U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

62–589 2010

THE ROLE OF COAL IN A NEW ENERGY AGE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 14, 2010 

Serial No. 111–16 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

MICHAEL GOO, Staff Director 

SARAH BUTLER and ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

BART FORSYTH, Minority Staff Director 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 7 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, prepared statement ............................................................................. 7 

Hon. Shelley Capito, a Representative in Congress from the State of West 

Virginia, opening statement ................................................................................ 8 

Hon. John T. Salazar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 10 

Hon. John Shadegg, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 12 

Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from the state of Oklahoma 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 14 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Gregory Boyce, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Peabody Energy ... 16 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 19 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 119 

Mr. Steven F. Leer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Arch Coal, Inc. ..... 53 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 55 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 123 

Michael Carey, President, Ohio Coal Association ................................................. 65 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 67 

Preston Chiaro, Chief Executive for Energy and Minerals, Rio Tinto ................ 93 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 95 

Answers to Submitted Questions, Mr. Jeff Hopkins ..................................... 126 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING ON THE ROLE OF COAL IN A NEW 

ENERGY AGE 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:37 a.m., in room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Cleaver, Salazar, 

Speier, Sensenbrenner, Shadegg, Sullivan, Blackburn, and Capito. 

Staff present: Ana Unruh Cohen, Morgan Gray, and Jonah 

Steinbuck. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning and welcome to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. This morning the Select Committee is meeting to assess the present state of 

the coal industry and to explore how coal can continue to play a 

role in a new energy age. 

Coal was mined in this country before it even was a country. The 

first 13 States appeared on a United States flag after coal mines 

appeared on our maps. Coal has helped power America for nearly 

300 years. And just like millions of other American families over 

the years, the Markeys had a close personal relationship with coal. 

After my grandfather got off the boat from Ireland in 1902, he got 

a job hauling coal for the Locke Coal Company in Malden, Massachusetts for the next 30 years. And when I was a boy I spent many 

cold winter mornings shoveling coal into our furnace at home. 

Much has changed since those days. We are entering a new energy age, an age in which technology is making it possible to harness energy from the wind, the sun, the atom, shale gases and efficiency measures. Today many Americans are asking if coal is safe 

enough, if coal is healthy enough, and if coal is innovative enough 

to be part of our shared clean energy future. 

Nine days ago in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, 

29 miners lost their lives. The incident reminds us that mining coal 

is a dangerous job performed by courageous people. We owe it to 

the fallen miners and their families to take a harder look at the 

entire structure of mining safety, and today our prayers go out to 

the families of those who lost their lives and to all coal miners. 

The public is also concerned about how safe the mining and 

burning of coal is for our environment and for our health. From the 

effects of mountaintop removal to air pollution that causes asthma 

and other health effects to mercury levels that spike near coal fired 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
2 

power plants and catastrophic releases of fly ash, coal faces a myriad of environmental challenges. 

And finally, the burning of coal also releases carbon dioxide, 

which traps heat and is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. 

Climate change is a serious problem, and yet some in the coal industry deny that the problem of global warming even exists and 

have contributed to organizations that spread doubts about science 

and policy. That has led many to believe the industry is not committed to finding a solution to our pollution problems. 

Meanwhile, the challenges from coal’s competition are growing. 

Last year coal’s share of America’s electricity generation dropped 

from 49 percent to 44 percent due to increased competition and decreased demand. In 2009, 40 percent of all new electricity capacity 

built was from wind, roughly the same as natural gas. Meanwhile 

no new coal plants broke ground. 

While the rest of the energy world is already moving to a lower 

carbon future, people wonder whether the coal industry is stuck in 

another time. 

When Henry Waxman and I were crafting the Waxman-Markey 

bill that passed the House last June, we worked with several members from coal States to better understand the challenges faced by 

the coal industry and how to respond to those challenges. That is 

why we dedicated $60 billion in assistance to the coal industry to 

help design and build the carbon capture and sequestration plants 

the industry so desperately needs. And so the question on the future of the coal industry is whether the coal industry and coal 

burning utilities will embrace innovation, or stand pat and fight 

change. We have seen this before. The American automotive manufacturers successfully resisted new fuel economy standards, claiming that the technology to turn gas guzzlers into fuel sippers was 

neither available, affordable, nor preferable. And eventually the 

folly of their strategy of delay became clear. Consumers abandoned 

their products and two of the three major American automotive 

companies received a U.S. Government bailout in order to survive. 

Today, with the future of the coal industry in your hands, I challenge you to join us in charting a new path forward to prevent a 

perilous outcome for your industry and for the planet, and I ask 

that you cease efforts to deny the science, the global warming, and 

to stop spending millions of dollars in misleading the public as to 

the true science behind climate change. I ask that you embrace the 

provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill that light the way for your 

industry in the years ahead and that provide your industry with 

the billions of dollars of financial assistance to help transition to 

a low carbon economy. 

I believe that there is a successful future ahead for the coal industry centered on safer and cleaner practices for your fuel, for 

your workers, and for the Earth. I look forward to your testimony, 

and I thank you for coming. 

Let me now turn and recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for an 

opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
3 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 62589A.001
4 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 62589A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Like 

most Americans, I believe that there can and should be a proper 

balance between economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. Everyone wants clean air and clean water and no one 

wants a sky high electric and tax bill. But cap-and-tax programs 

don’t come close to striking this balance. The huge reliance on offset means that emissions will merely shift overseas, and every 

study has shown that cap-and-tax will cause increases in utility 

rates, gas prices, and other economically essential activities. 

One statistic from the National Association of Manufacturers 

demonstrates the greatest danger of cap-and-tax, 3 to 4 million lost 

jobs. This is not the balance the American people are demanding, 

especially when nearly 15 million Americans are unemployed. 

Coal is the most abundant energy resource in the United States 

and it generates nearly half of our country’s electricity. Coal power 

plants built today emit 90 percent fewer pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury than plants built in the seventies. 

Emissions from coal power plants has dropped 40 percent since the 

seventies, despite the fact that coal use has tripled and the United 

States has nearly one-third of the world’s total coal. 

Last week the World Bank approved funding for a new coal fired 

power plant in South Africa. There was heavy criticism from some 

environmentalists about this project, but the World Bank officials 

said that the benefits clearly outweighed the concerns. Faced with 

frequent blackouts and an aging infrastructure, the South African 

Government said that the energy reliability of the plant would lift 

the economy and the standard of living for South Africans. 

The U.S. Treasury Department also noticed that there were no 

near-term viable low carbon energy alternatives for South Africa. 

Coal is the only resource that could possibly keep this Nation’s 

economy on track. Despite this realization the United States abstained from the World Bank vote. 

China is the world’s biggest user of coal, burning nearly three 

times more than the U.S. China is also the world’s largest emitter 

of carbon dioxide, but China is not willing to commit to an international agreement to cut CO2 emissions. 

The administration is trying to sell cap-and-tax on the false 

premise that it will create so-called green jobs. The President is 

correct when he says that his proposal to impose higher energy 

prices on American manufacturers will create jobs, but those jobs 

won’t be green. However, they will be red. As China’s reliance on 

coal continues to grow with the surging economy, cap-and-tax will 

kill United States manufacturing and ship even more of our precious jobs to China. 

It is neither advantageous nor possible to abandon coal, but that 

is precisely what cap-and-tax proposes to do. The policy is proof 

that President Obama intends to make good on his campaign promise when he said, ‘‘If someone wants to build a coal-fired power 

plant they can, it is just going to bankrupt them because they are 

going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that 

is being emitted.’’ 

At least for the foreseeable future the world cannot meet its energy demands without coal, but the new technology can help lessen 

the environmental impacts of coal use. Researchers continue to adVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:27 Dec 11, 2010 Jkt 062589 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A589.XXX A589

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
6 

vance carbon capture and storage technology, which holds the potential to drastically cut CO2 emissions from coal use. The test 

project at the We Energies power plant in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, last year successfully captured 90 percent of carbon dioxide 

emissions. As we speak, groundbreaking will begin on another test 

project in Bucks, Alabama. The 25 megawatt Barry power plant is 

expected to capture between 100,000 and 150,000 metric tons of 

carbon dioxide per year. The CO2 will be transported by pipeline 

to a site about 10 miles away where it will be injected for permanent underground storage in a deep saline geologic formation. This 

project will attempt to demonstrate start to finish carbon capture 

and storage and is one of the most important test projects underway that will advance development of this critical technology. 

While carbon capture is part of the energy balance that Americans demand, so are proven technologies like nuclear power and renewable technologies like wind and solar. Americans want a 

healthy mix of energy technologies that keep the environment 

clean and the economy humming, and that is why Republicans 

have always supported an all of the above approach to energy. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses today, and I look forward 

to the testimony of Ohio Coal Association President, Mike Carey, 

who will tell us more about the importance of coal in his State and 

for our country and about President Obama’s war against coal. 

I have to apologize for leaving this hearing, but the Constitution 

Subcommittee, which I am also the ranking member of, starts at 

10 o’clock. So I will read the testimony and I will help defend the 

Constitution in the meanwhile. So thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I really appreciate the leadership being 

here in this industry. I just want to note three headlines that are 

in the papers in the last week. One 2 days ago a glacier collapsed 

in Peru, crashed into a lake, caused a tsunami, destroyed 20 

homes, and injured 50 people. A third of the glaciers in Peru in the 

Andes have now disappeared because of climate change. 

Second headline, two more glaciers disappeared in Glacier National Park. Glacier National Park will be glacier free within a century if climate change continues unabated. 

Third headline, 29 miners lost their lives in the Upper Big 

Branch Mine in West Virginia. And I think those three stories have 

something in common, which are the cost of coal without sequestering carbon dioxide. 

I appreciate these leaders being here because I want to note another person in the coal industry, Mr. Don Blankenship, who I understood said something to the effect that safety regulators intent 

to think they are going to protect the safety of miners is ‘‘as silly 

as global warming.’’ A lot of people have lampooned that statement, 

but it is actually very true. Mining safety is as silly as global 

warming; they are both deadly serious and they are not silly at all. 

And we have some leaders here if you decide to join with us to try 

to find a way to have a policy that will allow coal to be burned in 

a way that does not put massive amounts of CO2, does not treat 

the atmosphere as a garbage dump, it in fact buries it underground 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
7 

if you will support those efforts. If you will take this lifeline that 

we have now sent the industry in this bill by sending you billions 

of dollars to support that research and development, coal can have 

a future. If you don’t, it won’t. And we are hopeful that we can 

have a discussion today about the way you can help us find a way 

to see if there is a way to sequester CO2 safely. If not, we are going 

to go the way these glaciers are and we are going to see more of 

those headlines. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join with 

others who are extending our sympathies and our thoughts to the 

families that have been affected by the mining disaster in West 

Virginia. I know my colleague and others are very concerned and 

are closely working with those affected families. 

I also want to thank you for the hearing that we have today and 

thank the witnesses for being here to testify about the future of 

coal. We have heard some of the innovative clean coal technologies, 

the carbon sequestration that is there. These are important to 

those of us who support the use of coal and are concerned about 

having the ability to continue to use this natural resource as we 

look at our Nation’s energy supply. We have to realize that domestically produced coal directly employs over 70,000 Americans and 

it does contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to our national 

economy each and every year. With vast coal resources, the U.S. 

has a secure source of energy not subject to foreign embargoes or 

cartel driven pricing. It is enough for the next 200 years. And Mr. 

Markey has already highlighted 300 years of use with this product 

that is right here on American land. 

As a chief source of energy coal power contributes significantly 

to our high standard of living, quality of life, by producing abundant inexpensive heat and power. Certainly those of us in Tennessee are appreciative for the use of coal and realize that we are 

receiving electricity that is generated by TVA; 40 percent of their 

capacity is generated by coal. 

