Good morning. My name is Greg Bertelsen, and on behalf of the 

National Association of Manufacturers and its 12,000 members, I am 

pleased to ofFer the following remarks on the Environmental Protection 

Agency's proposed standards of performance for greenhouse gas 

emissions from new electric utility generating units. The NAM is the nation's 

largest industrial trade association, representing small, medium and large 

manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. 

As the EPA accepts comments on this rule, manufacturers and the 

rest of the regulated community are well aware that this is just the first in a 

suite of planned regulations that will ultimately impact the cost and 

availability of energy, and could dictate equipment and process choices for 

businesses across the country. If the Administration is intent on pursuing 

this regulatory path, let's get this first rule right and avoid setting the 

dangerous precedent of issuing unachievable standards; unsupported by 

statute. 
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set standards that are 

achievable and that have been adequately demonstrated. Yet the standard 

the EPA proposes for coal is neither. There is not a single utility-scale 

power plant in operation that meets the EPA standard for coal. The only 

four examples EPA can identify in supporting its conclusion that CCS is 

adequately demonstrated, are still in various stages of development; only 

two of which are actually under construction; one of which is located 

outside the United States. 

Further, the three U.S.-based projects identified in EPA's proposed 

rule have all received various levels of support through the Clean Coal 

Power Initiative or CCPI. The CCPI is administered by the Department of 

Energy and is intended to help overcome some of the technical risks 

associated with bringing emerging technologies, like CCS, to the point of 

commercial readiness. The CCPI was not conceived for already deployed 

and commercially viable technologies; and it is certainly not intended for 

technologies that have been adequately demonstrated. Congress 

recognized the intent of the CCPI in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, when it 

explicitly limited the use of projects receiving assistance through the CCPI 

in determining a technology has been adequately demonstrated for 
purposes of regulation under section 111 of the Clean Air Act'. Yet in this 

proposed rule, the EPA relies on these three CCPI projects in making its 

adequately demonstrated determination; a determination the NAM submits 

is incorrect. The performance standard in this rule is contrary to the clear 

intent of Congress. 

However, you need not ask congress or lawyers to draw the 

conclusion that CCS has not been adequately dernonstrated; just ask the 

manufacturers of the technology and they will tell you: it is not ready. CCS 

for utility-scale coal or gas projects need more time, more investment 

dollars and a reasonable regulatory environment to get where it needs to 

go: from a developing technology with a promising future; to one that has 

overcome the technical barriers necessary to be deployed in a competitive 

marketplace. An inflexible mandate such as the one offered in this 

proposed rule ensures only that the pipeline of new, advanced power plant 

projects will dry up, sending CCS technologies overseas for our 

international competitors to nurture and ultimately own. 

' 42 U.S.C. 15962(i) 
Investment dollars, like greenhouse gas emissions are not 

constrained by national borders. This kind of regulatory environment 

ensures both will be sent abroad. 

If this rule is finalized in its current form it will add another layer of 

unnecessary regulatory uncertainty as the courts will be forced to weigh-in 

on the rule's tenuous legal conclusions; it will threaten the diversity and 

affordability of our future energy supply; and it will cede the next generation 

of power plant technologies to our international competitors. AII this for a 

rule that the EPA surmises will have no notable impact on CO2 emissions. 

At some point one is left to ponder the question: What are we actually 

accomplishing with this rule? 

As manufacturers stand next-in-line for regulations of their own, can 

the Administration commit to them with any sincerity that they will not be 

subject to similar, ill-conceived, unattainable standards? 

Manufacturers are committed to protecting the environment through 

greater environmental sustainability, increased energy efficiency and 
conservation and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Manufacturers can and will continue to develop the technological solutions 

to ensure a sustainable future. We are building more efficient power plants, 

factories, cars and appliances all of which are leading to lower emissions. 

With the right policies in place, we will continue to do so while fueling job 

creation and driving economic growth. 

In pursuit of this end, we strongly urge the EPA to reevaluate the 

proposed greenhouse gas rule for new power plants and consider a more 

reasonable path forward based on technologically achievable standards.