<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:99909.wais]
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 26, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-909 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
Mississippi, Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JIM DAVIS, Florida
MARY BONO, California JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HILDA L. SOLIS, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JAY INSLEE, Washington
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Bud Albright, Staff Director
David Cavicke, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky (Ranking Member)
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
Mississippi GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California LOIS CAPPS, California
MARY BONO, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM ALLEN, Maine
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan JIM DAVIS, Florida
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho HILDA L. SOLIS, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas (Ex Officio)
JOE BARTON, Texas,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Connaughton, James L., Chairman, Council on Environmental
Quality, Executive Office of the President................. 16
Holmstead, Hon. Jeffrey R., Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency............. 22
Additional material submitted for the record:
Connaughton, James L., Chairman, Council on Environmental
Quality, Executive Office of the President, response for
the record................................................. 61
Holmstead, Hon. Jeffrey R., Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, response
for the record............................................. 63
(iii)
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Hall, Shimkus, Wilson,
Walden, Otter, Murphy, Burgess, Barton (ex-officio), Boucher,
Waxman, Engel, Allen, Solis, Gonzalez, and Dingell (ex-
officio).
Staff present: Mark Menezes, chief counsel for energy and
the environment; Margaret Caravelli, majority counsel; Peter
Kielty, legislative clerk; Michael Goo, minority counsel; and
Bruce Harris, minority professional staff.
Mr. Hall. Okay. The subcommittee will come to order.
And without objection, the subcommittee will proceed
pursuant to Committee Rule 4E which allows members the
opportunity to defer opening statements for, excuse me, extra
questioning time and the Chair recognizes himself for an
opening statement.
The opening statement is that we have a vote on and they
just don't give us any cooperation or any respect anymore to
this committee. Do you want to get on the way and get started?
All right. We will get our statements out of the way.
Today, the subcommittee is holding a hearing on the
administration's Clear Skies Initiative. And this initiative,
modeled after the acid rain program in Title 4 of the Clean Air
Act, seeks to repeat the success of innovative Cap and Trade
Program that achieved substantial reductions in sulfur dioxide
deposition at a cost lower than predicted by EPA and lower than
predicted by industry.
I would like to welcome and thank our esteemed witnesses
for joining us today. The witnesses represent the
administration's experts in the field of clean air and will
walk us through the policy objectives and public health and
environmental benefits to be realized by the Clear Skies
Initiative. Chairman James Connaughton of the Council of
Environmental Quality and the Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead of
the Environmental Protection Agency join us as representatives
of the administration. It is a pleasure to have both of you
with us here today and we thank you for your time.
The Clear Skies Initiative intends to bring clarity to
complex patchwork I would say set of requirements established
by the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is separate
requirements in varying dates for emission compliance for each
pollutant. The hodgepodge of deadlines makes it extremely
difficult for States and for industry to meet clean air
objectives in a timely and cost effective manner.
I think since the time and the passage of the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments over 15 years ago, substantial gains have
been made in the Nation's air quality. One program of the Clean
Air Act that has proven to be highly effective is the acid rain
cap and trade provisions. Continuing the goal of improved air
quality, the administration's Clear Skies Initiative builds on
the positive legacy of the Acid Rain Program. It does so by
creating a series of Cap and Trade Programs for the reduction
of three air pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and
for the first time, mercury. For the mercury cap, we hope this
will drive technology in other countries as well as in our own.
The cap and trade for sulfur dioxide is a tightening of the
current Acid Rain Program lowering the cap from a current 8.95
million tons per year today to 3.0 million tons per year by the
year 2020. The nitrogen oxide cap and trade is divided into two
trading zones, east and west, to account for regional
differences and deal with the seasonal ozone issues. These
market based programs set strict limitations on emissions while
at the same time allowing industry the flexibility to choose
the most cost effective course, the course of action that they
think will achieve these limitations.
The Clean Skies Initiative seeks to reduce from current
emissions level sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent,
nitrogen oxide emissions by 67 percent, and mercury emissions
by 69 percent by the year 2020. These national caps recognize
the transitory nature of air pollution and the emissions do not
adhere to the lines on the map. Nationwide Cap and Trade
Programs take into account the impact of upwind sources on
downwind areas. The benefit of this is that States are insured
that upwind neighbors are doing everything they can to address
emissions and, therefore, eliminate the transport of pollution.