Since the founding of our republic coal has played a critical importance in our economic and our technological processes, and we 

are looking forward to how that is going to continue and move forward. 

We welcome you and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. We thank the gentlelady. The gentleman 

from the State of Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, is recognized. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first of all welcome Gregory Boyce and Steven Leer, both of whom are from the 

State of Missouri. We welcome you to the committee hearing, and 

then I will also associate myself with the comments of the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, in expressing sympathy 

with and concern about the people in West Virginia, Mrs. Capito’s 

district. And while I know that there is a great deal of push on 

what is referred to now as Climategate, that there were those who 

were hiding data. And then when you add to it the unusual winter 

we had even here in Washington, there are those, the climate 

change sceptics who say, you know, this is a big hoax. Although it 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
8 

is counterintuitive, the truth of the matter is that we have more 

snowstorms when it is warmer. And we also, I think, should be 

aware of the fact that the Center for American Progress says that 

in spite of what happened here in Washington and in areas here 

on the East Coast, January was the coldest January we have had 

since records have been kept globally. 

And so I think we do have an issue that we need to deal with, 

and China has 80 percent of its energy supply coming from coal, 

40 percent of the U.S. energy comes from coal. It is going to be 

around for a while, there is no question about it. But just as we 

look at the tragedy in West Virginia, I think there are some exciting things happening in West Virginia as well that I hope others 

can look at, particularly even in my own State the American Electric Power’s Mountaineer coal plant in West Virginia is doing some 

remarkable research in terms of being able to direct the CO2 underground and they hope to have a commercial scale demonstration 

by 2015. It would be interesting and productive and positive I 

think for us to discuss the possibility of whether that is exclusively 

a West Virginia deal that can’t be reproduced elsewhere or whether 

it in fact is something that we can export from West Virginia 

across the country. 

We have some unique problems in the Midwest, but we are a 

heavily coal using area of the country, and I think that if we all 

work together facing the reality that the planet is getting warmer, 

that we do have an increase in the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and we can all work together to do something about it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlemen very much. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from West Virginia, Ms. 

Capito, and again we extend the sympathies of the entire committee to your State. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. 

And as a native born West Virginian I want to thank everybody 

here and really throughout the Nation who have extended their 

deep sympathies to us for this latest tragedy. It is gut wrenching 

and it is really difficult. In a small State we have a great sense of 

community, and so we all feel it. I appreciate everybody extending 

their prayers and good wishes to the families. 

Last week’s mine disaster at Montcoal, at the Upper Big Branch 

Mine, which killed 29 miners, was the worst mine disaster in 40 

years. But just 4 years ago, 12 miners were killed in the Sago Mine 

in my own district. With this investigation going on and further details that are coming forward, we must continue our commitment 

to keep miners safe and safety first. We cannot permit this, and we 

have to prevent this from happening again. 

The Upper Big Branch Mine disaster only furthers people’s questions of coal mining and has led many to discuss the future of coal. 

As we have heard today, coal is a primary source of energy 

throughout the world. Our fast growing countries, and I would be 

interested to hear the gentleman’s testimony on how much they are 

exporting to China and India, rely on coal to fuel their energy demands. But here in the United States coal is our most abundant 

domestic resource with recoverable resources sufficient to last 250 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
9 

years. Coal currently fuels 50 percent of our electricity in this country. 

In my State of West Virginia coal power is 98 percent of our electricity. Nationwide it provides 125,000 direct well paid jobs for the 

U.S. coal miners and supports hundreds of thousands of additional 

jobs throughout the supply chain. 

While considering the future of the coal and the global warming 

debate, the thing we need to consider and we need to remember is 

that climate change and energy policies are inextricably linked 

with economic, environmental, and social issues. Last year the 

House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act; I did 

not support this legislation because I believe it stood to push energy prices upward and threaten an economy that is already in 

trouble. I also was displeased with the way I felt it set up winners 

and losers across this country. A tax increase on carbon dioxide 

emissions will directly come out of consumers’ pockets in the form 

of higher electricity rates. Manufacturing output would also fall 

considerably. Manufacturing firms, who have traditionally relied on 

low and stable electric rates in our States, would be subject to massive cost increases, likely forcing them out of business or at least 

to relocate their operation overseas. We are seeing that now in any 

case. 

Instead, we need to do much more to accelerate the development 

of advanced clean coal technologies and, most importantly, CCS. 

Carbon capture is important to West Virginians in ensuring our 

Nation’s energy independence. Without it we deprive ourselves of 

the important effective tool for addressing CO2 emissions from coal. 

We need to provide sufficient funding and incentives to accelerate 

the development, demonstration, and broad commercial deployment 

of CCS technologies. 

As my colleague from Missouri mentioned, the AEP plant in New 

Haven, West Virginia represents a milestone in our efforts to bring 

CCS on line. That is actually in my district. The facility began operations last fall, captures and stores approximately 100,000 metric 

tons of CO2 per year. It is a first demonstration at an existing coalfired plant. The implementation of this technology will not only 

benefit a State like mine with jobs in technology and revenue, it 

will also benefit our Nation by making clean coal a reality. 

In addition to climate change, coal has been the subject of continued Federal scrutiny for its impact on water quality. Recent action 

by the President’s administration and the EPA to further scrutinize 

mining permits only confirms an anti-coal agenda. The minority 

staff on the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works 

initiated an investigation into EPA’s handling of Clean Water Act 

Section 404 permits for coal mining in Appalachia and found that 

in 2009 EPA froze 235 coal mining 404 permits, claiming that additional time was needed to assess the environmental impacts of 

mining operations. Since the initiation of this investigation, EPA 

issued 45 of the 235 permits. And today there are 190 permits that 

EPA continues to hold for operations, including surface, underground and refuse operations. 

Furthermore, decisions being made by Federal environmental 

regulators are not focused enough on the importance of coal to the 

economy. In my conversations with Lisa Jackson, the head of the 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
10 

EPA, she said that she explicitly omits economic considerations 

from her decision-making process. I find this particularly troubling. 

The EPA’s delays in handling these permits is already jeopardizing 

jobs in Appalachia and is weakening our energy security. 

Even more disturbing, on March 26, EPA announced their intent 

to veto the existing Spruce Mine permit. The decision by the EPA 

to veto the Spruce permit brings into question the reliability of the 

entire permitting process and shows their complete disregard for 

the impacts it will have on our Nation’s economy and on my State 

in particular. And I think it reeks of a lack of a sense of fairness. 

I look forward to hearing the testimonies from the panel. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate your 

having this hearing today. I am pleased to have three of Colorado’s 

largest employers sitting in front of us here today. Arch Coal, Peabody, and Rio Tinto all provide much needed jobs in the Third Congressional District. Thank you very much for what you do for Colorado. 

The State of Colorado is home to 407 mining operations, and provides employment for nearly 45,000 Coloradans. Mining jobs in 

Colorado are high paying jobs, 43 percent higher than the average 

wage in the State. The average annual wage in the mining industry in Colorado was 65,000 in 2007. Total direct earnings from the 

State of Colorado’s mining payroll were $810 million. Clearly this 

is a sizable contribution to our State, particularly now at a time 

when jobs and income are at a premium. 

I think we all know that coal is not the only and final answer 

to energy independence, but we should realize that it must and it 

will play a valuable role in providing energy to our country, as it 

is one of America’s most abundant natural resources. We must continue to invest financial resources in research and development for 

all potential clean energy sectors, such as biofuels, solar, wind, 

algae, and carbon capture and sequestration. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing once 

again and I think it is vitally important that coal remain a source 

of energy, but we must do everything that we can to minimize the 

carbon footprints that many mines and plants may leave behind. 

I refer to one of your comments in your opening statement where 

you mentioned that there was over $60 billion provided for the coal 

industry for clean coal burning technology, I believe. It is my understanding that the bill only secured $41⁄2 billion, but maybe I am 

mistaken. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. Inside the Waxman-Markey bill there is $60 billion actually. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Sixty billion? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, at least $60 billion, to be honest with you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I request unanimous 

consent to insert my opening statement into the record and not 

read it here in full in the interest of time for our hearing. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
11 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The statement of Mr. Shadegg follows:] 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
12 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 62589A.003
13 

Mr. SHADEGG. I do want to thank all of the witnesses for being 

here and for their testimony today to help us answer what I think 

is a critically important question. I particularly want to recognize 

Peabody Energy, which operates in Arizona and produces coal 

there and provides thousands of jobs in Arizona, as well as Rio 

Tinto, which does not mine coal in Arizona but does mine copper 

in Arizona, also contributing to our economy. 

With respect to coal, coal is as I think we all know an important 

natural resource whose production creates many jobs for American 

workers. The United States has the largest natural coal reserves 

in the world, representing 28 percent, I believe, of the global reserves. It is America’s most abundant energy resource. We have approximately 270 billion tons of coal reserves, enough to last well 

over 250 years. 

How we handle this resource is vitally important. If we mishandle it and impose restrictions on it which drive its costs 

through the roof or make it unaffordable, then we will all as a nation pay a price. Any tax that we impose on carbon will be passed 

on to the consumers of the energy that carbon producing fuel produces and will be absorbed by those consumers and do damage to 

the economic viability of the companies who rely upon it. 

Obviously we have a duty to be careful in our conduct and to 

carefully examine the issue. The questions about global warming 

need to be examined carefully and thought through thoroughly. 

David Sokel of Midamerican Energy Holdings testified before the 

Energy Committee earlier this year that he could meet every single 

carbon goal in the Waxman-Markey legislation but that by doing 

it through that legislation we were doubling the cost. It seems to 

me we cannot do that to our Nation at this particularly difficult 

and challenging economic time. We need those jobs and we need 

that energy. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

They don’t work, they just don’t work. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, they don’t. The Budget Committee—— 

Mr. SHADEGG. Can’t afford mikes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Whose hearing room has not properly funded 

their communications system. We thank the gentleman. 

So that completes opening statements from the members. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
14 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 62589A.004
15 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 62589A.005
16 

The CHAIRMAN. And to just take a brief moment here, today is 

the last hearing for our Chief Clerk, Ali Brodsky. She has overseen 

every single hearing of the Select Committee since its inception, 

from the top of Cannon Mountain in New Hampshire to today in 

the Cannon Building. Ali has been our constant. We wish her all 

the best as she leaves to join Teach for America in Chicago. And 

as proof of her dedication to the Select Committee, she is flying 

there tonight and still came here today to oversee and run this last 

hearing. So, Ali, the committee owes you our thanks for your exemplary public service. Thank you so, so much for everything that you 

have done. 

So now we will turn to our witnesses and we thank them for 

being here. Our first witness is Mr. Gregory Boyce. Mr. Boyce is 

the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Peabody Energy. Peabody is the world’s biggest private sector coal company with customers in 23 countries and six continents. Mr. Boyce joined Peabody in 2003 as President and Chief Operating Officer and has extensive United States and international management operating 

and engineering experience. We look forward to your testimony, 

Mr. Boyce. Whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF GREGORY BOYCE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION; STEVEN F. LEER, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, ARCH COAL, INC.; PRESTON CHIARO, CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE FOR ENERGY AND MINERALS, RIO TINTO; AND 

MICHAEL CAREY, PRESIDENT, OHIO COAL ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY BOYCE 

Mr. BOYCE. Well, good morning, Chairman Markey and distinguished members of the committee. On behalf of all of Peabody employees, we also extend our thought and prayers to the fallen miners in West Virginia. 

