Date: 1986-06-26
Speaker: PHIL SHARP (democrat)
Chamber: H

and DAN COATS. to fashion a fair and reasonable bill that protects jobs and does not pit region against region. In this regard. I share the views of Congressman SwirT who stated last week at the excellent and helpful hearings held by Chairman MARKEY that acid rain is a problem that should be dealt with. but also this must be achieved without causing economic distress. especially for the 14 states heavily affected in phase I of H.R. 4567. most of which are in the Midwest and the South. One of the real sticking points is. of course. the "national cost sharing" provisions of the bill. The sponsors agree that such cost sharing is needed. But the "compromise" contains so many strings and affects so many Federal and state laws and longheld ratemaking policies and practices. that it has caused many. including Tennessee Valley Authority. American Public Power Association. and the Electric Cooperatives to declare it "unworkable" and to actively oppose the bill. Because our emission levels are already low. the only effect Michigan and many other states will have under phase I (other than the impacts on our autotruck industry which I and others on the committee cannot support). is to contribute money to the national subsidy fund. But I cannot vote to commit my states ratepayers to an unworkable and complicated scheme that does not protect jobs. Like many states In the West. including Washington. Michigan is not enamored with making any contribution. But. as Congressman SwiFr observed. this is a national. not a regional. problem and it is not in the national interest to impose heavy costs on the Midwest or the South simply because they do not have cheaper hydro power or Canadian power or alternative sources and they have an abundance of high sulfur coal and many old power plant units. There needs to be a real balance. not only in cost sharing. but also in adopting measures that will not "hammer" a few states before they have an opportunity to use new retrofit technologies where appropriate. More time is needed to help fashion the least cost approach without serious effects on jobs. There is no "magic" in 1993 or 1997. but both dates appear to ensure that a utilitys choices will be scrubbers or coal or fuel switching. Greater equity is needed in the first phase. Recognition of technology problems in regard to NOx controls for utilities that now use cyclone methods is needed. and. like Wisconsin. there must be recognition that emergencies and other events occur in utility operations. Hopefully. all of us working together in a spirit of accommodation and national interest will be able to fashion a fair and reasonable bill that builds on H.R. 4567. that is a true compromise. and that will enjoy more than just a majority of the Committee Members. including those from Indiana and . other states in the Midwest and the South. That is my objective. I hope it is that of all others on the Committee. The Markey hearings last week may. in fact. have been the " catalyst that will move us toward reaching that objective with greater ease. Indeed. . unless we achieve that objective. resistance . to the legislation will abound.