So the Clean Skies Initiative also provides for the
designation of transitional areas to help synchronize the
benefits of all three Cap and Trade Programs with the
achievement of reduced emission levels. This will be especially
helpful to those areas recently designated as non-obtainable
for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards since these pollutants are formed from the
three building blocks sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and
mercury. This idea is a continuation of an EPA policy and I
believe that good ideas should be pursued.
When the Clear Skies Initiative is fully implemented,
expect annual health benefits by 2020 to include 14,100 avoided
premature deaths, 8,800 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 12.5
million fewer days with respiratory illnesses and symptoms,
30,000 fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits. All of
these add up to $110 billion in annual public health benefits
by the year 2020.
The Clear Skies Initiative also provides for timely
environmental improvements and these include: visibility
improvements in parks and forests, reductions in sulfur,
nitrogen, and mercury deposition to improve the health of
lakes, streams, and estuaries. The cost of the Clear Skies
Initiative is projected to be a little over $6 billion per year
by the 2020 full implementation date. When compared to all the
health benefits I just mentioned, it is clear that this
approach to improving air quality across the Nation is a win-
win situation for industry and individuals alike. I favor a
practical policy of simplifying things so as to make the
accomplishment of a goal more certain and I am looking forward
to hearing from the administration's representatives about the
practical policy and how it achieves the objectives of the
Clean Air Act in a more straightforward and streamlined way. At
this time, I recognize, Mr. Boucher, the ranking member.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ralph Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ralph Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality
The Subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the
Subcommittee will proceed pursuant to Committee Rule 4(e), which allows
Members the opportunity to defer opening statements for extra
questioning time.
The Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. Today, the
Subcommittee holds a hearing on the Administration's Clear Skies
Initiative. This initiative, modeled after the Acid Rain Program in
Title IV of the Clean Air Act, seeks to repeat the success of the
innovative cap and trade program which achieved substantial reductions
in sulfur dioxide deposition at a cost lower than predicted by EPA and
industry.
I would like to welcome and thank our esteemed witnesses for
joining us today. Our witnesses represent the Administration's experts
in the field of Clean Air and will walk us through the policy
objectives and public health and environmental benefits to be realized
by the Clear Skies Initiative. Chairman James Connaughton of the
Council on Environmental Quality and The Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead of
the Environmental Protection Agency join us as representatives of the
Administration. It is a pleasure to have you join us here today.
The Clear Skies Initiative intends to bring clarity to a complex
patchwork set of requirements established by the Clear Air Act. The
Clean Air Act has separate requirements and varying dates for emission
compliance for each pollutant. This hodgepodge of deadlines makes it
extremely difficult for states and industry to meet clean air
objectives in a timely and cost effective manner.
Since the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, over
fifteen years ago, substantial gains have been made in the nation's air
quality. One program of the Clean Air Act that has proven to be highly
effective is the Acid Rain cap and trade provisions. Continuing the
goal of improved air quality, the Administration's Clear Skies
Initiative builds on the positive legacy of the Acid Rain Program. It
does so by creating a series of cap and trade programs for the
reduction of three air pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and
for the first time, mercury. For the mercury cap we hope this will
drive technology in other countries as well as in our own. The cap and
trade for sulfur dioxide is a tightening of the current acid rain
program, lowering the cap form a current 8.95 million tons per year
today to 3.0 million tons per year by 2020. The nitrogen oxides cap and
trade is divided into two trading zones, East and West, to account for
regional differences and deal with seasonal ozone issues.
These market based programs set strict limitations on emissions
while at the same time allowing industry the flexibility to choose the
most cost effective course of action to achieve these limitations. The
Clear Skies Initiative seeks to reduce, from current emission levels,
sulfur dioxide emissions by 73%, nitrogen oxide emissions by 67%, and
mercury emissions by 69%, by 2020.
These national caps recognize the transitory nature of air
pollution and that emissions do not adhere to lines on a map.
Nationwide cap and trade programs take into account the impact of
upwind sources on downwind areas. The benefit of this is that states
are ensured that upwind neighbors are doing everything they can to
address emissions and therefore eliminate the transport of pollution.
The Clear Skies Initiative also provides for the designation of
transitional areas to help synchronize the benefits of all three cap
and trade programs with the achievement of reduced emission levels.
This will be especially helpful to those areas recently designated as
nonattainment for the PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards since these pollutants are formed from the three
building blocks: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. This idea
is a continuation of an EPA policy and I believe that good ideas should
be pursued.
When the Clear Skies Initiative is fully implemented expected
annual health benefits by 2020 include:
14,100 avoided premature deaths
8,800 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis
12.5 million fewer days with respiratory illnesses and symptoms
30,000 fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits
All these add up to $110 billion in annual public health benefits
by 2020.