You have asked me to discuss the role of coal in a new energy 

age, and it is my privilege to speak to a topic of vital importance 

to the American people, the U.S. economy, and the world. 

I am Chairman and CEO of Peabody Energy, the world largest 

private sector coal company, a global leader in clean coal solutions 

and, Mr. Chairman, I also agree that we can provide a safer and 

cleaner path for coal in the future. My testimony will focus on what 

I believe are the three top issues we face as a society, energy, the 

economy, and the environment. We call them the three Es. Coal 

plays an enormous role in solving each. I will take these one at a 

time. 

Energy security coal is a future fuel to provide clean made-inAmerica energy and we have the world’s largest supply running at 

our feet. 

Economic stimulus, greater deployment of clean coal technology 

will reindustrialize the U.S. economy to create jobs and infrastructure. 

And environmental solutions, coal with carbon capture and storage or green coal is a low cost, low carbon energy solution. 

As we contemplate decisions that will affect every American and 

every global citizen, let me start with the macro view. Mr. Chairman, everyone here today is a member of the so-called ‘‘golden bilVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:27 Dec 11, 2010 Jkt 062589 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A589.XXX A589

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
17 

lion.’’ We enjoy a standard of living most only can dream about, 

thanks in large part to affordable energy. The global population 

will grow 25 percent to more than 8 billion people by 2030 and the 

world will need the equivalent power of five more Americas to fuel 

these needs. This growth occurs at a time when more than half the 

world’s population still lacks adequate access to electricity. So we 

have the dual challenge of providing electricity to 3.6 billion people 

who are not properly connected and expanding our infrastructure 

to another 2 billion who will be people added to the grid. 

[Disruption of hearing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We would please ask for—we would please ask 

for the security officials to restore order in the committee hearing 

room. 

We apologize to you for the interruption and we will recognize 

you again, Mr. Boyce, and without any time obviously deducted 

from your oral presentation. 

Mr. BOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, we have 

an issue of 2 billion people added to our energy grid in the future. 

How we satisfy this growth with coal is the primary global generation fuel and is expected to grow faster than any other fuels combined in coming decades. Some while others call coal a bridge to 

the future, I say coal is the future. It powers nearly half of America’s electricity at a fraction of the cost of other fuels and Americans enjoy the best quality of life in the world. 

Let’s move to the economy. We all recognize the jobs is the number 1 priority for the American people. Creative deployment of advanced technologies, including CCS, over the next several decades 

would create tremendous economic stimulus, reindustrializing our 

economic base and putting people to work. A 2009 study with the 

National Coal Council concluded that the deployment of coal with 

CCS would increase U.S. GDP by $2.7 trillion, create 20 million job 

years from new construction, and support 800,000 permanent jobs 

over 40 years. Enhanced oil recovery from CCS would produce additional 2 million barrels of oil per day. So our three E goals are 

complementary and advance through clean coal technologies which 

have a strong record of success. 

U.S. coal use for electricity generation has more than tripled 

since 1970, yet criteria emissions have been reduced by 84 percent. 

Technology can lead us to a lower CO2 world. Here is the path. 

First, build super critical combustion plants with improved efficiencies. 

Second, demonstrate carbon capture and storage. We know the 

technology works. Statoil’s Sleipner project in the North Sea has 

been storing a million tons of CO2 annually for 15 years. 

Third, complete large scale CCS demonstrations. 

Fourth, advance coal-to-gas with CCS so the ultimate cost of capturing and storing CO2 is reduced. 

Next, deploy commercial scale IGCC technology with CCS. 

And finally, retrofit the world’s existing fleet of coal plants with 

CCS technologies. 

A growing number of studies conclude the coal with CCS is the 

low cost, low carbon solution, 15 to 50 percent less expensive than 

others. And around the world nations have committed significant 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
18 

finding for CCS demonstrations, but more funding is needed to 

bring this technology to commercial scale. 

That is a brief view of the essential role of coal and the need for 

continuous improvement in emissions toward shared goal of near 

zero emissions. But I would like to close with a look at carbon legislation. 

There is a growing recognition in Washington for the vital role 

that coal plays in providing energy security and affordable electricity for Americans, and we saw this in elements of the WaxmanMarkey bill. Achieving our three E goals will require smart, 

science-based policy to protect the American consumer, worker and 

family. I say deployable technology should be available before regulation. And we have to take the time to get this right and we have 

to have the national commitment to get it right. 

Now let me emphasize Peabody will support the right kind of legislation which builds on the positives of the Waxman-Markey 

House bill. It is essential for us to provide a legal and regulatory 

structure to enable robust development of CCS that assumes Federal responsibility for long-term CO2 storage, offers timelines for 

emissions reductions that allow for technology development, eliminates conflicting frameworks at the State and Federal level. 

We believe the strong energy bill that advances CCS is best way 

to achieve both our energy and our environmental goals. The goals 

are not accomplished by cap-and-trade programs that will result in 

punishing costs to economies and family budgets. For those who 

say that a cap-and-trade systems can be cost effective, I don’t 

agree. The only reasonable possibility on this front would be a ceiling of say $12 a ton that Senators Bingaman and Specter advanced 

several years ago. But here again the only path to meet CO2 goals 

is true technology. 

I say this after just returning from China, where the Presidents 

of both our nations have committed to a clean energy path that includes low carbon coal. Peabody is the only non-Chinese equity 

partner in GreenGen, a near zero emissions power plant that will 

begin generating power next year. If China can build these type of 

plants, why can we not here in the U.S.? The U.S. could also be 

a provider of technology for the rest of the world. 

So in conclusion, the real question isn’t will we use coal. The U.S. 

uses more coal than any nation on Earth. We have hundreds of billions of tons of coal in the U.S., trillions of tons in the world, we 

will use it all. The real question is what is the proper path to move 

to what the Presidents of both China and the U.S. last year called, 

‘‘21st century coal.’’ That path is technology first, deployment requirements second as we work together to accelerate the movement 

to clean coal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Boyce follows:] 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
19 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 62589A.006
20 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 62589A.007
21 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 62589A.008
22 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 62589A.009
23 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 62589A.010
24 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 62589A.011
25 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 62589A.012
26 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 62589A.013
27 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 62589A.014
28 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 62589A.015
29 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 62589A.016
30 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 62589A.017
31 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 62589A.018
32 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 62589A.019
33 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 62589A.020
34 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 62589A.021
35 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 62589A.022
36 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 62589A.023
37 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 62589A.024
38 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 62589A.025
39 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 62589A.026
40 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 62589A.027
41 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 62589A.028
42 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 62589A.029
43 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 62589A.030
44 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 62589A.031
45 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 62589A.032
46 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 62589A.033
47 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 62589A.034
48 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 62589A.035
49 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 62589A.036
50 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 62589A.037
51 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 62589A.038
52 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 62589A.039
53 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Boyce. 

Our next witness is Mr. Steven Leer. He has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Arch Coal since 1992. Arch 

Coal is the Nation’s second largest coal company. 

We welcome you, Mr. Leer. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN F. LEER 

Mr. LEER. Thank you, Chairman Markey, committee members. I 

appreciate the invitation to offer my views on the role of coal and 

coal technology in meeting the Nation’s clean energy needs and for 

reducing CO2 emissions. But first let me echo our prayers and sympathy for the miners and their families that were lost last week in 

West Virginia. 

This committee has an extremely difficult task addressing an extremely complex subject. With this in mind, I am going to focus on 

four points. 

My first point is that coal is being used and will continue to be 

used around the globe. Coal supplies roughly 23 percent of the U.S. 

energy needs and roughly 27 percent of the global energy requirements. Global coal use since 2000 has increased more than any 

other fuel, and that trend is expected to continue. Coal use is growing because it is abundant, widely distributed, and relatively inexpensive. Coal helps billions of people around the world enjoy a 

higher standard of living than would otherwise be possible. That is 

the good news. 

My second point is the bad new; coal emits more carbon dioxide 

than other major fuel sources per unit of energy, which bring me 

to my third point. 

We believe technology is the answer. Clean coal technology has 

solved earlier environmental problems associated with coal use and 

continues to improve the burning of coal’s emissions. Emissions of 

particulate matter, SO2 and NOX, have gone down as previously 

referenced in several comments. We can be successful in capturing 

and isolating CO2 with carbon capture and storage technologies, or 

CCS. Most elements of CCS have been shown to work in individual 

elements, but not necessarily at scale or all together, and it is not 

inexpensive at the moment. DOE and others have developed technology road maps for solving the technological problems associated 

with CCS and driving down costs. We know where we need to go 

with CCS and we have identified a path to get there, but I am not 

saying we are there yet because we are not. But I am convinced 

that we can get there, first because we have already gotten off to 

a fairly good start, and second because we really have no other 

choice if we are serious about and are going to be successful in stabilizing global CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. 

That is not just my view. In former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s 

assessment of CCS he said, ‘‘The vast majority of new power stations in India and China will be coal fired—not may be coal fired, 

will be—so developing carbon capture and storage technology is not 

optional, it is literally of the essence.’’ 

Remember, China uses three times as much coal as the U.S. and 

the Chinese use of coal is growing at about 200 million tons every 

year. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
54 

The International Energy Agency found that a scenario which 

lacked a CCS option was 97 percent more costly than one which 

included CCS technology. The IAEA has concluded that ‘‘CO2 capture and storage for power generation and industry is the most important single new technology.’’ CCS technology is also a job creator. A report last December by the National Coal Council, a Federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy, concluded that 

CCS deployment through 2050 could produce 28 million job years 

of construction employment and create 800,000 permanent jobs. 

The promise of CCS still has many barriers to overcome. American Electric Power is at the forefront of CCS technology and currently is in the process of scaling up a test facility in West Virginia 

that will store about 1.5 million tons of CO2 per year in deep saline 

formations. Their pilot demonstration plant is built, but we can’t 

say that we have solved all the problems yet, and in reality we 

have over 2 billion tons of power plant CO2 to deal with in the 

U.S., let alone the rest of the world. 

My fourth and final point covers the action that we need to take 

in order for CCS to be commercially available and affordable in a 

timely manner. One, we need to sharply expand the number of 

commercial CCS demonstration projects to the 15 to 20 recommended by the NRC. 

Two, we need to follow up with continuing financial support for 

the next 60 gigawatts of generating capacity. 

Three, we need to address the legal framework that poses barriers to CCS technology, like the long-term viability of the stored 

CO2. 

Four, we need to ensure that the policies do no harm or provide 

disincentives to CCS. 

For example, some are proposing that we provide a financial incentive for the deployment of natural gas to displace coal in power 

plants. I believe this would be a mistake on several fronts. While 

natural gas emits 50 percent of the CO2 of coal, it will require CCS 

to achieve the long-term climate goal. A dash to gas will put CCS 

development on hold and the technology will not be available when 

it is needed domestically or globally. Of course the availability of 

sufficient quantities of natural gas to replace coal particularly at 

a reasonable price is another question mark. 

An alternative approach would be to expand current proposals 

for Federal renewable electricity standards to include fossil fuel 

generation with CCS, advanced nuclear power generation, and improved efficiencies at existing power plants. 

In closing, let me reiterate my four points. Coal is and will remain an important part of the U.S. and global energy mix, providing benefits to billions of people. Coal’s issue is CO2; the solution 

is carbon capture and storage technologies. Commercializing CCS 

in the desired time frame will require industry-government collaboration, significant resources, and an appropriate legal framework. 

But it can be done. In fact, it must be done if we are going to stabilize global CO2 concentrations by 2050. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Mr. Leer follows:] 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
55 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 62589A.040
56 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 62589A.041
57 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 62589A.042
58 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 62589A.043
59 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 62589A.044
60 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 62589A.045
61 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 62589A.046
62 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 62589A.047
63 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 62589A.048
64 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 62589A.049
65 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Leer. Our next witness is Mr. 

