```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1624-E1626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    STOP THE WAR ON COAL ACT OF 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 20, 2012

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3409) to 
     limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue 
     regulations before December 31, 2013, under the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977:

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3409, the 
Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012. Across multiple federal government 
agencies, there is a regulatory assault underway against coal. The War 
on Coal has focused both on the production of coal and on the use of 
coal by electric utilities. The regulatory actions of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal government agencies are 
picking winners and losers in the energy industry by propping up 
companies like Solyndra while purposefully making it harder for coal 
producers to operate.
  The Stop the War on Coal Act returns climate policy to Congress, 
where it belongs in the hands of elected representatives who are 
subject to the will of the people. Americans want environmental 
policies that are fairly balanced against economic considerations such 
as the need for jobs and low cost electricity. These balancing 
decisions are best made in Congress. Federal agencies need to 
understand that the absence of a congressional authorization is not a 
green light for the agency to pursue whatever policy it wishes.
  I want to be clear that I support an all of the above energy policy.
  I believe that coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, 
and geothermal energy sources all have a role to play in our national 
energy portfolio. There is no question, however, that electricity from 
coal and natural gas is cheaper and more abundant than electricity 
generated from renewable sources. A 2010 Heritage Foundation study 
found that the average family of four would pay on average $189 per 
month if it obtained 100 percent of its electricity from coal, but $504 
per month if the same family purchased 100 percent of its electricity 
from solar power.
  That's a difference of $315 per month. With 47 million Americans on 
Food Stamps and everything from the price of gas to the price of milk 
increasing, Americans are looking to save money in every way possible.
  Coal fired electricity simply makes economic sense for families in my 
state and across the country.
  Additionally, while 42 percent of U.S. electricity was generated from 
coal last year, and 25 percent came from natural gas--all renewable 
sources combined accounted for only 13 percent of the electric supply. 
It will be many years before renewable fuels are ready to shoulder the 
burden of providing the energy on which American's rely.
  There are three reasons why I stand on the floor this evening to 
discuss the importance of coal. First, I am here to stand up for the 
jobs of tens of thousands of West Virginians and hundreds of thousands 
of others across the country who are employed mining coal, transporting 
coal, generating electricity from coal or work in jobs that support the 
coal industry. Second, I am here to stand up for the families and 
businesses that will see increases in their electric bills as the 
administration imposes extreme regulations on both the production and 
utilization of coal. Finally, I am here to stand up for the reliability 
of our electric grid, which could be at risk over the long term if too 
much of our ability to generate electricity from coal is lost.
  My State and our neighbors in Appalachia have suffered significant 
job losses in the coal industry recently. Just yesterday, Alpha Natural 
Resources announced 1,200 layoffs companywide and hundreds of those job 
losses will occur in my state of West Virginia. Over 300 miners at 
Consol Energy lost their jobs when the Fola Mine in Clay County, in my 
congressional district was idled earlier this summer. Arch Coal laid 
off 750 miners earlier this summer across West Virginia, Virginia, and 
Kentucky. Patriot Coal laid off 250 miners last week and the company 
filed for bankruptcy this summer. A local television station in my 
district tallied nearly 2,000 job losses in the mining industry in 
early August, and more layoffs have been announced since then.
  Besides layoffs by mining companies, job losses in related fields 
such as transportation usually accompany job losses in mines.
  There is more than one reason why job losses are occurring in the 
coal industry, and I understand that not all of the job losses that 
have occurred are attributable to over regulation. Natural gas prices 
are at historic lows and the price for metallurgical coal is softening. 
Nonetheless, the excessive regulatory burden placed on the coal 
industry is certainly part of the reason that jobs are being lost.
  I am pleased that the bill that the House will vote on this week 
includes the text of H.R. 1872, the Employment Protection Act, which I 
introduced in order to require the EPA to consider the impact that any 
new regulation, guidance, policy statement or permitting decision would 
have on jobs and the economy. All of us want clean air and clean water, 
but I believe that environmental regulations should be balanced with 
the need to maintain jobs and employment opportunities for workers in 
the mining industry.
  Under the Employment Protection Act, EPA would be required to have a 
public hearing in any state where a decision it makes would have more 
than a de minimis negative impact

[[Page E1625]]

on jobs or economic activity. Therefore, before EPA can take any action 
that costs a state more than 100 jobs or costs more than $1 million in 
economic activity, it would be required to host a public hearing in the 
impacted state and engage in a conversation with local residents about 
the costs and benefits of their regulatory action. Too often federal 
agencies that are separated from local communities lose sight of the 
fact that their decisions have real impacts on workers and their 
families. I drafted the Employment Protection Act with the idea of 
empowering local residents with respect to decisions that impact them. 
