’t think 

litigation is a climate change strategy, as a compliance strategy. 

What’s frustrating is it doesn’t need to be this way. As Jeremy 

Richardson just mentioned, I think West Virginia has tremendous 

potential. We are sitting on top of the Marcellus shale. We are an 

energy State. We should be winning the energy war. We have more 

resources at our disposal than does Kentucky with the availability 

of natural gas, renewables. We have virtually untapped energy efficiency. We are rated number 46 in the Country by the American 

Council for Energy Efficient Economy in terms of our energy efficiency commitment. And we can do better. 

As my testimony mentions, I think the whole issue of reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions really cries out for a legislative solution. 

I don’t think the Clean Air Act is a great fit. I have concerns about 

111(d), and I certainly have concerns about 111(b) that cries for a 

legislative solution. But I don’t know that we’re going to be able to 

get that solution. We’re doing the best—I think the EPA is moving 

forward with the statutory authority on the Clean Air Act. They 

have the authority to do that. 

But a legislative solution would be better because there’s no 

question West Virginia is getting hit disproportionately hard. But 

there’s limitations on what an agency can do to address those desperate impacts. A legislative solution could address that. 

In closing—I don’t know how the Mountaineers are going to do 

Thursday night. I’m very hopeful we’ll be competitive. I think on 

the basketball court we’ll be competitive. I worry that on the en-
89 

ergy front, West Virginia versus Kentucky, I worry that we’re losing that war. And we should be winning that war. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Nostrand follows:] 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. And, boy, they did look 

good last night, didn’t they? 

Our final witness is Charles Farmer who is president of Rouster 

Rope, Wire and Rigging, a small business here in Raleigh County. 

Welcome, Mr. Farmer. 

The process is basically a 5-minute synopsis of your testimony, 

and then we’re going to move to the question portion. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK FARMER, PRESIDENT, ROUSTER WIRE, 

ROPE AND RIGGING 

Mr. FARMER. Thank you, Senator Capito, Representative Jenkins 

and panel. Thank you for having me here. 

I hope I represent our State very well, but especially the southern part of West Virginia. Twenty years ago, I got into the rigging 

business for the logging industry. We saw them leave because of 

regulation insurance. We are not tied completely to the mining industry. But a devastating amount of loss of work has happened 

here. 

The EPA MATS 111 regulations have an effect on small businesses which you generally don’t see. We had over 170, 80 mines 

a year ago. Now we’re down to 70, 80. We’ve lost a lot of revenue 

in our counties for road building particularly. I don’t know how 

many of you have been between here and Kentucky, in Raleigh, 

Wyoming, McDowell, Mingo Counties and seen the absolute devastation of the economies and loss of business. 

The EPA is making good headway, which we support, for clean 

air and the environment. In a regional timeframe, that would be 

good. But as they press harder and harder to adapt to stricter and 

stricter regulations, we see people leaving here, and a work force 

they are going to be very hard pressed to replace. 

Our good customers, such as AEP, the United Mine Workers, and 

their workers and the mines here, have lost more than what we 

will. We’ve seen their plants—Clinch River, Glen Lyn, Kanawha 

River, Sporn. The regulations are pushing people out of work and 

leaving this industry. Our revenues are killing us. 

My business is going down instead of going up in this wonderful 

economy that we have. I’m a petroleum engineer from West Virginia University. I’ve lived all over the world. I came back to West 

Virginia to make a difference in this community and to employ people in this town to try to make a difference and diversify our economy away from the extractive industries. 

Again, I’ll go back to the southern part of West Virginia. I don’t 

know how many of you travel down there. But that’s some of the 

steepest, roughest, uninhabitable terrain to build businesses, 

plants. Without removing the mountaintops, there is really no 

place to put people up out of the flood zone, not even to put the 

businesses here. 

The infrastructure to get there—piping, water, electricity is extremely expensive to build that infrastructure here, which we support. The line transmission work, the gas and pipelines. But we 

continue to see interference. The delays and delays and delays of 

the projects, and the target moves and moves and moves, and the 

timeframe gets shorter. Our customers do not benefit from such 

haste to prove to the world—America is showing the way. 
99 

We had friends come back from China here in the past month 

in the coal industry. And they can tell you in their coal industry, 

they are running zero scrubbers on their plants. And we think this 

is an unfair advantage to the people whose economies are growing 

and ours are shrinking. It goes to all industries. 

Now, 20 years ago, we had great hope for this place. But we see 

our customers moving down—Caterpillar left here this past year 

with 120 jobs in the mining equipment business. Our miners have 

had to become workers in the salt mines in Louisiana, and elsewhere. There is no work for them. 

I hope that you will remember that the terrain here is not very 

conducive to building large plants and building new towns that are 

not actually in an area of danger from the environment that we 

continue to face. 

When we got into the mining industry, there were so many tons 

of mines built. And through market forces and speculation, a lot of 

the mining grew. And like in the oil and gas industry now, our gas 

industry down here is going to be faced with regulations with the 

escape of methane. And I have drilled many wells. 

When you get into productive gas well drilling, it’s inevitable to 

get the gas away from the rig. It’s a very dangerous situation. At 

some point in time, we feel like through these regulations, they’re 

going to drive what is now a very expensive proposition—it takes 

$5 million to $6 million to drill one of these Utica/Marcellus wells. 

We can only imagine what the regulations are going to do to the 

gas drilling in Southern West Virginia. Our recounts are already 

in half. We are already seeing people going bankrupt and leaving 

the business because of market forces. But regulations are going to 

put a lot more pressure on them. 

Again, we’ve seen our customers, such as this panel, spend billions of dollars to upgrade only to have the target moved again. 

The compliance efforts of these people have been Herculean. We 

applaud their efforts because we know the power companies are 

dedicated to finding a way to produce energy without coal. Without 

coal, I don’t think our southern part of the State can survive in any 

way shape, form or fashion. 

My contemporaries I work with do not think the Federal Government has any interest in the viability of this industry in the Appalachian basin. We feel like we’re being put upon in an unfair competition against the world who does not adhere to what we’re trying to do. We feel like their efforts—the Federal Government efforts should be to work with those people overseas to get some kind 

of equal playing field. 

We’re not asking for subsidies. Our company will diversify and 

continue to adapt. But to adapt is becoming an extremely difficult 

situation for Rouster Wire, Rope and Rigging. If a company here 

in town is spending $10,000 a month on energy and we get a 26 

percent increase in energy, you’re looking at one or two more employees that I could be putting to work. Take all the tax—I mean, 

off the dole and actually be constructive citizens of Southern West 

Virginia. 