Mike Carey. Mr. Carey is the President of the Ohio Coal Association. He has a diverse background that includes military service 

and legislative relations in both the energy and natural resource 

industries. 

We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CAREY 

Mr. CAREY. Thank you, Chairman Markey, members of the committee. My name is Mike Carey, President of the Ohio Coal Association, border State to West Virginia, and our prayers are with the 

families there as well. 

I would like to take a moment to thank my fellow witnesses both 

from Arch Coal and Peabody Energy for their continued commitment to the American coal industry. However, I must point out at 

this time that Rio Tinto has been divesting themselves of domestic 

coal reserves for many years. I do not believe they represent the 

future of coal in America. 

Given the high levels of recoverable coal reserves and increasing 

demand for energy, especially in developing nations where low cost 

electricity is essential, coal’s future global success is assured. However, coal mining and use in the United States is severely jeopardized by the war on coal waged through the legislative process and 

the unprecedented regulatory actions. But in the rest of the world 

our competitors are investing in coal to make them more competitive and to steal our jobs. China alone continues to build a new 

power plant about every week. 

I would like to leave you with three main points. First, the 

Obama administration’s regulatory assault on energy production 

and the war on coal in particular is creating a de facto Obama energy tax on all American families. 

Second, the CCS provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill and 

other climate proposals encourage massive fuel switching to more 

expensive natural gas before the CCS technology can be deployed. 

But even then the lack of regulatory legal frameworks will prevent 

commercial deployment of the technology. 

And despite the recent tragedy in West Virginia, the U.S. coal 

mining industry has the best safety record in the world. 

The role of coal in the new energy age is greatly hampered by 

the regulatory assault waged by the Obama administration and in 

particular the Environmental Protection Agency. While President 

Obama may not directly raise taxes, his administration is implementing the Obama energy tax on all American families by administrative fiat. We are in the process of calculating how much this 

will cost the American families in higher energy bills. 

The chart that you see behind me lists a number of the proposals, final, planned regulatory assaults on the coal industry, and 

I will briefly highlight a couple of them. The Ohio Coal Association 

is challenging the endangerment finding in court. We believe that 

the science that is underpinning the endangerment finding is questionable and that the EPA did not include required parts of economic analysis. According to the EPA, they relied substantially on 

the IPCC and the data which is at the heart of the Climategate 

scandal. Only 52 scientists signed the U.N. IPCC fourth assessVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:27 Dec 11, 2010 Jkt 062589 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A589.XXX A589

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
66 

ment report, and it is cited in the endangerment finding an astounding 49 times and 395 in the technical supporting documents. 

Next, we have seen the Clean Water Act used inappropriately in 

many ways to hamper the production and use of coal, such as the 

use of the clean water guidelines on surface mining permits issued 

just last month which would basically put a moratorium on mining 

in Appalachia. The Clean Water Act veto of an existing Army 

Corps of Engineers permit is unprecedented. The Waxman-Markey 

CCS provisions are an attempt to persuade the coal industry to 

support the cap and tax. The bill, according to my numbers, allocates $10 billion towards 

CCS but misses the mark in two regards. The first is timing. The 

legislation requires emission reductions starting in 2012. The restrictive performance standards on coal-fired power plants in 2020, 

ignoring what the developers of the CCS technology have been saying for years, which will take 15 to 20 years before commercial development. The United States Congress simply cannot dictate a 

timeline of technological developments. 

Secondly, the bill calls merely for a study to report back to Congress with recommendations on issues such as CCS liability, permitting and other environmental considerations. CRS and GAO 

have already provided information on liability and permitting problems and the need to address for CCS to work. 

The way the CCS program and the Waxman-Markey bill is structured actually encourage massive fuel switching to more expensive 

natural gas before the CCS technology can actually be deployed. 

But even then, the lack of regulatory legal liability frameworks will 

prevent commercial deployment of the technology. 

In conclusion, domestic coal production needs the support of Congress in this administration. Despite the recent events in West Virginia, the U.S. coal mining industry has the best safety record in 

the world. Mine Safety and Health Administration data showed 

there were 18 coal mining fatalities last year amongst 133,000 coal 

miners, an improvement of up to 63 percent over the numbers 3 

years before. By contrast, the BBC estimates that 13 Chinese coal 

miners die every day in their coal mines. Our safety record is largely due to our combined national and State efforts to encourage innovative and safety practices. The Ohio Coal Association recently 

collaborated with the Ohio legislative process legislature and 

worked to pass a new mine safety bill in our State even though we 

had not had a mine fatality in 5 years. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any of the questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Carey follows:] 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
67 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 62589A.050
68 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 62589A.051
69 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 62589A.052
70 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 62589A.053
71 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 62589A.054
72 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 62589A.055
73 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 62589A.056
74 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 62589A.057
75 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 62589A.058
76 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 62589A.059
77 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 62589A.060
78 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 62589A.061
79 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 62589A.062
80 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 62589A.063
81 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 62589A.064
82 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 62589A.065
83 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 62589A.066
84 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 62589A.067
85 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 62589A.068
86 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 62589A.069
87 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 62589A.070
88 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 62589A.071
89 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 62589A.072
90 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 62589A.073
91 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 62589A.074
92 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 62589A.075
93 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Carey. And our final witness is 

Mr. Preston Chiaro. He is the Chief Executive for Technology and 

Innovation for Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto is the largest diversified mining 

company in the United States and the third largest mining and exploration company in the world. Rio Tinto also holds a 48 percent 

interest in Cloud Peak Energy, which is the third largest coal company in the United States. 

We welcome you, Mr. Chiaro. Whenever you feel comfortable, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF PRESTON CHIARO 

Mr. CHIARO. Chairman Markey, distinguished members, first, 

thank you for inviting me to testify today on the role of coal in a 

new energy age. And like my fellow miners on behalf of the employees of Rio Tinto I wish to extend our thoughts and sympathy 

to the families of the miners who lost their lives in West Virginia 

last week. 

As you said, my name is Preston Chiaro. I am the group executive for technology and innovation for Rio Tinto. Rio is the largest 

diversified mining company in the U.S. and one of the largest diversified mining companies in the world. Our U.S. assets include 

coal holdings in Colorado, copper in Utah, nickel and copper 

projects in Michigan and Arizona, borates in California, talc in 

Montana and Vermont, as well as an aluminum smelter in Kentucky. We have nearly 5,000 U.S. employees all told. 

As you also mentioned we hold a 48-percent interest in Cloud 

Peak Energy, formally known as Rio Tinto Energy America, the 

third largest coal company here in the U.S. We are also one of the 

largest coal producers and exporters in Australia, and we also happen to be a major uranium producer. 

Rio Tinto established its climate change position in 1998. We recognize that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are contributing to global climate change and that action is necessary to reduce those emissions and to adapt to a changing climate. 

As a coal producer, a large energy consumer, and a technology 

developer, Rio Tinto continues to devote resources and funds to the 

development of low emission coal technology, in particular carbon 

capture and storage, or CCS, technology. This technology affords 

coal and eventually natural gas a tremendous opportunity to position itself as a low carbon energy source both in the U.S. and globally. 

In 2007, we launched the hydrogen energy joint venture with 

BPO Alternative Energy. Through the hydrogen energy California 

project in Kern County, California we are developing the first full 

scale, fossil fueled electricity plant to capture and store up to 90 

percent of its emissions upon deployment. Once fully operational in 

2015 the plant will provide low carbon electricity to 150,000 southern California homes while permanently storing 2 million tons of 

CO2 per year in a nearby oil field, creating 1,500 construction jobs 

and 100 permanent operational positions. 

Rio Tinto believes that it is critical for the world to transition 

away from high emitting conventional fossil fuel electricity generation by the middle of this century. We continue to support and advocate the recommendations included in the blueprint for legislaVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:27 Dec 11, 2010 Jkt 062589 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A589.XXX A589

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
94 

tive action, developed last year by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, of which we are a member. We have gone on record in support of their inclusion in H.R. 2454 to address the existing technical, financial, legal and regulatory bottlenecks to the commercialization of carbon capture and storage technology. 

Economic modeling of U.S. Climate Action Partnership’s recommendations indicates that the long run transition costs are 

small when climate policies are market-based and economy-wide, 

when forest and land-based offsets are available to contain costs, 

and when we allocate funding to the development of technology 

such as carbon capture and storage that keep coal in the energy 

mix. In fact, USCAP studied a wide range of economic models and 

they all show that U.S. economic output levels of consumption and 

jobs, things we all care deeply about, are virtually identical to business as usual, even years after a climate policy such as H.R. 2454 

is put in place. For example, compared to business as usual the 

sum total impact to the general economy, household consumption, 

and number of jobs can be viewed as a growth delay of 8 to 9 

months over 20 years and most scenarios show a delay of only a 

couple of months. 

Mr. CHIARO [continuing]. Well-constructed policy provides the 

best means to address the multiple challenges facing our industry. 

We will either participate in the shaping of policy, or we will have 

the policy thrust upon us. Our experience has been that constructive participation in the policy process can yield positive outcomes 

on the issues most important to us. I thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Mr. Chiaro follows:] 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
95 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 here 62589A.076
96 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 here 62589A.077
97 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 here 62589A.078
98 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 here 62589A.079
99 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chiaro, very much. The chair 

will now recognize himself for a round of questions. And this is for 

you, Mr. Chiaro, Mr. Leer, and Mr. Boyce. 

You agree with the statement made by Mr. Don Blankenship of 

Massey Energy that ‘‘global warming is a hoax and a Ponzi 

scheme,’’ as he indicated on his Twitter page on February 19 of 

2010. Mr. Chiaro? 

Mr. CHIARO. As I mentioned, Rio Tinto recognized in 1998 that 

climate change was a serious issue, that human emissions were a 

primary cause of it, and we think action needs to be taken soon to 

address it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Leer. 

Mr. LEER. I don’t agree with Mr. Blankenship. We look at climate change as an evolving issue that’s serious and needs to be addressed. We think how we address it and that technology is the 

most critical piece of that path forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boyce. 

Mr. BOYCE. Do not agree with Mr. Blankenship. Our view is the 

globe’s climate has been changing since the globe was formed. Levels of CO2 have risen in the atmosphere, and we have been a 

strong advocate for technology advances to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, particularly from the use of coal. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the next question comes to you, Mr. Carey. I 

am a little bit confused, because we are being told by the natural 

gas industry that we did too much for coal in the Waxman-Markey 

bill and not enough for natural gas. And that is what natural gas 

executives are saying to us. 

Do natural gas executives not understand how much more we helped them than you, since they are of the opinion that this $60 

billion which we put in for carbon capture and sequestration and 

the other tools that we put in place in order to minimize the impact 

on coal consumers across our country are clearly being viewed by 

the natural gas industry as being much more friendly to the coal 

industry than to the natural gas industry? What don’t they understand? You seem to think that there is a bias towards natural gas. 

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the time tables but 

unfortunately I don’t work for the natural gas industry. But I can 

tell you this. According to the studies that I have read with regards 

to what coal production would look like by 2030 under the proposals that have been initiated, we would look at a 77 percent decrease in the amount of coal. Now, for the 3,000 and some coal 

miners in Ohio, the folks in West Virginia, Kentucky, Western 

Pennsylvania, when you are eliminating 77 percent of those jobs, 

that is a concern. And when you look at the Appalachian communities and you look at what an average coal miner makes, in Ohio, 

it is roughly $65,000; I believe Congressman Salazar talked about 

Colorado being $65,000. Mr. Chairman, it is going to be devastating. 