Certainly if the benefits of a regulatory decision outweigh the 
negative economic consequences of the decision, then EPA should be able 
to articulate that fact to the impacted members of the local community.

  I am also proud of the other provisions that compromise H.R. 3409.
  The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is critical legislation 
that will restore the balance between state and federal regulators when 
it comes to the issuance of permits under the Clean Water Act. It was 
clear when Congress enacted that Clean Water Act that states would have 
the ability to define water quality standards for pollutants, subject 
to approval from the EPA.
  Unfortunately, the federal regulators have attempted to supersede 
state regulators whenever possible.
  H.R. 3409 clarifies that EPA cannot issue a revised water quality 
standard that supersedes the approved state standard without the 
state's consent. The legislation also prevents the EPA from revoking 
certification of a state's Section 402 permitting program based on a 
disagreement with the state regarding a water quality standard that a 
state has adopted and EPA has approved, or the implementation of any 
federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state's 
approved water quality standards.
  Perhaps most importantly, this bill prohibits the EPA from vetoing a 
Section 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers unless the 
state concurs with the veto.
  This addresses the issue created by the EPA when it sought to veto a 
permit issued to the Spruce Mine in West Virginia. Despite the fact 
that EPA never stated that the holder of the permit violated any of the 
permit's terms, the agency sought to take back a permit that had 
already been issued. This action came after a lengthy review process 
that led to the issuance of the permit.
  Operating a coal mine requires a significant capital investment--an 
investment that cannot be made if the Federal Government is able and 
willing to take back a permit that it has issued even when the 
perrnittee abides by the conditions of the permit and otherwise follows 
the law. A federal judge in Washington, DC has already held that EPA 
acted unlawfully in taking back the permit from the Spruce Mine, but 
that ruling is currently being appealed.
  The Stop the War on Coal Act makes it absolutely clear that no 404 
permit issued by the Corps of Engineers could be vetoed without consent 
of the affected state government.
  Jobs are at risk in West Virginia and across Appalachia because of 
the slow progress in obtaining required permits under Sections 404 and 
402 of the Clean Water Act. Much of the permitting backlog is the 
result of Enhanced Coordination Procedures implemented by the EPA and 
the Corps of Engineers that gave EPA an increased role in the 
permitting progress. In two court decisions, Federal courts found that 
these Enhanced Coordination Procedures violated the Clean Water Act. 
Specifically, the Court found that the EPA ``has a very limited role in 
the issuance of CWA permits and has only the authority to develop the 
404(b)(1) guidance with the Corps'' while the Corps is responsible for 
determining compliance.
  I strongly agree with the Court's interpretation of the existing 
provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Corps of Engineers is the 
permitting authority with respect to 404 permits. After a fair period 
for interagency comments, the Corps of Engineers should make a 
permitting decision--either denying the permit and allowing the entity 
seeking a permit to make modifications necessary to ensure proper 
environmental protection, or granting the permit and allowing mining to 
take place.
  Under the Enhanced Coordination Procedures, EPA assumed a role that 
goes far beyond what was contemplated in the Clean Water Act and led to 
many permits being placed in a holding pattern. Now that the District 
Court has ruled that the Enhanced Coordination Procedures are unlawful, 
it is my hope that the Corps of Engineers and state governments will be 
able to return to the traditional method of considering Clean Water Act 
permit applications without undue interference from the EPA. The 
legislation we are considering this week will go a long way in ensuring 
the fairness of the permitting process.

                        Stream Buffer Zone Rule

  The current Stream Buffer Zone Rule was put into effect in 2008, 
after roughly five years of work. In 2009, however, OSM sought to 
vacate 2008 rule and asked a federal court to reinstate the 1980s 
regulation. The court denied this request, and OSM has worked to 
rewrite the 2008 rule which remains in place. Information provided by a 
contractor employed by OSM stated that 7,000 jobs would be lost in the 
mining industry if OSM's preferred alternative regulation were put into 
effect. To date, OSM has not issued a new stream buffer rule. 
Unemployment has remained over 8 percent for 43 straight months and we 
cannot afford to lose thousands of coal jobs.
  I commend my colleague Bill Johnson from Ohio for drafting this 
section of the bill. The legislation would prohibit the Department of 
the Interior from issuing or approving any rule under SMCRA that would 
adversely impact employment in coal mines, cause a reduction in coal 
revenues received from production on federal lands, reduce the amount 
of coal available for domestic consumption or export, designate any 
area as unsuitable for surface mining or expose the federal government 
to liability for a regulatory taking of privately owned coal before the 
end of 2013.
  There is no reason to rush into any modification of the Stream Buffer 
Rule at the expense of jobs in the coal industry.