As we see our OEMs, our original equipment manufacturers, 

slow down—we’re not talking about 4, 5, 10 jobs at Rouster Wire, 

Rope and Rigging. We’re talking about hundreds of jobs from the 
100 

ground to the top, to the finished product, to when that machinery 

goes into production. It’s going to hurt our southern part of West 

Virginia worse than anything. 

We do want a clean environment. Being fathers and grandfathers 

of children here, we definitely want a clean environment. We need 

consistent, long-term goals that don’t crush our economy here in 

Southern West Virginia. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farmer follows:] 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. 

Thank all of you. 

We’re now going to move to the question portion. I am going to 

start—there’s lots to talk about here. 

I want to start with Mr. Patton. I want to talk about the reliability issue because coal is our baseload fuel in this country. And 

if we don’t have the baseload, then we can’t peak when it’s really 

cold or it’s really hot or where there’s an outage or there’s a flood 

or there’s something that’s happened in another region of the country that—or the region that is hampering our ability to get power. 

And coal certainly is that baseload. It’s secure. I read in your testimony where you can store it right on the facility. You don’t have 

to look for it to come in maybe through a disrupted pipeline or 

something like that, or whether the sun is shining or the wind is 

blowing. It’s there. Coal is there. It’s solid. 

Let’s go back to the polar vortex of last year. I understand at 

AEP there were—that you were peaking at maximum capacity. If 

that were to happen in, say, 2 or 3 years from now when you’ve 

taken your coal plants down, it could have a real effect on the reliability of our power generation. Could you speak to that issue? 

Mr. PATTON. Yes. Thank you, Senator. 

So first of all, just one point of clarification to comments that 

were made previously about Appalachian Power Company. And it 

is related to your question. 

Appalachian Power Company transferring coal plants to serve its 

customers in West Virginia. Yes, we did. I’m very proud of transferring those plants. Because those plants were the cheapest options 

for our customers. 

It’s important to understand in this conversation around natural 

gas—and natural gas is a rich, abundant resource. And it is the 

fuel—it is affordable fuel. It is. The price and availability of that 

fuel is indisputable. 

The reality though is that if you have a coal plant and it is a 

coal plant that meets current EPA standards, that coal plant is 

very competitive with natural gas. Because coal on an MMBTU 

basis is still a cheaper fuel than natural gas. 

The difference is the capital cost associated with building a new 

coal plant with all the environmental requirements versus the cost 

of building a new gas plant. 

So the coal plants that Appalachian Power Company has transferred to serve its customers in West Virginia—or have been transferred because we believe that—to your question—that those plants 

are both reliable and they are affordable and the best option for 

our customers. 

To that end, last year the polar vortex, which received a lot of 

attention—at Appalachian Power Company, we set an all-time 

peak. But what is not known for most people is this winter it did 

not get the attention of the polar vortex, but we broke last year’s 

record. This February was actually colder than last year. Both last 

year and this year, every plant that Appalachian Power Company 

has—every coal plant was running—was up and operating. 

The Glen Lyn plant, which will not be here next year. The 

Kanawha River plant, which will not be here next year. The Sporn 

plant, which will not be here next year. Cameron, which will not 
106 

be here next year. All of these plants were running. I’m sorry. Not 

Cameron. But all of the APCO plants were running this year, and 

they will not be available next year or in the near future until we 

can build additional capacity. 

The PJM, which is the governing body, tells us that they’re at 

sufficient capacity. If there is sufficient capacity, why would we 

have to run every one of our units whenever we get into these peak 

conditions? 

Senator CAPITO. I think that’s a real concern certainly where the 

replacement for this power generation could possibly come from. 

Just as a side comment, in your statement you talk about the 

cost of—well, you talked about it a little bit here—building a new 

coal-fired power plant, building a new natural gas plant. Well, it’s 

not like these things can occur overnight either. What’s the length 

of time—let’s say you were going to—decided to build a natural gas 

plant in the Wheeling area. How long would that take—just real 

quick—expensive-wise and—a 10-year project? 

Mr. PATTON. No. Once you get permits, I would say you could 

build one in probably—it’s probably about a 3-year process. 

Senator CAPITO. Once you get permits? 

Mr. PATTON. Once you get permits. 

Senator CAPITO. What’s the time for the permit? 

Mr. PATTON. Well, when I say 3 years—3 to 4 years, you can get 

permitted and build a natural gas plant. 

Senator CAPITO. What is the approximate cost of something like 

that? 

Mr. PATTON. A natural gas plant—to give you a common benchmark, a thousand megawatt gas plant would be about $1.3 billion. 

Senator CAPITO. Mr. Trisko, let’s talk about the EPA’s legal authority that sort of came through everybody’s testimony. You know 

that there’s four building blocks. And for those of you in the audience, that’s what the Clean Power Plan is based on, EPA’s four 

building blocks. But building block one seems to fit within the 

EPA’s traditional authority to regulate emissions at the source. 

But is there any legal basis for EPA to regulate natural gas dispatch requirements? 

What that means is, in this Clean Power Plan, they’re saying— 

the way I understand it, the natural gas plant has to dispatch at 

70 percent. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. TRISKO. That’s what the rule proposes. 

Senator CAPITO. And presently they’re dispatching at, what, 51 

percent or something like that? 

Mr. TRISKO. Yes. 

Senator CAPITO. So do you think there is legal basis for the dispatch for the Renewable Portfolio Standard, or to order reductions 

in energy demand on customers? 

Mr. TRISKO. Senator, those are all very good questions. Let me 

start at the top. Building block No. 1, the 6 percent efficiency improvement for coal plants. Even the author of the study that EPA 

relied upon for that 6 percent efficiency improvement has disclaimed the study for purposes of EPA’s application of the study 

findings to this rule. Six percent has been roundly denounced in 

the comments EPA has received as being unachievable. The figures 
107 

I hear most commonly are in the order of 1 to 2 percent. It’s realistic estimates. 

Now, that would be an inside-the-fence reduction. That is what 

the UMWA urged EPA in a number of meetings that we held with 

the agency prior to the proposal of the rule. We said figure out 

what you can get from existing plants inside the fence. Send the 

engineers in, boots on the ground. Consistent with what EPA is required in its new source, Backed Guidance, by the way. And that 

went through an EPA stakeholder process for over a year. The 

agency chose to go far beyond the inside-the-fence approach. 