The CHAIRMAN. To the question on natural gas, sir, you are just 

dead wrong. Okay? We absolutely insured that we would deal with 

the coal industry in a transition and in such a way that actually 

drew criticism from the natural gas industry. So you are just 

wrong. And I just want to put that out there plain and simple. We 

did not approach this issue as anything other than one in which 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
100 

we wanted to create a bridge for the coal industry to the future. 

Okay? And any other interpretation is just plain wrong. And the 

natural gas industry will testify to that, and over in the Senate, in 

fact, they are now lobbying in order to receive equivalent benefits 

to what the coal industry received. 

Mr. Boyce—and I think this is important for us to clarify this 

issue. In your petition to the Environmental Protection Agency to 

overturn the scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, you state: ‘‘Peabody’s petition is based primarily on the release of e-mail and other information from the University of East Anglia climate research unit in November of last 

year.’’ 

The British House of Commons has now reported that the 

hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia climate research 

unit do not in any way cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific 

evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Do you now accept the 

broad understanding by scientists and governments that greenhouse gases threaten to destabilize global climate? 

Mr. BOYCE. Our view and what we said in the petition was we 

think that EPA should take a step back and do more work internal 

to the U.S. To rely so heavily on an international body which did 

not have the ability for people here in the U.S. and scientists here 

in the U.S. to have the level of peer review, and with the number 

of issues that have come out relative to some of their basic data 

assumptions as well as interpretations. All we have asked is that 

the EPA step back and reconsider their endangerment finding. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you continue to question then the scientific 

finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare? 

Mr. BOYCE. As we look at the IPCC report and all of the issues 

that came out relative to its data and interpretations, we think 

there needs to be another independent review of that data. Whether those findings are sound or not, we think there needs to be another review to put to rest all of those issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Leer, do you question the scientific findings 

that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare? 

Mr. LEER. I think that the EPA is a very, very—and using the 

Clean Air Act in their approach, the Clean Air Act is a very blunt 

instrument to try to address a very complex problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am just going to the question. You earlier 

seemed to indicate, you and Mr. Boyce, along with Mr. Chiaro, all 

seemed to indicate that you acknowledged that climate change is 

occurring and that it is caused by CO2 or other greenhouse gases. 

And now it seems as though you are backing away from it. So I 

am just trying to determine which is it. I am only going to the scientific question here of whether or not greenhouse gases do in fact 

cause global warming. 

Mr. LEER. I think they are contributing to global warming, and 

that—again, I was trained as an engineer. I look at it, how do we 

address the problem? And I will let others, because I am certainly 

not a climate scientist and only know what I have read as well as 

others’ comments, that whether the east Angola e-mails are an 

issue or not. They certainly, I think, raise questions in people’s 

minds. But, more importantly, if we are going to address this problem, which I think we should, it is going to be driven by techVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:27 Dec 11, 2010 Jkt 062589 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A589.XXX A589

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
101 

nologies of carbon capture. Otherwise, I don’t think we can achieve 

the 2050 goals that are outlined in your bill or outlined in many 

other bills. And that is—I am the engineer approach. 

The CHAIRMAN. We do agree with you on that. And that’s why 

we put those tens of billions of dollars in the bill, so there would 

be a technological solution that we could partner on creating. Mr. 

Chiaro, do you agree that the scientific—with the scientific finding 

that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare? 

Mr. CHIARO. We do think the science is strong. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, we thank you for that. We need to have— 

if we are going to create a public policy, we at least have to agree 

on this basic fundamental fact that the planet is warming and that 

greenhouse gases are contributing to that problem. And we still 

seem to have some disagreement here. And you, Mr. Boyce, are not, 

in fact, dealing with the issues scientifically in a way that divides 

the question from the means by which we would then deal with the 

issue. So we just need a clear statement here on that subject from 

you. And let me come back to you just this one final time on the 

science of global warming and on the relationship between greenhouse gases and the warming of the planet. 

Mr. BOYCE. Well, as I said, Mr. Chairman, and the one known 

fact that we deal is that CO2 has risen in the atmosphere over the 

last 100 years. And what we have always said is we want to use 

coal cleaner every day that we use it. We have almost a dozen 

clean energy projects that we are involved with in Australia and 

China and the U.S. You know, I think the scientific discussion, we 

leave to the scientists. What we say is we understand the public 

policy and the desire to have cleaner coal. We agree with that, and 

we are putting a lot of money and a lot of effort into trying to make 

that happen on a global basis. 

Again, whether it is in Australia, tens of millions of dollars, 

whether it is our partnership in China in GreenGen or FutureGen 

here in the U.S., we have made investments in Calera, which is a 

new startup company to produce cement from CO2 capture. We 

have money invested in GreatPoint Energy, which is trying to develop cleaner ways of gasifying coal. 

So at the end of the day, it is our actions to try and promote and 

be a catalyst for clean coal technologies. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we agree with you, Mr. Boyce; that is, that 

your investments in Calera, your investments in other companies 

show that you are working to solve the problem, but what we need 

you to say, because that will end this first stage of debate, is that 

there is a problem and that the science has identified a problem 

that has to be solved, and that your investments are related to that 

conclusion that there is a problem and that you accept it. Because 

then we can move on to working together to put together the solutions to solve the problem. So can we come back again to that scientific question? 

Mr. BOYCE. Mr. Chairman, I think I have said, we agree CO2 is 

rising in the atmosphere. That’s an issue that needs to be addressed, and we are doing everything we can to try and promote 

technologies to address that issue. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
102 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Boyce. I thank all of you. Let me 

now turn and recognize the gentlelady from West Virginia, Mrs. 

Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask a question to Mr. Boyce and Mr. Leer that I alluded to in my opening statement. And I am curious to know in 

both of your companies what percent of your coal do you currently 

export? What are your largest exporting countries? Mr. Boyce. This 

is domestic coal that’s mined here. 

Mr. BOYCE. Today we are exporting very, very small quantities 

of coal in the export business. As you know, we no longer have any 

operations in the eastern part of the U.S. where most of the U.S. 

exports come from. We have a small amount of coal from Colorado 

and a very small amount of coal from the Midwest which we export 

to Europe. Other than that, all of our exports are from Australia 

to the Far East. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So you are exporting your Australian product to 

China? 

Mr. BOYCE. We export from Australia all over the world, China, 

India, Japan, Europe, Brazil. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Leer. 

Mr. LEER. Last year, even in the economic downturn, we did export a few boats out of Wyoming into the Pacific Rim. They ended 

up being in China, and I think India was a trader at the second 

boat. On the East Coast out of specifically mostly West Virginia, 

but also Kentucky and Virginia, we are exporting somewhere between 3 and 4 million tons of year in a normal year. Last year was 

down due to the economic recession. This year, just given the nature of particularly the metallurgical markets, we are seeing a significant rise in export opportunities; and I would guess that when 

the year is done, we will end up somewhere between the 4 to 6 million tons of exports. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. The reason I am bringing that out and 

am curious about whether it is on the rise is because if we are 

going to put forth policies here in our own country to meet certain 

emission goals, would the industry then begin to look at other 

areas of the world who maybe aren’t buying into emission goals to 

then push the product out across the rest of the world? And I have 

a hunch, I mean, you are in business to make money, that is probably what could happen. But I am going to shift to another topic. 

Technology. All of you talked about the need for technology. But 

there is an undercurrent here of, is it technology before emission 

targets, or emission targets before technology? 

When do you reasonably think something that can be used full 

scale and go broad based in this country in terms of when CCS can 

actually be implemented in this country with success and achieving 

substantial targets? I know that is a ballpark. 

Mr. LEER. It is a ballpark. And no one can really project the technology curb, other than history would tell you that once we get 

started it comes sooner and often we get significant advances. 

In talking with our utility customers, who really are at the forefront of this, I think most of them talk somewhere in the mid 20s 

if we get started now. The key really is having the legal framework 

established and the funding, and certainly the Markey-Waxman 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
103 

bill was a great start on that one issue. We had other concerns. 

But, again, I am an engineer. I look at, how do you solve the problem? You solve the problem by technology. Otherwise, we can’t stabilize CO2. Mrs. CAPITO. There is a body of thought out there that believes 

this technology never will be able to achieve. I hear it certainly 

around a lot of skeptics that we are never going to be able to meet 

these targets. Do you have a response to that? 

Mr. LEER. I do. And when you look at global CO2 emissions, we 

had better hope that we can establish this technology, because that 

is what you want. No one has offered a path that allows energy 

growth and meets energy growth demands on a global scale other 

than the technology to capture carbon and store it. And it is a pretty simple answer. People may disagree that they don’t like it, but 

that is the path to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere and no one else 

has offered a path to do it. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Carey, I found your comments that 

somehow Congress is waging a war on your industry pretty astounding. And the reason I say that, as I was thinking about your 

comments I ran into my grandchild, he is 15 months old, yesterday, 

on the sidewalk, got to mess around with him for a while. And I 

started thinking about what your industry is doing to his future. 

Because of the emissions from your industry, it is probable that 

there will be no healthy coral reefs in the world during my 

grandson’s lifetime. It is probable that there will be no glaciers in 

Glacier National Park, which is a national treasure, in his lifetime. 

It is probable that the acidification of the ocean will continue to 

an extent that, in some ways that we can’t entirely predict will affect the food chain upon which the salmon depend, which my 

granddad and my dad and I and my wife fish for, that he won’t be 

able to fish for. It is probable that there will be significant changes 

in the climate in the southwest so maybe he won’t go and get to 

enjoy the southwest like I have in his lifetime. 

If there is a war being waged here, it is a war on our grandkids, 

because the emissions from your industry are destroying significant 

parts of this one and only little planet we have got. Now, that is 

just a scientific fact. 

Now, I don’t think of it as a war, because the people in your industry are great people. They are hard-working folks, they are trying to make a living, they want to have a future in this industry. 

And I recognize that. So I don’t use that term of war because I 

don’t think they are waging war on our grandchildren. But I think 

your position is so irresponsible for your own industry that I have 

got to call it out. 

We have put in a pool of $60 billion to your industry to be able 

to save it, save it in the sense that you will have a way to sequester carbon dioxide. And the smart folks on this panel recognize that 

the day will come that coal will not be a viable alternative if we 

do not find that technology. And we have given you $60 billion. We 

don’t give $60 billion to al Qaeda. You want to see a war? We are 

in a war. We don’t give them $60 billion. We don’t give $60 billion 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
104 

to industries we are at war with. We give $60 billion to people that 

we hope maybe there is a chance of saving, and that is what we 

are doing. 

So let me just ask you. Will you personally, or your organization 

that you represent, tell us that you will replace that $60 billion 

that we have offered you in this bill? 

Mr. CAREY. Chairman Markey, Congressman Inslee, it was a 

long question. There are many parts of it. 

Mr. INSLEE. Listen, I don’t want you to answer my comments. I 

want you to answer my question. Will you personally—and I think 

the answer is probably no—or your company or your organization 

tell the American public and the people you represent today that 

you will put up $60 billion to help save this industry by finding 

CCS technology to replace the money you are trying to take away 

by killing this legislation? Will you do that? And that is a pretty 

simple yes or no. 

Mr. CAREY. I think the question, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Inslee, I think we have to examine parts of the question if we are 

talking about CCS technology. Now look, I am the chairman of the 

Ohio Coal Technical Advisory Committee. This is a body that actually works with clean coal projects, and we have been looking at 

for the last 10 years carbon sequestration and discussions on carbon sequestration. Nobody is arguing that is important. 

Mr. INSLEE. I would really appreciate an answer. Are you personally, or your organization willing to commit today to spending $60 

billion to try to perfect CCS technology to replace the money you 

lose if this legislation doesn’t pass? Just give me a yes, sir, or no. 