                              Cap and Tax

  The Stop the War on Coal Act also addresses the threat of EPA 
regulations on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from 
stationary sources. Congress has not enacted legislation that 
would create a cap and trade system, a cap and tax system, or that 
would otherwise expressly permit the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide 
from stationary sources. Like Clean Water Act permitting, EPA's attempt 
to regulate carbon dioxide from stationary sources is another area 
where the agency has stepped beyond its boundaries and into the realm 
properly occupied by Congress.

  I support efforts to develop Carbon Capture and Storage technologies 
and believe that they will allow coal to be cleaner in the future. Any 
effort to require CCS technology for new plants or existing plants, 
however, should come only when that technology is feasible economically 
and technologically--and only when Congress expressly authorizes such 
regulations. The Stop the War on Coal Act will make sure that elected 
representatives, rather than unelected bureaucrats, are in control of 
our climate policy.

                         Expensive Regulations

  The expense of EPA's regulations is dramatic. National Economic 
Research Associates examined the impact of four anti-coal regulations 
imposed by the EPA: the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, Utility MACT, 
Cooling Tower regulations, and regulation of coal combustion residuals. 
The study found that compliance with these regulations would cost $127 
billion by 2020, cause 183,000 net job losses each year, and lead to a 
cumulative loss of $190 billion in our country's gross domestic 
product. The NERA study found that the average American family would 
lose $270 per year in disposable income as a result of these four 
regulations.
  Our legislation addresses these expensive and burdensome regulations. 
The bill negates EPA's efforts to regulate coal combustion residuals as 
either a solid waste or a hazardous waste. Instead, this bill would 
ensure that states have the primary responsibility for regulating coal 
combustion residuals and encourages recycling. The use of coal ash in 
concrete for example, makes the concrete stronger and requires less 
cement--thereby reducing the use of water and energy.
  Under this bill, the Utility MACT rule must be reissued by EPA with 
an increased compliance period provided to utilities.
  EPA has estimated that the cost of complying with the Utility MACT 
rule would exceed $10 billion annually in 2016--more than the cost of 
all other Clean Air Act regulations on power plants combined. These 
costs will cause power plants to close, workers to lose their jobs, and 
families to pay higher utility bills.
  The CSAPR rule, already found unlawful by a panel of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the DC Circuit, would be scrapped and replaced by the 
former Clean Air Interstate Rule, which better balanced environmental 
and economic considerations.
  The coal utility sector was well on its way to reducing emissions and 
investing in clean coal technologies without the administration's 
costly regulations. Between 1970 and 2011, emissions of sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter from coal fired power plants 
were reduced by almost 90 percent according to EPA and EIA figures, 
while the use of coal increased substantially over the same period. 
Over that same period, the industry invested nearly $100 billion in 
emission control technologies.
  Rather than continuing this progress, the EPA's regulatory course has 
led numerous coal plants to close and will lead to still more coal 
plant retirements in years to come.
  According to EIA figures, plant operators expect to retire almost 27 
gigawatts of coal fired

[[Page E1626]]

generation capacity between 2012 and 2016--approximately 8.5 percent of 
the total 2011 capacity. The 9 gigawatt retirement in 2012 will be the 
largest single year reduction in coal fired capacity in history--but 
EIA projects that figure will be exceeded by a 10 gigawatt retirement 
of coal capacity in 2015. EIA estimates that more than 55 coal 
generating units will be taken off line in 2012 alone.
  Losing coal generation capacity is bad for the future reliability of 
our electrical grid as well as for the cost of electricity in the long 
term. Natural gas prices are low today. In the event natural gas prices 
were to increase--something that certainly has happened before--a lack 
of coal generation capacity would cause utility rates to skyrocket. My 
state has an abundance of natural gas as well as coal, and I want to 
see both of these fuels succeed and maintain their roles as the two 
largest generators of electricity in our country.
  Regulating coal out of our nation's energy portfolio is not a 
responsible long term course. It has been said that the United States 
is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Our country has 260 billion short tons of 
recoverable coal--enough to meet existing production levels for 222 
years.
  Low cost energy aids in job growth not only in the energy sector, but 
in manufacturing, transportation, and across our economy. The best way 
to provide low cost energy for businesses and for individuals for years 
to come is to avoid over regulating any single energy source, and 
instead allow both coal and natural gas to be produced and utilized as 
the free market dictates.
  Our current regulatory environment chooses winners and losers in the 
energy markets--and there is no question that this administration has 
chosen coal to be the biggest loser.
  The Stop the War on Coal Act takes responsible steps that allow both 
for environmental protection and economic protection. I encourage my 
colleagues to support the legislation this week.

                          ____________________
```