Now, it starts with the natural gas dispatch requirement. To the 

extent that a coal-based facility has an existing gas combined cycle 

facility located within its fence line, then I would say arguably EPA 

has authority under Section 111(d). 

But to the extent that another utility in another part of the State 

happens to have an existing natural gas combined cycle unit, then 

I don’t see 111(d) as providing the authority for EPA to require 

that redispatch requirement. 

Now, Senator, a key phrase in Section 111(d) is a standard of 

performance. Now, this is classic throughout the Clean Air Act, a 

standard of performance. I am at a loss to find within the penumbras of previous EPA regulation regarding existing source performance standards or new source performance standards requirements 

related to increased residential energy efficiency. 

I am at a loss to find authority linking 111(d) to renewable energy standard requirements. There’s good reason for that. Because 

under our Federal system, Congress has seen fit to allow the States 

to determine based upon their own individual social, economic, political characteristics the extent to which they would pursue energy 

efficiency programs or renewable energy standards. 

As noted, West Virginia had its own renewable energy standard 

on the books for a period of time and just recently chose to repeal 

that standard. Other States similarly have moved in the direction 

of revising their renewable energy standards. Quite a number of 

States have chosen not to adopt them. This is an effort by U.S. 

EPA, in effect, to require those States that have chosen for their 

own reason not to pursue renewable energy standards to impose 

them under the rubric of Section 111(d). 

I don’t find the statutory authority for it. And I’m hopeful that 

the D.C. Circuit will likewise be doubtful of it, and ultimately the 

Supreme Court will affirm. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Mr. Farmer, thank you for coming. Thank you for investing in 

West Virginia as a West Virginian. I think one of the most frustrating things for me is just the seeming inability for the EPA to 

actually look at what the economic impacts, you know, in regions 

has been. I just think that they have by the fact—as we shared, 

they haven’t come and listened to us. They don’t know about the 

thousands of miners that have already lost their jobs. Certainly, in 

Eastern Kentucky where Hal Rogers represents, they’ve had thousands of jobs lost there. And in Southern West Virginia, again, 

thousands of jobs. 

Could you just—and you alluded to this in your statement. But 

I really would like to get on the record what your employees—how 
108 

do they feel about knowing that they’re on pins and needles as to 

whether they’re going to have a job when they know that policies 

emanating from the President and the executive branch are really 

not listening to them, not seeming to even care, about what a particular region of this Country and how devastating policies that— 

as you said, tight timelines, unachievable deadlines. I mean, this 

has got to be a daily conversation in your building—buildings. 

Mr. FARMER. Senator, I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

again. I again apologize for being late. 30 minutes before I was 

here, I looked like a coal miner. When Hampton called me, I had 

to rush and get a shower. 

Our guys—we have a great, and have had a great work force 

here in Southern West Virginia that’s provided energy and timber 

for our war efforts. I think that one common thread that runs 

through the conversation from the aggregate companies to the 

pipelining companies to transmission distribution and power generation, people are worried about the world situation here in this 

little part of Southern West Virginia. How would we prepare ourselves for a war to generate power and make steel, very energy 

consumptive, extractive base industries? We’re the people that pick 

this stuff up. We’re the people that get this off—materials on the 

cranes to pick these things up, to tie them down, to move them 

across our roads. 

Our workers, Senator, are extremely worried of my ability to continue to provide jobs here in West Virginia which continue to 

shrink and contract. I don’t think the world knows that much 

about our area down here and how rough it is. It’s not—80 percent 

of the land south of Charleston is owned by large land-holding companies and coal companies and trusts. Eighty percent of the land 

north of Charleston is more held by private people. 

There’s no opportunity for my workers to turn and go across 

town and get a job for $13, $14 an hour. Our average salaries are 

$20, $25 an hour. Our bosses with no education make $65,000, 

$70,000 a year. These jobs are not here. The regulations that we 

see—we’re intimately associated with the power generation, transmission, distribution business. 

If I recall right, Mr. Patton, when you-all built the 765 KV line 

from Oceana to Jackson’s Farm, Virginia—from the time of conception to the time of first caisson was drilled, it was like 10 years. 

I don’t know if that’s a fact or not. 

Mr. PATTON. More like 14. 

Mr. FARMER. Fourteen years from time of conception through the 

public comment period to constructing the first yard of gravel. By 

the way, that was our first large rigging job for my company. It 

gave me two more employees. And we thank you. But now, not only 

them, but we’re worried about our gas line, which is what we’re focused on this year. 

We don’t think that the regulations and—the permitting and the 

regulations that are going to be forced upon them through the EPA 

are going to allow us to continue—possibly not even be working 

here in 5 years. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. Congressman Jenkins. 

Representative JENKINS. Thank you, Senator. 
109 

A couple of questions. First, Dr. Richardson, good morning and 

welcome. From your comments, I think I heard you say—and I just 

want to make sure. You think what the EPA has proposed is quote, 

not bold enough? 

You think the EPA should actually be going further on their carbon and their greenhouse gas emission standards? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. That’s right. Thanks for the question. 

If you look at the science of climate change and you look at the 

magnitude of the problem, it really is urgent to bring down our carbon emissions more so than what the proposed regulation would accomplish. 

The analysis that we did at UCS shows that in terms of the renewables building block, that the agency actually underestimated 

the potential nationally for renewables to play a part in what they 

proposed. 

Representative JENKINS. The progressive budget has for the last 

several years contained a provision for a carbon tax. And in the 

language in the progressive budget, it specifically says through the 

imposition of a carbon tax, it will have the ability to impact the 

weather and address significant storm potential. 

Do you agree, one, with the belief that a carbon tax is a good 

mechanism by which to influence change, vis-a-vis electric power 

generation through the use of coal? 

Do you support a carbon tax? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I would say that in general UCS’s agnostic 

about the particular policy mechanism. But I think that we would 

absolutely agree that a price on carbon is essential. 

I think that one of the most frustrating things for me is to hear 

people talk about how cheap coal is. Because if you look at the 

externalities from the extraction of coal, the transportation of coal, 

the burning of coal, the pollution that it releases when it’s burned, 

the ash that’s left over after it’s burned—it has a huge impact on 

not only on the environment, but public health. And if you were to 

add up all of those extra costs that are not included in the price 

that you pay for your electricity, it would double or triple the price 

of coal-fired electricity. 