I have got one more question I have got to ask Mr. Boyce. 

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Inslee, I would say that 

CCS is important. But if you are asking me to make a personal 

commitment that I will personally put $60 billion into carbon sequestration, that is not a very serious question. 

Mr. INSLEE. How about your company? 

Mr. CAREY. My association? My association represents small, medium-ranged companies that actually work on behalf of Ohio. 

Mr. INSLEE. I will take your answer as no. If you want to amend 

it, go ahead. 

Mr. Boyce, as I understand your position listening to your testimony, you seem to recognize the necessity, if not urgency, of developing CCS technology. But I seem to—if I can characterize your 

corporate philosophy, you have resisted in any way every way that 

I can ascertain any legal mechanism that would put a restriction 

on carbon dioxide emissions, which would—many of us would believe would drive investments into CCS technology. And what I 

hear you saying is that if we just trust the industry to make these 

investments, everything will be okay. 

Folks at this table will put in billions of dollars. I don’t know 

where you are going to get it, because you won’t get it from us if 

we don’t pass this bill. But you will put in billions of dollars. You 

will solve this problem. And then, after you solve this problem, 

then we can put a regulation on the industry of CO2. Now, to me, 

that is a little bit like saying when they stop robbing banks, then 

we can put a law in effect saying you can’t rob banks. And, frankly, 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
105 

I have not seen a major environmental problem solved without 

some message to the industry to make these investments. 

Now, is that a fair characterization, you are thinking on this? 

And I would ask you to comment on that thinking. 

Mr. BOYCE. Thank you. No, I would have to say I don’t believe 

it is a fair characterization. And the reason I say that is at the 

time of Waxman-Markey we indicated that there were some tremendous aspects to Waxman-Markey, great recognition of the role 

of coal, and, as you have both pointed out, strong funding for clean 

coal technologies and a mechanism to help provide some of that 

funding. But we had concerns that enabling the technology of CCS 

to go forward without having solved the legal and regulatory 

framework around the property rights, injection of CO2, the longterm storage, as well as the aspect of hard caps until the technology and the time frame for that technology to be determined left 

us to where we didn’t believe that we could support the bill in its 

current form. And I think that is all that we ever said. We have 

always—as I said earlier, we have been working with Senator 

Bingaman for a number of years in terms of the original proposals 

that he had laid out for improving our reductions in carbon and for 

a carbon management program. 

It is just a matter of how all the components come together. We 

have concerns about the cost impacts. That is only natural. And we 

had concerns that capturing all the CO2 without the ability to actually store it in the ground was a Catch-22 that we could not see 

our way around. 

But I don’t want anyone to believe that we don’t feel that there 

needs to be carbon management programs going forward. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. And to the 

gentleman from Arizona, the gentleman from Washington State 

went over and we will note that as the gentleman is engaging in 

his questions. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I will do my best to give back the time he took 

in going over. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for your thoughtful testimony. 

I think these are complex issues that require thought and reflection. 

I want to start, Mr. Boyce, with you. In questions propounded by 

the chairman, you indicated that with regard to the endangerment 

finding you believe that, given some of the doubt now cast on the 

science developed and relied upon by the IPCC and the University 

of Anglia, that you thought it was appropriate and your company 

felt it was appropriate for the EPA to take a step back and reassess 

that science. Is that a correct statement of your position? 

Mr. BOYCE. I will tell you that, given that, whatever burden we 

put on society based on this issue, we have to have, or at least I 

think we should have public support for our position. I couldn’t 

agree more that we should, in fact, step back and take a close look 

at that. 

Mr. SHADEGG. The chairman cited the fact that the Parliament 

in England had found that there was nothing wrong with the 

science in its basic findings. I guess I am a little curious about 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
106 

that. Do you know how many years the IPCC spent looking at 

science to reach its original conclusions? 

Mr. BOYCE. The IPCC has been empanelled since 1992 or the 

early 1990s with the original Rio Treaty. So they have been looking 

at this data for a long period of time. 

Mr. SHADEGG. So they have been looking at that data from 1992 

to 2010, we will say roughly 18 years, and we now discover major 

flaws in it, some of which they admit including flaws about the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035. They acknowledged those 

flaws. They spent 18 years reaching the conclusions; we now discover the flaws. How long have we known about the flaws in the 

science? It hasn’t been 18 years. Has it? 

Mr. BOYCE. No, sir. It has not. 

Mr. SHADEGG. How long do you suppose it has been? Closer to 

18 months? 

Mr. BOYCE. Not even that. The fourth quarter of last year. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, then I think your view that we should take 

some time and look at that science again, given it took 18 years 

to develop it and has now been cast in doubt, I don’t think we can 

whitewash it in less than 18 months. So I think that is a considered position. 

I also want to clarify a point you made earlier. I believe you said 

that you, in fact, support CCS and CCS technology and all clean 

coal technology. You simply want a regulatory atmosphere in which 

that can be carried out and everybody can understand and follow 

the rules. Is that correct? 

Mr. BOYCE. That is correct. As I said earlier, we are involved in 

a number of clean coal technology projects across the globe, China, 

Australia, here in the United States. And we just firmly believe 

that we have to understand the time frame for deployment of the 

technology and the cost impacts to the economy of that technology 

deployment before we put the hard caps in place. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Again, as I mentioned in my opening statement, 

I believe those costs will necessarily pass on to the consuming public and to businesses in America which must compete around the 

globe, and I think looking at those cost factors and looking at 

issues like, okay, so we can capture it. We have got that figured 

out. Where can we store it, and can we store it legally? And I 

haven’t seen anybody jump forward and say, gosh, I want it stored 

under my land. And we seem to have had a parallel issue in Nevada where we tried to store nuclear waste, and some people in Nevada seemed to get upset. I think there is a United States Senator 

who is a little concerned about the storage of nuclear waste in that 

State. It seems to me storing carbon might be almost as complex 

as storing nuclear waste. 

Can you elaborate for the committee—and this will be my last 

question—the specific elements of legislation we could pass that 

would allow for the utilization of coal that was, in fact, clean and 

in which the carbon had been removed? And we would resolve some 

of those issues so that we could in fact stop any of the uncertainty 

that I think is now impinging upon the development of coal and 

coal energy in the United States. 

Mr. BOYCE. I think, as I indicate in my written comments and 

briefly alluded to in my verbal comments, we have laid out a path 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
107 

for technology. I firmly believe that supercritical and ultra-supercritical power stations that are carbon capture ready as well as 

IGCC plants are carbon capture ready should be enabled to be built 

today. We know what the work, for instance, at AEA is doing, that 

we will have retrofit technology available for those plans. But, in 

the meantime, we have a serious need for additional energy, as 

does the rest of the world. And so that is the first step. And then 

these carbon demonstrations. FutureGen. 

We have been a founding member of FutureGen and, like the 

committee, have been very frustrated that we have not been able 

to get that project up and running yet, although we continue to 

work extremely hard at trying to find the rest of the funding for 

that project. It is a full-scale plant. Inject CO2 in the ground and 

store it. 

Those are the types of things that need to be done. And then 

once that happens, then we can put in place the time frames and 

the regulatory framework to say this is the path and this is the 

ability of the U.S. economy and the global economy to absorb the 

cost of transforming our energy infrastructure. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And you are willing to work with us on legislation 

to achieve those goals? 

Mr. BOYCE. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Boyce, Senators Rockefeller and Voinovich have proposed a 

phase-in technology plan for CCS that takes into account electricity 

production and industrial activities that produce CO2, and proposes 

incentives for CO2 development and deployment. Do you support 

that approach? 

Mr. BOYCE. We support the premises in that bill. We are still 

looking at the specific language. But, basically, the concepts of enabling that technology, providing the framework for it, and then getting that technology right first, we absolutely support. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Leer. 

Mr. LEER. I would concur. I certainly have spoken with Senator 

Rockefeller on it, and again, we would like to review the details a 

bit more. But when you look at the premise, it, to us, is going in 

the right direction. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Carey. 

Mr. CAREY. Congressman, Senator Voinovich being from Ohio, 

we have worked very closely with him. And we are still continuing 

to review it, but we like the premise. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chiaro. 

Mr. CHIARO. Yes. We certainly support the rapid deployment of 

CCS technology. That is why we are investing tens of millions of 

dollars in it ourselves to built a plant in California. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Okay. Well, I appreciate your comments. We will 

start again with Mr. Boyce. How is uncertainty over carbon and climate change legislation in the U.S. Congress affecting the buildout 

of coal fueled generation systems? 

Mr. BOYCE. Well, I think there is no question that we have got 

basically a stand-still in terms of new investments in the advanced 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
108 

technology or current technologies for coal-fired power stations. We 

all know there has been a number of plants that have been put on 

the shelf or cancelled over the last year to 2 years because of the 

uncertainty around where are we going with carbon management 

in the future. 

As I said in my statement, I think we ought to enable ultrasupercritical and supercritical power stations to move forward. 

They have got a footprint of anywhere from 15 to 40 percent lower 

carbon intensity of the existing fleet of plants that we have today. 

It is a fabulous first step. And then we add the carbon capture and 

storage technologies when they become available to those plants, 

which would be the preferred path. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Leer. 

Mr. LEER. I would concur with Mr. Boyce. And when you look at 

the uncertainty, I think—I try to put myself and maybe some of 

our utility customers’ positions, and think, what would I be doing 

then? And there were very few good things that came out of the 

recession, but one of them probably was we had moved back our 

capacity needs 3 or 4 years. And given all of the uncertainties that 

surround this question and other questions, and even if you look 

at, say, natural gas renewables and where they might end up, my 

conclusion would be that I would stop building anything for a period of time and just sit there and wait for clarity to occur. 

My concern with that is that we will let that—that will happen, 

and then 5, 6, 7 years from now, suddenly we will realize that the 

economy has started moving again, and hopefully in a dramatic 

fashion, and we will see reserve margins starting to diminish, and 

then we will be forced into taking panic positions and really on economic, I will call them, decisions because you just have to. And at 

the end of the day, American people do demand electricity, and 

they have every right to do that. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chiaro. 

Mr. CHIARO. I think there is no question that the lack of a longterm carbon framework has a chilling effect on investment in coalfired power generation. That is why we have been arguing for getting such a framework in place as soon as possible. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you. Mr. Carey, you mentioned that this legislation had provided only $10 billion for carbon sequestration, 

I think, in your testimony. The chairman and Mr. Inslee say that 

the legislation provides $60 billion. I just—I want clarification. 

Where do you get your numbers? 

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Salazar, I would be 

more happy to provide that. 

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would yield. There is $10 billion 

that is included as part of a wires charged that is included to support research and development and carbon capture and sequestration. In addition, the Waxman-Markey bill provides $50 billion additional for bonus allowances for carbon capture and sequestration 

installed in coal-fired plants before 2025. So it is a grand total of approximately $60 billion for the coal industry for the research development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology before 2025. 

Mr. SALAZAR. So, Mr. Chairman, would that go specifically to research and development of CCS? 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
109 

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. And deployment. The $50 billion 

is for deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies 

in coal plants in our country before 2025. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, sir, for that clarification. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First off, I got here 

late. I would like to extend to offer my condolences to the victims’ 

families to the mining disaster last week in West Virginia, and I 

look forward to an investigation and learning what we can do to 

improve mining safety. 

I have some questions for everyone. If the United States were to 

cap greenhouse gas emissions without similar commitments from 

the developing nations, how much would that lower total worldwide 

greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal. If no one else does it, 

is that significant? 

