EPA Testimony of K.K. DuVivier Denver, Colorado July 29,

2014

Good evening. My name is K.K. DuVivier. I am wearing my hardhat tonight to represent my dual perspectives on the issues before us all.

First, I am an energy geek and expert. I am a tenured full professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. My research expertize is in Energy Law. Before law school and practice as a natural resources attorney, I was, by profession, a field geologist. In my case, once a geologist, always a geologist, so I was delighted to be a participant in the Colorado School of Mines Energy and Minerals Field Institute last summer where I received this hard hat and had the opportunity to visit both the Craig mine-mouth coal plant and the Bowie underground longwall coal mine.

However, I'm also coming today as a mother who saw her child need an inhaler for asthma because we lived close to a coal-fired power plant when she was growing up, and as a soon-to-be grandmother who wants something better for the next generation.

I have authored numerous articles on energy law issues and a book called The Renewable Energy Reader, published by Carolina Academic Press in 2011. I have a second Energy Law text due next year to my publisher, Lexis Nexis. I try to keep an objective focus in my work, but in my research, I couldn't help but notice that fossil fuels have over time enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, an unfair advantage over renewables in the form of entrenched advantages, subsidies, and most relevant here, avoidance of externalities. Shifting the cost of detrimental externalities, such as carbon and other emissions, away from those who produce them distorts the market and stalls the development of cleaner alternatives.

The genius of the industrial revolution was to convert fossilized solar power into current productive power, thus many times leveraging the work potential of a single human or animal. Fossil fuels have contributed great benefit to promote civilization, but civilization is also paying the price for giving fossil fuels a free ride on the pollution and emissions they have created. A few of the most telling things to me in the EPA's proposed rule (which I actually had to read because I am a law professor) were Tables 1 and 2. These tables (attached) showed that the net monetized benefits of the Proposed Guidelines Regional Compliance Approach were $28 to $49 Billion by 2020 and $48 to $82 Billion by 2030. Alternatively, the net monetized benefits for the Proposed Guidelines State Compliance Approach were $27 to $50 Billion by 2020 and $49 to $84 Billion by 2030. Furthermore, these figures did not include benefits that EPA said it could not monetize like ecosystem effects and visibility impairment.

Consequently, I strongly support the EPA's Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) Clean Power Plan because it will require America for the first time to address, at least to some degree, the true cost of our love affair with carbon-based energy and its impact on the world's climate and its peoples.

Specifically, the EPA's Clean Power Plan is an excellent solution first, because it is based on reasonable approaches through its 4 building blocks:

(1) Making improvements to our aging fleet of coal-fired generating plants that date back to the 1970s or before;EPA Testimony of K.K. DuVivier Denver, Colorado July 29, 2014 Page 2

(2) Substituting generation from more carbon-intensive Energy Generating Units with less carbon-intensive EGUs (such as NGCC);

(3) Expanding generation from low or zero carbon emission sources; and (4) Expanding demand-side energy efficiency programs.

Second, the Plan has achievable goals. The EPA conducted extensive information gathering before proposing this rule. The CAA requires that the standard be based on Best Systems of Emission Reduction (BSERs). Furthermore, as opposed to section 110 standards, which reflect scientific achievability but not cost, these section 111(d) plans consider other factors including cost and technical feasibility. Thus the goals and guidelines EPA has set in this rule are conservative, scientifically-based, and reasonable. Third, the Plan is an excellent solution because it structures this rule so that EPA partners with the states and allows each state flexibility to customize its plan to the specific energy, environmental, and economic needs of its citizens. While some states may have better renewable energy resources than others, National Renewable Energy Laboratory maps show that every state has potential to meet significant portions of its electricity needs, and energy efficiency is something that is available to all. Therefore, I want to thank the panel again for listening to us tonight, and in conclusion, I would like to urge the EPA not to compromise or water down this proposed rule. Instead, based on my expertise, I would recommend implementing it as proposed. The cost of waiting any longer to address the problem of carbon pollution is just too high. Thank you.

# K.K. DuVivier

•;4.0 ,1
- 4 r1‘ .,-The Renewable Energy Reader is a concise, reader-friendly sourcebook for U.S. renewable energy law. Each chapter provides historical background as well as illustrations and technology charts to give readers context for better understanding renewable energy sources and related legal issues. Each chapter also includes closely-edited excerpts from some of the most prominent primary and secondary legal sources —articles, cases, statutes, and regulations— highlighting current and potential legal challenges to the advancement of renewable resources. The book provides an accessible reference for lawyers, law students, policy-makers, and the general public, providing an overview of the significant legal implications of renewable energy development.

K.K. DuVivier is a professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. She worked as a geologist before law school and, prior to entering academia, practiced law in the natural resource area for eight years, first at the national law firms of Arnold & Porter and Sherman & Howard and then as an Assistant City Attorney in the land use department for the City and County of Denver. In developing The Renewable Energy Reader, Professor DuVivier visited renewable energy facilities across the country and collaborated closely with renewable energy experts, including several from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a 32-year leader in renewable energy research and development.

ISBN 978-1 59460-873-5

608735

Cover photo (0 James Steiellgotolta

### cc1 

### 2 ) ,

Table t—Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Guidelines in 2020 a Back to Top

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
Proposed Guidelines Regional Compliance Approach

Climate b ene fit s L $17.
Air pollution health co- 516 to 537 515 to benefits' $34.
Total Compliance $5,5 $5.5.

## costs'

Net Monetized $28 to $49 $26 to Benefits' $45

. Non-monetized Direct exposure to 50 2 and NO Benefits 2. 1.3 tons of Hg. Ecosystem Effects. Visibility impairment_ Proposed Guide ines State Compliance Approach
Climate benefits t) $18 Air pollution nealth co- $17 to $40 $15 toAir pollution health co- $17 to $40 $15 to

benefits' $36

. Total Compliance $7.5 $7.5. Costs d
Net Monetized $27 to $50 $26 to Benefits' $46.

Non-monetized Direct exposure to SO 2 and NO Benefits 2. 1.5 tons. Ecosystem effects. Visibility impairment. [Billions of 2011$/

### Table 2—Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net

Benefits for the Proposed Guidelines in 2030 a Back to Top

% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

### Proposed Guidelines Regional Compliance Approach
Climate benefits b $30.
Air pollution health 

### $25 to $59 $23 to co-benefits c 

### $54. Total Compliance $7.3 $7.3. CostsdNet Monetized $48 to $82 $46 to

Benefits' $77.

Non-monetized Direct exposure to SO 7 and NO 2. Benefits 1.7 tons of Hg and 580 tons of HCI. Ecosystem Effects. Visibility impairment. Proposed Guidelines State Compliance Approach

Climate benefits b $31. Air pollution iealth $27 to $62 $24 to co-benefits' $56.
Total Compliance $8.8 $8.8. Costs d

### Net Monetized $49 to $84 $46 to

Benefits' $79.
Non-monetized Direct exposure to SO 2 

### and NO 2. 

### Benefits 2.1 tons of Hg and 590 tons of HCI. Ecosystem effects. Visibility impairment. 

### [Billions of 2071$]