So I think that the point of having a price on carbon would absolutely send a signal that, look, it shouldn’t be free to dump this 

substance into the atmosphere. 

Representative JENKINS. You raised during your comments, 

Williamson, West Virginia and held it out as a community leader 

in addressing health issues. Just in the last couple of weeks 

Williamson Hospital announced that they are going to stop delivering babies. No OB services in Williamson, West Virginia. 

How do you look at a resident in Mingo County and an expectant 

mother who historically has gone to the local hospital, readily accessible, and faces now the impact of not being able to have a baby 

delivered in their own home community? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think that if you—again, I’m from the northern part of West Virginia. I think that if you look at Southern West 

Virginia as a whole, there’s a whole series of issues that come into 

play when we talk about the economy. 
110 

The subject of this hearing is just one of those things. Absolutely, 

there is an issue with the availability of health services. And 

healthcare in Southern West Virginia is a huge problem. 

Representative JENKINS. As you tried to hold out Williamson as 

a leader in healthcare, transition or transformation, I’m just trying 

to provide a little reality check that this is a community and a people that are really struggling. 

Mr. Van Nostrand, again, welcome to you. 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Thank you. 

Representative JENKINS. You mentioned in your comments twice 

bipartisan in comparing Kentucky to West Virginia. I think you did 

it in a context of promoting—look what they’re doing in Kentucky, 

bipartisan, bipartisan, twice. 

We’ve got a Democratic Governor in West Virginia. And overwhelmingly within the West Virginia legislature, led by Republicans. Both Republicans and Democrats led the charge, again, 

signed by a Democratic Governor for the repeal of the renewable 

energy portfolio. Wouldn’t you acknowledge that the issues relating 

to our advocacy has been a bipartisan effort in West Virginia? 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Well, certainly we have a split in parties 

and control in West Virginia. I think the point I was making about 

Kentucky was the bipartisan effort to start the conversations, to 

have the issue. You look at the shaping our Appalachian region 

process—it’s going to be another conference in a couple months 

from now—and you’ve got this—a Democratic Governor and Republican Congressman who are starting those conversations in Kentucky and talking about the future. 

I think it’s been effective. I think they’re much further down the 

road of a future. And they don’t have the benefit of Marcellus 

shale. They don’t have the benefit of a great energy resource. We 

should be a better energy State than Kentucky. 

So, yes, I understand—I acknowledge that we have a Democratic 

Governor and legislative control by the House. But we have—I was 

talking about the Federal and State level. Just the fact that you 

can have two U.S. Senators battling for that position, Mitch 

McConnell and Alison Grimes. But the—while that’s going on—in 

a Senate race, you’ve got this action going on between a Democratic 

Governor and Republican Congressman to start those conversations. 

That’s my point. We really need to start those conversations in 

West Virginia. 

Representative JENKINS. Are you thinking those conversations 

are not already being had about the future of West Virginia? 

As a former member of the legislature, we talked about 

Marcellus shale. West Virginia was a leader in establishing legislative policies relating to how we’re going to, in an appropriate way, 

seize that energy opportunity. We are talking about the south and 

issues relating to the future of Southern West Virginia. So when 

you say I think West Virginia should start—I think you’re not giving credit for the kinds of efforts and discussions that are already 

being had. 

Let me ask you—you also pointed a finger at West Virginia relating to the suit against the EPA. You and I are both attorneys by 
111 

education. Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to. Is 

Kentucky one of the States that is suing the EPA? 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Yes, they are. 

Representative JENKINS. I thought they were. 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. I don’t deny that’s going on at one level. The 

question is, while you have these positions being taken at one level, 

is there hard work going on behind the scenes to figure out how 

we’re going to make this work for our State? 

That’s happening. 

Representative JENKINS. Chairman Rogers, the chair of the committee I serve on, appropriations, is passionate, passionate, and 

you give him credit for SOAR. I too give him credit. But he is as 

articulate and as passionate and as bulldogish as they come in 

fighting the EPA in standing up for coal. 

You can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can talk 

about the future, but you can also be a passionate advocate for 

coal. 

So I’m having a difficult time when you compare Kentucky and 

West Virginia. Kentucky is suing the EPA. Kentucky is representative and Congress is fighting the EPA. Kentucky and West Virginia 

in a bipartisan effort are standing up for coal. 

So while you can point to a program or project, I think you can— 

a fair analysis, you can find that West Virginia too is looking to 

the future. 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. I guess I would still go back to Governor 

Beshear a few years ago talking about an all-of-the-above energy 

strategy which really looked at, not just coal, but also taking advantage of that State’s renewable resources—that State’s energy efficiency resources, that kind of leadership going on. And we have 

not had—I mean, the steps our legislature is taking in the last couple of years—the last year, we’re moving in an entirely different direction. 

Representative JENKINS. In a bipartisan effort? 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Not this year. We have a Democratic—— 

Representative JENKINS. Do you know what the vote in the 

House and Senate—— 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. I testified on the—— 

Representative JENKINS. Was that not bipartisan? 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Yes, it was. 

Representative JENKINS. Did the Governor sign the repeal of the 

Renewable Portfolio Standard? 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Yes, he did. 

Representative JENKINS. Is he a Democrat? 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Yes, he did. He also signed the bill to wind 

down that metering. 

Representative JENKINS. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Mr. Trisko, quickly, on the MATS Rule that is 

the rule that was put into effect in 2008—is that—— 

Mr. TRISKO. 2011, Senator. 

Senator CAPITO. 2011. Excuse me. 

How has the implementation of the MATS Rule impacted the 

UMW? 

And do you expect similar impacts from this Clean Power Plan 

to affect the United Miner Workers and their work force? 
112 

Mr. TRISKO. Thank you, Senator. 

When the MATS Rule was initially proposed, the UMWA estimated potential plant closures amounting to 56,000 megawatts of 

capacity. Largely, the smaller and older generating plants, such as 

Kanawha River, Sporn, they would not be able to afford the capital 

expenditures for the investment and compliance with MATS. At the 

time, EPA indicated that their estimate of retirements due to the 

MATS Rule was 4.7 gigawatts. So we were pretty much in order 

a magnitude apart in our estimates. 

A number of years went by. Other studies were done by Wall 

Street, by other consulting firms. And the consensus estimate of 

closures as a result of the MATS Rule—and this will continue 

through about the year 2017. There are 1- and 2-year extensions 

available under that rule—are on the order of 50 gigawatts of capacity. 