Mr. BOYCE. Well, the reality is we know that China has become 

the largest emitter of CO2, and that doesn’t even include the rest 

of the world outside the U.S. So even with a cap here in the U.S., 

if nothing else was done particularly in the developing countries, 

the impacts would be negligible in terms of any impact and in 

terms of addressing rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

Mr. LEER. Again, we would concur with that conclusion. If you 

look at the developing world and the developed world, CO2 admissions in Europe and the U.S. essentially have flattened. I mean, 

they are still growing slightly, but they have essentially flattened. 

The developing world is now emitting more CO2 than the developed 

world. 

So, again, we come back to really my fundamental engineering 

premise: If we are going to address this problem, it is carbon capture and sequestration, and we share it with the rest of the world 

through trade agreements, commercialization, whatever, however 

we get it there. But it is going to have to be cost effective from 

their perspective. 

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, there would not be a 

lessening, there would actually just be a displacing of the carbon 

dioxide emissions. And we simply look at what China and India, 

what they will do over the course of the next 20 years, the fact that 

their demand for coal, their demand for energy, the fact that they 

are bringing power plants on line. The only people that would be 

affected by this type of legislation would be the American people, 

the people that are paying the electric bills every day. 

And point in fact, Administrator Lisa Jackson actually admitted 

this, I believe, in testimony before the EPW committee as did Secretary Chu. So both are very aware that this legislation would do 

little to curb overall worldwide CO2 numbers. 

Mr. CHIARO. I would agree, that if the U.S. is the only Nation 

that moves forward, the effect on total emissions to the atmosphere 

would be small, single digit percentages. 

I guess the bigger concern for me, having attended the U.S.- 

China energy summit last October in Beijing is looking at what the 

Chinese are doing in all these alternative energy technologies. 

They are now leading the world in nuclear power plant construction, wind construction, solar construction, electric cars. They are 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
110 

moving ahead very quickly on these clean energy technologies, 

much more rapidly than the U.S. And I fear that the jobs that will 

be lost will be in the new energy technologies. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So it would be extremely unwise for us to unilaterally enter into any kind of agreement without other developing 

nations being involved as well. And I agree with that. 

Another question. What foreseeable impact will the EPA’s 

endangerment finding and pending regulation have on the domestic 

coal industry? And how are you preparing for something like that? 

Mr. BOYCE. Well, I think, as was mentioned earlier on the panel, 

you know, the Clean Air Act is a blunt instrument and it is our 

view that it was never really designed to handle something like 

CO2. And if we are forced to go down an EPA regulatory path, the 

disruptions, not just to the coal industry but to every facet of 

American industry and our daily lives, is going to be significant as 

if EPA tries to regulate every emissions of CO2 in the country, 

which eventually they will have to under the Clean Air Act. So that 

is a significant issue. 

I would like to also add one point on CCS and why it is so critical. Post-2020, to meet the targets in Waxman-Markey, natural 

gas generating facilities will have to put CO2 capture and sequestration technologies on them. And so this technology is critical not 

only for the coal industry, but for the gas, for fuel in general, and 

that is why we are so strongly in favor of it. 

Mr. LEER. Again, I concur with Mr. Boyce. The EPA’s approach 

on this I think will create unintended consequences that are unimaginable as it works through this economy. And we are focused 

very much on working with Congress to make sure that doesn’t 

happen. I think Senator Rockefeller’s proposal and Congressman 

Rahall’s proposal to delay—step back and delay implementation 2 

years is very sound as we really work through the system and work 

with Congress and all of industry to try to find a much better instrument to deal with the issue, as opposed to EPA handling it in 

a very blunt manner. 

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, we are actually in litigation right now on the endangerment finding. We have a lot of 

concerns with regards to the way the EPA came up with their data. 

Again, I mentioned it. They talk about the IPCC study 48 times, 

and actually in the supporting documents, company documents 

they reference it 395 times. So we have a lot of concern with that. 

But I also have to look at the fact that the idea that you only— 

you didn’t have to find endangerment. You may. And you may 

make a ruling. It was completely up to the administration on this. 

If you look at what Administrator Jackson actually said when 

she was in the EPW committee testifying on behalf of: If legislation 

such as the Kerry-Boxer bill were to have passed, would she still 

need to find this regulation. And she answered yes. 

So we are very concerned with this. And we are concerned about 

what that would do to the jobs. Again, we are talking about the 

elimination of thousands of hard-working coal mining jobs in areas 

of this country that don’t need to be hurt economically any more 

than they are. This is about families, this is about small grandchildren. This is about people that are trying to provide for their 

families, and we are very concerned. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
111 

Mr. CHIARO. We don’t think the Clean Air Act and the 

endangerment finding is the best approach to address the climate 

change issue, which is why we are a member of the U.S. Climate 

Action Partnership and support the principles that are largely embodied in H.R. 2454. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. And, by the 

way, the chair will recognize himself for another round of questions. By the way, that is the point, the point that Mr. Chiaro is 

making. We are trying to create a legislative framework that is 

able to deal with the consequences of putting a cap on carbon. That 

is our goal in the legislation. 

And, again, it continues to be a little bit of a mystery to me. In 

2009, there were no new coal-fired plants ordered. There are 10,000 

new megawatts of wind installed in the United States, 500 new 

megawatts of solar, 200 new megawatts of geothermal, 200 new 

megawatts of biomass electrical generation installed in America, 

10,000 new megawatts of natural gas. Coal saw its percentage of 

total electrical generated capacity decline from 49 percent down to 

44 percent in 2009. We have seen the rise in the price of coal anyway. It has gone up 60 percent over the last 5 years. Coal costs 

have gone up. That is without any price on carbon. 

This legislation that we passed through the House of Representatives is intended on helping the coal industry. The legislation 

which Senator Rockefeller has introduced has $850 million a year 

for the next 10 years, our bill has $1 billion per year for the next 

10 years to do research, to do development. But we add an additional $50 billion for the coal industry, which the Rockefeller legislation does not have. So we have a grand total of $60 billion; the 

Rockefeller legislation has a grand total of $10 billion. 

So this disparity goes right to the heart of the question of whether or not we are, in fact, engaging here legislatively in an attempt 

to harm rather than help the industry. 

We do believe there is an inexorable decline. We see it year after 

year in terms of the rise in the percentage of renewable electricity 

coming from natural gas, coming from wind, coming from solar, 

coming from actual installation of new energy efficiency technologies. 

So I just think, Mr. Carey, that a lot of what you are engaged 

in here is really just crocodile tears that you are shedding for an 

industry that we are trying to help; because, otherwise, you are basically mirroring the whole path that the auto industry took in denial in terms of the technology revolution that was taking place 

around it, the desire to help the industry to make the transition, 

and then blaming those who were trying to help. Okay? And it is 

just a repetition of that over and over again. 

And all I ask is that there not continue to be a misrepresentation, Mr. Carey, of what is, in fact, inside of the Waxman-Markey 

bill. And additional modifications that could be made as part of negotiations with the coal industry, with the utility industry, with 

natural gas and other industries as well. That goes right to the 

heart of this whole issue what we are doing. And my bottom line 

here is that we do believe that the coal miners of our country deserve a bridge to the future, and we are trying to provide that in 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
112 

the legislation. Trying to hold on to something that is not tenable 

is ultimately going to come to harm those families. 

That is our own belief, economically. And the reason—and we 

will go back to Mr. Chiaro’s point. The reason that we do believe 

that we have to fund carbon capture and sequestration is that we 

have to solve it for the rest of the world. We have to develop a technology that can be used in China and in India. That is our responsibility as a Nation. We are a technological giant. We have the capacity to do this. The companies who are at this table are investing 

in carbon capture and sequestration technology. They are global 

companies, so they know that this is moving towards some—not 

only here but in other countries as well. 

We are trying to provide the leadership and help the United 

States be first in its deployment. So that is really what this debate 

is all about. Okay? It is not whether or not we want to harm the 

coal industry. We don’t. It is, can we make compatible the CO2 that 

is emitted from the coal industry with new technologies in a way 

that creates a bridge to the future. If we don’t, I think the pathway 

is inexorable, and that is down in terms of the amount of coal 

which is used in electricity generation in our country. 

As State after State passes renewable electricity standards, there 

will be a higher and higher percentage of electricity generated from 

those alternative sources. We have all read the headlines in just 

the last couple of months with ExxonMobil purchasing a basically 

unheard of small natural gas company, which, along with six other 

natural gas companies, have discovered enough natural gas in our 

own country to increase natural gas reserves by 30 percent. And 

all of this has occurred just in the last 2 years. So this pathway 

is one where we want to partner with the coal industry to create 

this new technology in partnership you. 

And, again, I keep coming back to this because we do not believe 

that this should be adversarial. We should try to partner in order 

to try to find a way to accomplish this goal to the mutual benefit 

of our country and the coal industry. Otherwise, I am very much 

afraid that there will be negative consequences for the coal industry because of the development of alternative technologies and 

other electricity generating sectors in our country. 

And so I come back to use my 5 minutes to make that point and, 

again, to invite the industry to partner with us to solve the problem rather than continuing to engage in these kind of historical remain demand debates about whether or not the science is accurate 

or not. It is. But, rather, to really work as to how we can construct 

a technological pathway for the coal industry. If we do that, then 

it will be win-win. 

The chair’s time has expired again. Let me turn and recognize 

the gentlelady from West Virginia, Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to respond 

to some of your comments. I wasn’t really going to say anything, 

but I want to do want to say we have the top two largest coal producing companies in our country. I did not hear—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Actually, the three top. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Three. Excuse me. I did not hear a pushback or denial that CCS and increased technology and research is going to be 

a bridge to the future. I think they are fully engaged in this. They 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
113 

realize this is the bridge to the future, and that this will continue 

to use our most abundant resource and keep people working. You 

mentioned that we have used less coal—so I think we have unanimous consent that this is the direction that we need to go. 

You mentioned that less coal was used in 2009. We had a national recession. Many in my own district, we lost Century Aluminum out of our district, which was the largest energy consumer 

in our entire State, moved to, of all places, Iceland. But that is an 

enormous hit across this Nation in terms of why have we used less 

coal. 

The other thing, you mentioned that no new coal plants or coalfired plants have been developed. This begs a whole other issue, 

this whole permitting issue that we have been talking about. This 

is an area that is pervasive in this administration with the EPA 

and other regulatory agencies basically conducting an anti-coal 

agenda. And I think that is part of what we are seeing with the 

lack of permitting. 

So I do think that we agree that CCS—I am really proud that 

the first experimental AEP plant is in the second largest coal-producing State in this country, in West Virginia. 

The other thing that I think Mr. Chiaro has brought up sort of 

peripherally but is not the subject of this debate or this testimony 

is that the natural gas industry is going to have to also be at the 

forefront of this technology to be able to exist in the existing plants 

that we have right now. 

And so I think, you know, that we realize in a State like West 

Virginia, whose State economy is heavily reliant on coal, that we 

need to begin to transition and transition into more advanced and 

more refined technologies to be able to use this. But at the same 

time, I have heard in the testimony, if we are going to ask for renewable standards—and that is great. But you are not calculating 

in we are going to have a larger demand for all kinds of energy. 

Why wouldn’t we consider putting CCS or carbon sequestration as 

part of a renewable standard like they have in Pennsylvania? And 

I am not sure if it is in our West Virginia standard or it was put 

forth as a West Virginia standard. But these are the kind of questions that have come forth with me. And I think that acknowledging in your bill, while I didn’t vote for it, that $60 billion—also, 

somebody says over here, well, you are saying you don’t want $60 

billion. Excuse me. The bill is over in the Senate. We haven’t even 

passed this. It is not like anybody is turning their head down to 

$60 billion to try to invest in a technology that is going to keep people working, make sense economically. 

