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 forpurposes 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 CO 2 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 andconservation 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.