You will have another 20 or so gigawatts that will retire for any 

reason—a number of reasons; lower natural gas prices, reduced industrial demands, so on and so forth. Those two numbers, 50 

gigawatts for MATS and another 20 make up the 70-plus gigawatts 

that EPA indicates will retire apart from the Clean Power Plan. 

Now, Senator, if I might, there’s been a missing element within 

this discussion as it relates to reliability and the impact on coal. 

We are not appropriately considering at this point the potential impacts of EPA’s revision of the 8-hour ozone standard. The comment 

period on that rule closed last week. EPA has proposed a range of 

65 to 70 ppb. The current stand is 75 ppb. They’re also put forward 

an alternative standard of 60 ppb. 

EPA’s regulatory impact analysis indicates that at the 65 ppb 

proposed standard, 51 gigawatts of coal capacity—which are identified in the docket in this rulemaking—are subject in EPA’s view to 

potential retrofit of selective catalytic reduction technology, SCR. 

It’s like the catalytic converter on your car, except it’s the size of 

a house and it costs a couple hundred million dollars. 

EPA likewise has identified that many of these units subject to 

SCR requirements are older and smaller units. We believe it more 

likely that those plants would retire rather than invest in SCR capacity. So, in effect, we are looking at yet another 50 gigawatts or 

50,000 megawatts of potential capacity shutdowns between now 

and roughly the year of 2023. So that would bring the total—taking 

it from 122 gigawatt reduction from EPA’s regulatory impact analysis, it would take it above 150, in the direction of 170 gigawatts. 

Our total coal fleet is just over 300 gigawatts. 

Frankly, Senator, I do not know how this Country keeps the light 

on with the loss of 150 or more gigawatts of coal capacity. That 

represents more than 20 percent of our total electric generation 

when you consider the generating capacity of those facilities. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I wanted to talk a little bit about 

the letter that Senator McConnell wrote. I think, Professor, you 

might have talked about it. My reading of the letter basically says 

every State has to have a State implementation plan. I asked Administrator McCabe if the States do not have a State implementation plan, what happens. And she said the EPA will make the implementation plan. Which sent sort of the wrong kind of chills 

down my spine. 
113 

But in any event, I think McConnell’s point is, if you’re going to 

impose certain standards on every State and the State has to come 

up with the State implementation plan, the State makes the difficult decision—the State says we’re going to close this many power 

plants, your work force is going to be cut, you know, and the difficult, hard—at the community level, employment level, price and 

cost of electricity level are made at the State. 

I think what McConnell is saying is if the EPA wants to go in 

this direction and they’re federally allowed to do it, then they’re the 

ones that are going to have to be the ones that make the tough decisions. The EPA is going to be the ones that’s going to tell West 

Virginia how we’re going to meet a standard that we basically don’t 

think we’re going to meet. 

Which leads me to a whole other issue, which is the regional 

issue. You mentioned it, I think, in your statement. The plan allows for you to be able to go to different regions so that you could 

maybe capture certain statistically reductions from your regions. 

We’ve been discussing our region. We’re 95 percent reliable on coal. 

We export our coal. We export our electricity. Who is going to want 

us in their region? 

I mean, our numbers are not going to improve anybody’s numbers. So we’re going to be in an island here. I’ll quote Mr. Richardson when he says, It must be recognized that job impacts will be 

unevenly disbursed. Some regions and States will be winners—I 

appreciate your frankness here—and others will experience economic consequences with a shift away from coal. 

I understand basically there’s winners and there’s losers. And we 

are in a really difficult position here in our State. 

So I think that’s why McConnell—and if you would like to respond to the McConnell letter, Professor, I want to give you that 

opportunity since I brought it up and that was part of your statement. 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. I understand the position the Senator is taking. My point is, I think—those are tough decisions. But I think the 

States know better. I think our goal—we had our conference back 

in February a year ago. Our goal is—what flexibility is EPA going 

to provide us? 

Because our goal is to try to figure out how to comply with this 

rule in the manner that has the least disruption on the economy. 

What is our lowest cost compliance path? 

And I think the States know that better than EPA. So I think 

the States ought to try to work with the EPA, first, to shape this 

rule. 

In response to what Mr. Trisko said, this is a proposed rule. The 

final rule is going to come out in December. It could look entirely 

different in terms of—and there’s nothing that’s required by these 

building blocks. The building blocks were used to come to the best 

emission reduction number, the 20 percent number for West Virginia. There’s no requirement. The building blocks were a tool used 

by EPA. 

The final rule is going to come out this summer. I think the 

States—because we’re in a better position to know what’s going to 

work, we ought to be taking advantage and try to work with EPA 

and—because a Federal plan is going—they don’t know the State 
114 

as well. Chances are the compliance costs are going to be higher, 

so our utility rates are going to be higher than they need to be. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. If I could just add. One of the things I was trying to emphasize with my testimony was that it is absolutely critical that we work to diversify our economy here. It just doesn’t 

make sense to have all of our eggs in one basket. 

I can tell you as well as anybody in this room how proud I am 

of my heritage, my family’s heritage mining coal. OK. But it just 

doesn’t make sense to have our entire economy based on one thing 

that is subject to these boom-and-bust cycles. 

Think of it in terms of a risk framework, right? 

So you don’t want to risk things moving forward and changing 

that you don’t have control over, whether it’s who is sitting in the 

White House or whether it’s how much coal China decides to burn. 

They’re working on burning less coal over the next decade. 

So there’s a lot of issues here that we don’t have control over in 

Southern West Virginia. So what I’m trying to say is, why can’t we 

build the solar panels? Why can’t we build the components of the 

wind turbines going up? 

We can do that here in West Virginia. But we have to decide 

we’re going to invest in that and in those different sectors of the 

economy. 

Senator CAPITO. I appreciate that. 

Let’s go to CCS really quickly, carbon capture and sequestration. 

The EPA uses that as sort of a—what do I want to say—blunting 

of the effect of the regulations. Well, if we move forward on CCS— 

and I certainly have been a broad—and will continue to be a big 

supporter of the research and development of the CCS. Because I 

think for all the reasons we’ve talked about, coal still is going to 

have a role. Maybe we’re disputing the largeness of the role. We 

think it still needs to have that good baseline, solid role that represents the fuel that it is. 

The EPA uses the Kemper plant in Mississippi—and you mentioned that in your statements—as the gold standard for CCS. 