So we are just looking for commonsense solutions. Let’s look for 

a way to move forward. Maybe if we extend the deadlines out to 

where the technology can catch up to where we can meet admissions standards. These are the kinds of things that I keep hearing. 

I don’t hear a denial that this is not a direction that we need to 

move as a Nation. Maybe where we are in disagreement is how 

quickly and in what kind of blunt instruments do we use to punish 

the middle part of our country or a State like West Virginia or the 

State in the middle where we are heavily reliant on fossil fuels to 

generate our energy. We want a commonsense energy plan that has 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
114 

an all-of-the-above solution that is going to meet these standards 

and move us toward cleaner air. 

So that is my comment. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from 

Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. We haven’t talked about what we did in the stimulus bill, either, which was put $3.4 billion in to pursue 

carbon sequestration technology, including $20 million for a company called Ramgen, which is pursuing a compression technology 

which can make CCS more energy efficient by reducing compression costs. I just want to note that. 

I wanted to ask, I will just ask Mr. Boyce, I guess. Let me ask 

Mr. Leer. I have already run out my quota with you, Mr. Boyce. 

I want to ask you about the economics of carbon emissions. Paul 

Krugman wrote a really interesting piece about the economics of 

carbon emissions, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested 

in the economics of this issue. Basically, what he was arguing is 

that coal competes with other sources of energy. It competes with 

wind energy, it competes with hydroelectric energy, it competes 

with solar energy. 

Those three technologies don’t put meaningful amounts of carbon 

dioxide. They do, in part, because you have to manufacture the 

stuff to make it. But certainly less than coal. And yet, so they are 

competing—you are competing with these other if I can just call 

them cleaner from a CO2 aspect technologies. And yet, in the current state of the law, we allow one industry, the coal industry, to 

put gigatons of a pollutant, carbon dioxide, into our atmosphere 

which we all own jointly in unlimited amounts at zero cost, and 

that is using up the limited carrying capacity of our atmosphere. 

And I think any economist would look at that and say that is an 

externality. You are using up, you are costing society something, 

because you are using up our atmosphere’s ability to absorb pollutants, but you are not paying anything for it and there is absolutely 

no limitation today whatsoever. You can put as many gigatons as 

you want without compensating the public for that loss at all, nor 

is it regulated. 

Now, there is two ways to deal with that. One is to regulate the 

amount going in; or, two, to impose some costs associated with 

that. And I guess I would just ask you, from an economic fairness 

standpoint, and realizing there is all kinds of issues about how to 

do this. Mr. Boyce expressed some of the concerns about the existing bill. I guess, Mr. Leer, do you think it is fair for the coal industry to be able to impose this cost on the rest of the world and be 

able to put unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 

at zero cost from an economic standpoint? Do you think that is a 

good economic system? 

Mr. LEER. Congressman, I appreciate what your question is, and 

there is always a large debate on externalities and what price they 

should be and the real cost. But I think it is reflective also in your 

not addressing in your question at least the other side of the equation, is that coal is the most competitive fuel source typically in 

most applications around the world other than hydro. And then you 

can get down into externalities there and the other questions. And 

that low cost gets passed on to consumers. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
115 

So can there be a price on carbon? Yes, there can be a price on 

carbon. And will that ultimately end up in consumers’ cost of electricity, cost of products? Yes. That is the system ultimately that 

will be translated, or the business will go out of business. That can 

happen as well. 

Today, when you look at all of our renewables, the way we are 

established in promoting renewables is to subsidize them heavily 

to try to make them more competitive with fossil fuels. And that 

is okay. That is what we are going to have to do with carbon capture and sequestration as well. 

So in the premise, could there be a cost for carbon? Certainly. 

Will that cost ultimately end up in the price of electricity, in the 

price of all goods and services in the U.S. or elsewhere in the 

world? Yes. 

Mr. INSLEE. So let me ask you, the experience we have had on 

trying to drive new technologies. When we needed a new technology to deal with sulfur dioxide, which scenario occurred? Scenario A, the industry on its own devices went out and made an investment to develop the technologies to deal with acid rain and develop the technologies to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions? Or, did 

scenario B take place, that the U.S. Congress imposed some cap, 

if you will, on the amount of sulfur dioxide going out, create a price 

associated with that pollution, and the industry then in response 

to that developed the technologies to solve that problem? Which occurred? 

Mr. LEER. Well, as you are well aware, the Congress did within 

the Clean Air Act, both phase one and phase two, tighten SO2 regulations. And ultimately the technologies advanced and were put 

into place. 

The issue with SO2 compared to carbon is SO2 frankly was more 

regional in the U.S. CO2 is global. And the point here, and also at 

the time, I think, if we go back—and we are going back to the very 

beginning of my career. There were alternatives. You know, utilities could do in an economic evaluation of moving to low sulfur 

coal. Scrubber technologies did exist. They got advanced further as 

a result of I think the legislation, but they were in existence. And 

we just find ourselves earlier in the technology curve at the moment. 

Mr. INSLEE. If the chair would indulge me just one more question, if I may. Do you really think the industry would have solved 

the acid rain problem by itself in the absence of a regulatory requirement that they do so? Do you think they voluntarily would 

have made those investments, looking at it in retrospect. 

Mr. LEER. One, I am in the coal industry, you are really asking 

a utility question. But I think the utilities would have started to 

address it. I think legislation advanced it further. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. LEER. Or faster. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I would point out we don’t have a lot of 

time on this one, either. 

Mr. LEER. That is why carbon capture and sequestration is so 

critical. 

Mr. INSLEE. As is this bill. Thank you. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
116 

The CHAIRMAN. And while we have you here and you are the experts in the field, perhaps we can get brief comments from you on 

this: The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration cited the 

Upper Big Branch Mine with 1,324 safety violations from 2005 to 

2010; in March of this year alone the mine cited 53 safety violations, including improper failure to ventilate the combustible gas 

methane. Is that a typical rate of violations for mines and can you 

give us your sense of what is needed in this mine safety area in 

order to make sure that we reduce the likelihood that other families won’t suffer what is now being borne by those families in West 

Virginia? 

Mr. Chiaro. 

Mr. CHIARO. Well, I am a board member of Cloud Peak Energy, 

the former Rio Tinto division, and I am happy to say that we have 

the best safety record of the mining industry at Cloud Peak. And 

Rio Tinto generally has a very good safety record. We don’t see the 

kind of level of violations that you are talking about at any of our 

mines. 

To be fair, our mines are in the Powder River Basin, they are 

open cut mines, tend to have a different set of hazards associated 

with them than the underground mines in the East, and so I would 

expect there to be some difference. But I would have to say if I saw 

that level of violations at one of my mines I would be quite concerned. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Carey. 

Mr. CAREY. As I mentioned in my written testimony, Mr. Chairman, and also I believe in my oral, the importance of mine safety 

is very critical to Ohio. Anybody—I do want to give an anecdotal 

example just real quickly. I was driving in and there is a barn on 

my way to the airport from my house in Ohio, and on that barn 

it says, every day is Earth Day to a farmer. And I can assure you 

that every day is Mine Safety Awareness Day to every coal operator and every coal miner that goes into the ground every day. 

The issues revolving around this tragedy, we do not know all of 

the answers yet, I don’t know the level to what the seriousness, the 

size of the fines or the amount of fines or the size of the mine or 

any of that. It is not in Ohio, but I can assure you it will be addressed and we just have to keep those miners and their families 

in our prayers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Leer. 

Mr. LEER. You know safety and environmental compliance are 

core assets and values with us. When we look at violations we report them. Every week I get a report. If it is serious I get it instantaneously. If you look at operations like ours that operate large 

deep mines, large surface mines across the entire United States, we 

would argue with our peers, and it is a bit different than the profile that Preston talked about, was we really think we do lead the 

industry in overall safety performance, incident rates, lost time 

rates, and we set a standard that really our board doesn’t even 

allow us to compare ourselves to the industry. We can only compare ourselves to ourselves. And last year was a record, the year 

before, beating the year before record. This year we are off to a 

record start. We will see how the year finishes. We take it very seriously, the number of violations that have been reported, and I 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
117 

certainly haven’t verified those myself, and I think you have to look 

at the severity of the violations because within the framework of 

the coal industry it is true that the big mines virtually every day 

are being inspected by a State or Federal inspector. And some violations are very, very serious and some are really almost a traffic 

ticket approach. And the key that I always preach to all of our employees is we take them all very seriously, but if there is a violation out there that has endangerment and really a major concern 

on safety, you better be on it before the inspector gets there, let 

alone when the inspector is there. And we will fix them immediately. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Boyce. 

Mr. BOYCE. You know we again feel like we are partners with 

both Steve and Preston in terms of trying to drive much better 

safety performance throughout our industry. 2009 was the safest 

year in our 126-year history, and over the last 3 years we have improved our safety performance over 40 percent. And we start every 

meeting within the company with a safety contact or a safety discussion, including our board meetings. So it is an issue that we 

deal with on a daily basis. Our safety vision is to be incident free 

at all of our operations, and we run 29 operations within the U.S. 

and Australia. 

The issue of violations is one we treat every violation to look at 

and understand the underlying cause as to what occurred and why 

that violation was there and what we can do to rectify the situation. 

We had, as an example of how seriously we take this, we had an 

operation in Illinois several years ago where we had a high level 

of violations. As we looked, brought in the safety professionals in 

the company to look at that, we determined we could not continue 

to mine that operation safely and we actually went through with 

the decision to shut that operation down. We were fortunate to be 

able to move all of our employees to another operation in the area, 

but we had to then take the financial impact with the customers 

to make that decision. It is just something that you have to do. We 

have an obligation and we have a view. I joined the industry in 

1977, the passage of the initial Safety Act. And when I joined the 

industry accidents were statistics; what we have tried to drive in 

the industry is every employee deserves the right to go home safe 

every day and we are not going to be happy until that happens. 

And we look at those citations and at our safety statistics very, 

very carefully, every day. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Boyce, very much. We thank our 

panelists for their participation here today. This issue of coal is 

right at the heart of the question of whether or not we are going 

to control dangerous greenhouse gases while at the same time enhancing our national security and creating jobs here in the United 

States. That is our goal. And what I would basically recommend to 

the industry is that they do engage in the Senate in their efforts 

right now to find a bridge to the future for the coal industry. We 

believe that Waxman-Markey is that bridge, but we also do not believe that it is in any way not capable of being improved. And so 

we would urge you to work towards that goal. There is an inevitability to there being a price placed on carbon, it is going to hapVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:27 Dec 11, 2010 Jkt 062589 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A589.XXX A589

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
118 

pen. And so I think the better course, one not adopted by the auto 

industry, would be to try to start out where you are going to be 

forced to wind up anyway because ultimately there are partnerships here, constructive partnerships, that be want to basically put 

together with the industry in order to achieve those goals. 

Mr. Boyce said earlier we should leave the science to the scientists, and we have a letter from 18 scientific groups, scientific organizations saying observations throughout the world make it clear 

that climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific research 

demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. 

So that is the world and we should not be in denial, but rather 

we should be engaging this. We do believe that we can do so in a 

way that preserves coal mining jobs in our country. I am working 

with you in partnership to make coal mining a safer industry. We 

can do so for one that for the rest of the century continues to have 

coal as a central part of our industrial sector. 

We thank you for your participation. We want to work with you 

closely in these months ahead. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
119 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 62589A.080
120 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 62589A.081
121 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 62589A.082
122 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 62589A.083
123 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 62589A.084
124 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 62589A.085
125 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 62589A.086
126 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 62589A.087
127 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 62589A.088
128 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 62589A.089
129 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181/300 here 62589A.090