Well, I just saw the president of—I think it’s Southern Company 

owns that plant, over $2 billion cost overrun. They still don’t have 

their sequestration protocol in effect. There are some—I think some 

great research is going on in terms of enhanced oil recovery and 

other things to use once you capture the carbon. 

But I know that since I had the Mountaineer plant in Mason 

County for many years, when I represented Mason County, they 

were doing a project on that plant on CCS with—I think it was 

Olstrum and the Department of Energy. They had to pull the plug 

on it. Give us the top two reasons why, please, Mr. Patton. 

Mr. PATTON. Well, it was simply a pilot project. And when we 

looked at scaling it up, the cost of it was just prohibitive at that 

time. As you pointed out, the Kemper station in Mississippi is 

somewhere north of $7,000 a kw. So if you were building a thousand megawatt plant, it would be $7 billion—over $7 billion plant. 

And a new combined cycle gas unit, as I said earlier, is $1.3 billion. 

So the technology—— 

Senator CAPITO. It’s just not economically feasible? 

Mr. PATTON. It’s not economically feasible. 

Senator CAPITO. Not to say it never will be? 
115 

Mr. PATTON. Right. And we should continue to invest in technology to ensure a long and bright future for coal. 

But one thing important to note here is that—we keep talking 

about—you go from coal to renewables to solar to energy efficiency. 

And all of those things are great. I believe that they should be a 

significant part of a utility portfolio. And Appalachian Power Company and AEP is moving—as I pointed out in my testimony, if you 

look at our overall coal consumption, it has dropped. But there’s a 

cost—not only to those technologies, which are more expensive. 

There’s also a cost of abandoning operational facilities that serve 

customers. 

So to willy-nilly just say we’re going to stop using these coal 

plants and we’re going to go and invest in a bunch of windmills 

and solar panels and have our customers pay for the coal plants 

that we abandon, and to pay for the solar and the windmills is just 

not—it’s crazy. It’s not what you’re going to do. 

The other thing is that renewables—again, they’re an important 

part of the portfolio. But the wind doesn’t blow all the time, and 

the sun doesn’t shine all the time. And the bottom line is, you need 

some type of fossil based or nuclear power to support solar and 

wind. You have to have those as backups. 

As we saw during the polar vortex, the wind didn’t quite blow 

the way it was forecasted to. When I was president of the Texas 

company, there were a couple of times we came very close to outages in similar situations. So it’s just important to keep that in 

mind. It’s not a binary decision. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Congressman. 

Representative JENKINS. Mr. Patton, let’s stick with you. Let’s 

try just for a second to—where the rubber meets the road. You’ve 

alluded to it in the last moment of your comments; price and availability. 

No. 1, once you convert a power plant away from coal, do you 

ever convert it back? 

Mr. PATTON. You could under the right economic conditions. But 

you would not today convert it back. Because all you do with a 

plant that you convert is you convert the burners to gas-based 

burners as opposed to burning coal. 

Representative JENKINS. In your decisionmaking process, you’ve 

listed out several coal-fired power plants that are being taken offline, being mothballed. There are plants that are being converted. 

Is a significant—not total. Is a significant contributing factor to 

those business decisions that you were making the policies, the proposals, the actions from a regulatory standpoint from this administration and this EPA? 

Mr. PATTON. Absolutely. The Kanawha River plant runs fine. It’s 

just—it doesn’t meet the EPA requirements. 

Representative JENKINS. Does it meet the EPA requirements as 

of today? 

Or meet the EPA requirements under a set of proposed rules, I 

know in multiple areas, looking forward? 

Mr. PATTON. No. The Kanawha River plant falls in the group of 

plants that Mr. Trisko pointed out. It’s one of those older smaller 
116 

plants, which putting a scrubber on that unit does not make economic sense. It does not meet existing MATS requirements. 

Representative JENKINS. So this is death by a thousand cuts. We 

already have rules and regulations that have been put in place in 

recent years that are causing power plants that are already operational, working fine, just don’t meet—and you are forced as a result to take those offline? 

Mr. PATTON. That is correct. 

Representative JENKINS. With regard to the issue—and you referenced it in your comments earlier. I am very concerned, just as 

the Senator is, about the cost of energy on fixed income—predominantly seniors as a percentage of their household budget. You referenced over the last few years as a result of the new expenditures 

you’ve been required to make or the changes. Share with me, 

again, those numbers in terms of what it—what the price impact 

for a person’s electric bill. 

Mr. PATTON. With the $2.2 billion investment that we made at 

John Amos and Mountaineer plant—we spent approximately $2.2 

billion to comply with the MATS and also with the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rules. 

Representative JENKINS. Let me make sure that I understand. So 

you have regulations that require you to make investments, 2.2 billion. You are a regulated utility. You can’t charge one penny more 

than what the Public Service Commission in West Virginia says 

you can pay. So when you make that $2.2 billion investment, do 

you then go to the PSC and say would you all—here is a rate increase to cover these costs, and the PSC then says, yes, you’re 

going to be granted authority to raise your rates? 

Mr. PATTON. Yes. 

Representative JENKINS. Are the people paying for that $2.2 billion of investment that you’ve already made in their utility bills? 

Mr. PATTON. Yes, they do. 

Representative JENKINS. And those are for the regulations already. Have you estimated to any extent possible if the proposed 

rules would be implemented—and we’ve got testimony here that 

says they don’t think the proposed rules go far enough. 

If these proposed rules as is get implemented, do you have a cost 

estimate that one of my constituents from Southern West Virginia 

would have to pay on an average utility bill? 

Mr. PATTON. The numbers are broad throughout the Nation. 

Here in West Virginia, we would be looking at—just solely based 

on the—on the proposed rules, we would be looking at an additional 25 percent. That’s not—that does not include things like the 

investment in transmission that’s going on right now. 

Representative JENKINS. When you say—are you saying that 25 

percent may be the floor that it could be in—that the actual number when other factors are considered, the percentage increase 

might be more than that? 

I wasn’t sure if I understood your last comment there. 

Mr. PATTON. No. I can’t—in fact, I believe I misspoke. I had to 

think about the number. In fact, it’s not 25 percent. It’s actually— 

I think the forecast for West Virginia is actually 15 percent, is 

what it is for West Virginia. 
117 

Whether or not that is precise or it could be more, I don’t know. 

I can just base it on the calculations based on the current proposal. 

Representative JENKINS. Finally—I heard it from Gina McCarthy. I hear it every time the issues of these rules get discussed. 

These are proposed rules. These are proposed rules. It’s almost 

kind of a remain calm, don’t worry about it. We’re going to have 

to wait to see what the final—I can’t imagine an administrative approach that is so calculating that would say, let’s do something 

really strong, get everybody worked up in a proposed, and then 

we’ll come in and back off and everybody will say, look, we dodged 

a more aggressive bullet. I can’t imagine—shame on this administration if that was their approach. The fact from a—in your world, 

do proposed rules matter? 

Mr. PATTON. Absolutely. Because they drive costs. 

Representative JENKINS. You’re making decisions, are you not, 

literally every day, week and month about the future? 

You don’t plan a week out. Don’t you plan years out? 

Mr. PATTON. Absolutely. Power plants typically have a life of 30 

years. Therefore, you’re making 30-year decisions. When you’ve 

made major capital investments, like scrubbers, you’re typically 

looking at an additional 20 years associated with those types of investments. 

Representative JENKINS. So are you making decisions as a company with an eye toward what is being proposed in this rule? 

Mr. PATTON. Oh, absolutely. 

Representative JENKINS. Looking ahead? 

Mr. PATTON. Absolutely. 

Representative JENKINS. Proposed rules have consequences? 

Mr. PATTON. They have consequences. In that I would suggest to 

you that much of the industry is hamstrung on really what it’s 

going to do with some of its generation right now because there’s 

so much uncertainty around what these rules will ultimately be. 

Representative JENKINS. Senator, if I could ask maybe one more 

to Mr. Trisko. Thank you for your leadership and your effort. 

The comment was made earlier by Mr. Richardson, special considerations for families is needed. Let me—I didn’t delve into kind 

of what he meant by that. I think we kind of—probably can believe 

what he’s suggesting. 

From your perspective, from a representative of the UMWA, 

what sort of, quote, special considerations, do you think are necessary to help the hard-working coal miners of West Virginia get 

through this storm that they’re faced with? 

Mr. TRISKO. Congressman, that’s a wonderful question. The answer is that we need policies that encourage the continued utilization of our Nation’s greatest fossil resource. You know that the coal 

reserves in the United States have greater energy content than all 

of the oil in Saudi Arabia. We do not have policies that enable us 

to continue to utilize that. Rather than an all-of-the-above energy 

strategy, we appear to be headed toward a natural-gas-only strategy. That is an all eggs in one basket gamble. 

When we see the play out of the reduction of capital expenditures 

in drilling that is ongoing within the oil and gas sector, when we 

see the development of LNG export terminals, watch out for the 

price of natural gas and what your consumers will pay. 
118 

As for workers, unfortunately, because our members tend to be 

among the highest wage and highest benefit of workers in the rural 

areas of Appalachia, the loss of one of our jobs is equivalent to the 

loss of more than three jobs elsewhere in the economy. Those jobs 

are not made up in alternative sectors because the alternative sectors do not exist. 

When you look at the impact in, for example, a school district of 

the closure of a power plant which is a major contributor to the tax 

base of the region, and the closure of the associated coal mines, you 

find a cliff. And the cliff is where the school district once had funds 

available to support its students. Those funds through its tax base 

are reduced by half or more. 

I was out in Colorado a few months ago talking to 500 folks in 

a high school gymnasium where they were addressing the prospect 

of a loss of a nearby power plant and coal mine. The president of 

the community college, a gentleman in his 70s, came up. He was 

one of the last to speak. He said ladies and gentlemen, let me tell 

you what it means to this community if we lose the Craig Power 

Plant and the Twenty Mile Coal Mine. I run these numbers every 

day. I live with these numbers. If we don’t have that power plant— 

in fact, if we lose just one unit at that power plant, I cannot guarantee you that our community college will be able to remain in 

business and provide one half of the course offerings and faculty 

that we now have. 

This gentleman recognized clearly that the loss of those contributions to the local tax base, to the community college would not be 

replaced in rural Colorado. And nor will they be replaced in Southern West Virginia. 

Frankly, it’s simply happy talk to suggest that there are solutions at the State or the Federal level. We’ve been at this since the 

great society and the Johnson administration and the Appalachian 

Regional Commission. The funds are not there in sufficient quantity to make up for the kinds of losses that we in the UMWA, the 

IBEW, the boilermakers and others are beginning to experience. I 

apologize for the length of the question, but my blood pressure increased. 

Representative JENKINS. I like it when I touch a nerve. 

Let me see if I can touch one more nerve. The Administration 

and their budget is throwing out a big figure, a billion dollars, to 

invest in impacted communities, West Virginia and other parts of 

the Country because of this agenda. 

I’m still confused a little bit because my curiosity is—this is— 

where are they taking this money from to make that? 

On the one hand, I hear maybe that money is contemplated as 

a result of a tax on coal. Isn’t that incredible? We’re going to tax 

coal more and turn right around and say, isn’t this great, we’re 

going to give money back to communities, but we’re going to try to 

kill coal through higher taxes in the first place. Or they want to 

take it from the abandoned mine fund. 

Do you know under the President’s proposed investment where 

he is suggesting that money come from? 

And do you have an opinion as to whether this is a good investment considering the source of the funding from which it is being 

taken? 
119 

Mr. TRISKO. Congressman, I’m not an expert on the Administration’s budget. There have been proposals to increase severance 

taxes on western coal and transfer those increased severance taxes 

east as a compensation mechanism. I suggest that you confer with 

your colleagues west of the Mississippi River as to their views on 

that proposal. 

But a billion dollars, put that in the context of the numbers cited 

in my testimony, the contribution of West Virginia coal, just the 

West Virginia economy, to your gross State output, it’s about $15 

billion a year. And we’re talking about a billion dollars applied to 

coal generally. It’s a drop in the bucket. 

Representative JENKINS. It’s a billion dollars nationally. 

Mr. TRISKO. It’s really a drop in the bucket. Congressman, our 

investment in research and development technology that would 

allow us to successfully deploy carbon capture and storage technologies is a far better place for those investments. It’s got to be 

a lot more than a billion dollars. 

A few years ago, we were looking at $150 billion in potential 

funds available for commercial CCS applications. Now, that did not 

come to pass for one reason or another. There are a number of bills 

in the Senate and in the House seeking to increase funds available 

for CCS. 

If you want to develop technology that will enable coal to be 

burned cleanly in a carbon-constrained world, CCS or CCUS is the 

way to go. But we must get to the lower cost second and third generation technologies. The first generation technologies that AEP applied at the Mountaineer plant proved themselves to be unduly expensive. And that’s why they couldn’t proceed to commercial deployment. 

We have to have sufficient resources available initially at the 

U.S. Department of Energy. And I’m talking far more than what 

was provided in AARA in order to enable those second and third 

generation technologies to be deployed. 

When we have those technologies, then coal will be able to compete effectively against natural gas on a CO2 basis. That’s the direction that we need to be headed. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. If I could just add a clarification. The proposal 

that you were just mentioning was not an administration proposal. 

That was a Center for American Progress proposal in a report that 

they just released a few minutes ago that talked about fairness 

among Federal coal mine leasing royalties. So that was not an administration thing. 

The thing that you’re thinking of, the billion dollars was, in fact, 

from a proposal to shift some of the money from—its existing 

money from the abandoned mine lands fund that has not been appropriated and actually spend it on communities here. It was a billion dollars over 5 years. It would require Congress to actually 

change how—the formula for how those funds are related. 

I’d like to add one other thing, which is that—it’s going to be difficult to say this. But the truth of the matter is that a lot of the 

coal that—the resources that we have here in West Virginia, here 

in Wyoming, around the world, have to remain in the ground. OK? 

If you—there are recent studies out there that suggest that 92 

percent of our current coal reserves must remain in the ground to 
120 

give us any hope of avoiding the worst consequences of climate 

change. 

And what I’m here to tell you today is that is a clear and present 

danger. Not only to this Country, but to countries around the 

world. We’re going to figure out a way to solve it one way or another. My deepest fear is that we’re not going to solve this problem 

here in Southern West Virginia at the same time. 

I’m not making any—I’m not trying to be Pollyanna about it, 

that this is going to be easy or whatever. It’s going to be very difficult. But we’ve got to figure it out. 

Senator CAPITO. I think, Dr. Richardson, in your statement you 

were very honest about that. I mean, I appreciate that. As you 

said, you have family from West Virginia, good roots in West Virginia. 

But I’m glad that Mr. Trisko talked about some of the other impacts. We’ve talked about job impacts and impacts on the cost of 

your electric bills monthly. But there is another impact. I know we 

have at least one county commissioner—we did earlier—in the 

room. 

There is an impact to every single county budget. It’s schools, 

yes. It’s roads. It’s a whole lot of other things. I can imagine, Mr. 

Farmer, when you pay your local taxes and as your productivity 

goes down, it’s not just the coal mine, it’s all the other businesses 

in and around. So it has a much greater effect to the whole community rather than those directly working in that business. 

Do you have any further questions? 

Representative JENKINS. I don’t. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. I’m going to give the professor here one shot at 

telling me why you think that the direction that the EPA has 

gone—we heard Mr. Trisko’s opinion on the legality, the legal authority. And you did mention in your statement that the preferable 

way is to legislate as opposed to regulate, which is what we’re seeing, or executive opinions. 

Briefly, do you believe that EPA has the legal authority to go as 

far as they’ve gone with the four building blocks to bring forth the 

Clean Power Plan? 

Mr. VAN NOSTRAND. Yes, I do. I share some of the concerns of 

Mr. Trisko in terms of whether or not this particular proposal is 

necessarily lawful because of the language in 111(d) which refers 

to sources. I think you would need to go to actual limits on sources 

from power plants, and you would use the building blocks to determine how much can we reduce the level of emissions on a mass 

basis. And you would use the building blocks to figure out what 

that level is. 

That’s why I do think there is going to be some changes when 

the final rule comes out. Because I think EPA made a lot of comment on the precise issues that Mr. Trisko mentioned going beyond—outside the fence. I think you can still get there by looking 

at the language in 111(d), and the sources, use the building blocks 

to figure out what kind of limits you’re going to put on the power 

plants under 111(d). 

As you mentioned, the 111(b)—my comments also raised some 

concerns, and the Kemper plant is one of them. And I followed Senator Manchin’s proposed legislation over the last couple of years as 
121 

to whether or not the EPA can really preclude one of our energy 

sources through a rule that way and requiring CCS technology 

when it’s really cost prohibitive and not really commercially available. I think that’s—it’s clearly causing disproportionate impacts. 

So it brings me back to the legislative solution which would have 

addressed the impacts around the country, the winners and the losers. I think the legislative solution is much better at doing that. 

I think the EPA to some extent has done that with the best system 

emissions reduction. 

Because we have a 20 percent reduction in West Virginia versus 

30 percent under the rule. But there’s limitations on how much relief they can provide to a region that’s clearly going to be hit much 

harder than others. 

Senator CAPITO. I’m on the legislation with Senator Manchin. 

And by the way, he was extended an invitation to attend today. I 

know some folks from his office were here. He was unable to be 

here. So I want to make sure you all know that he’s as concerned 

about being here today as we would like to have had him. 

I would say—in conclusion, I want to thank you all—we will keep 

the record open in case we have additional questions that we may 

submit to you in writing. I think we’ve had a really good discussion 

in a place where we should be having it, in Raleigh County, Southern West Virginia. 

All the impacts that Mr. Farmer, I think, talked about very— 

from his heart, very locally. The bigger impacts as you look at it 

more regionally, and then some of the global questions too. 

I would like to take the opportunity to say that we are the representatives. You know, this is going to say hokey corny, but we 

are the representatives of West Virginians. We are West Virginia’s 

voice. And by hearing what you’ve said to us today—if you disagree 

with the direction that we might be going, we have that prerogative as your voice to say the direction that we think you want us 

to go. 

So that is—in Washington, we’ve had a lot of gridlock. We’ve had 

a lot of pushes and pulls. We’ve got to get the train back on the 

track. I think we’re trying. We’re doing better. I’m more of a veteran than Evan is in terms of legislative service in Washington. I 

do think we are trying to work in more bipartisan ways on certain 

areas where we have common ground. 

My pledge to you is to continue to do that. At the same time, I’m 

going to be the strong and powerful voice that I wish to be in the 

U.S. Senate to reflect Mr. Farmer and his business, and all of our 

West Virginia constituents that we see every day. And that we care 

about your relatives, Dr. Richardson. You know it’s a great place. 

So we’ll end on this note. Beat the heck out of Kentucky on 

Thursday. We can all agree on that. Thank you very much. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337