The Clear Skies Initiative also provides for timely environmental
improvements. These include:
Visibility improvements in parks and forests
Reductions in sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury deposition to improve the
health of lakes, streams, and estuaries.
The cost of the Clear Skies Initiative is projected to be a little
over $6 billion per year by the 2020 full implementation date. When
compared to all the health benefits I just mentioned, it is clear that
this approach to improving air quality across the nation is a win-win
situation for industry and individuals alike. I favor a practical
policy of simplifying things so as to make the accomplishment of a goal
more certain. I am looking forward to hearing from the Administration's
representatives about this practical policy, and how it achieves the
objectives of the Clean Air Act in a more straightforward and
streamlined way.
Mr. Boucher. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have had the second bills for the floor vote. Do you
intend to continue through the vote with this hearing or do you
intend to recess?
Mr. Hall. I don't know any way we can continue it through
the votes. I don't think these men would want to testify to one
another.
Mr. Boucher. Well that being the case, Mr. Chairman, let me
suggest a recess and we have a series of votes and you can----
Mr. Hall. Do you want to recess before you give your
opening statement?
Mr. Boucher. Well I think it might be appropriate and then
we can reconvene after that.
Mr. Hall. What do we do? By that time they have forgotten
everything I have said.
Mr. Boucher. That is part of my point, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. All right. We will recess for 20 minutes.
Mr. Boucher. Well whatever time it takes, we have got a
series of votes.
Mr. Hall. For 20 minutes and 5 minutes are gone.
Mr. Boucher. It is going to be longer than that, 45
minutes. There are about five votes. It will probably be 3
before we can come back.
Mr. Hall. All right, belay that order, we will be back when
we get back and probably we will be back here in about 30
minutes. At ease, thank you.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Hall The other guys are a lot slower than us younger
people. Since the main ones are here, I recognize the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, for an opening statement.
Mr. Boucher. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I join with you in welcoming our witnesses this afternoon
and thank them for taking time to inform this committee of
their views with regard to clean air measures.
Following a lengthy and thorough markup spanning several
weeks and involving a number of postponements in the effort to
achieve consensus, the Senate Environment Committee has voted
not to approve the administration's Clear Skies Initiative. I
am not aware of any changes that have taken place in the Senate
or that are likely to take place there that would affect that
outcome assuming that the matter would be considered
potentially later this year or not next year.
At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency has
moved forward with a series of rulemakings including a mercury
control program and a regulation on the interstate transport of
other emissions in the Clear Air Interstate Rule. The EPA has
also addressed the new source review controversy by
promulgating a rule that specifies the circumstances under
which utilities that operate the older cold fired power plants,
can undertake routine and maintenance on those facilities
without triggering the new source performance standards.
In view of the Senate action on Clear Skies and in view of
the progress that the EPA is making in achieving many of the
goals of the Clear Skies legislation through regulatory means,
I will welcome the views of the witnesses on the practical
utility of this committee attempting to legislate at this time.
Perhaps in that respect a comment from Mr. Holmstead on the
status of litigation regarding some of the EPA's rules would be
appropriate and I will hope he will make some comment about
those during his testimony.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, this
hearing should focus primarily on these practical questions
rather than on a detailed analysis of the substance of the
administration's bill. I think the key question for us is is
there really any need for this committee to spend time and
effort addressing a matter that from our perspective if it were
to pass the House would simply go nowhere in the Senate.
If after our discussions this afternoon it is apparent that
the bill cannot be enacted during this session of Congress
because of the Senate committee's decision, and if it appears
that the EPA is making substantial progress in addressing many
of the goals of the bill through regulations, then I think we
should decide to focus our attention for this Congress on
matters where we can make a genuine difference. Specifically on
the urgent business of passing the Energy Bill, which I
strongly support, as does the subcommittee chairman. And that
is an area where our work can produce a major and much needed
change.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the witness' testimony
today and I thank you for convening this opportunity for them
to inform us of their views and I yield back.
Mr. Hall. I thank you.
At this time I recognize the chairman of Energy and
Commerce Committee, the Honorable Joe Barton of Texas.
Chairman Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our two witnesses today. I know both of
them well and they are both gentlemen and professionals and
they have both done outstanding work in trying to protect the
air quality of our Nation.
Since the committee last focused on the Clear Skies
Initiative, many clean air developments have occurred. In the
past year, the Environmental Protection Agency has moved
forward with the designation of non-attainment areas for the
two new national ambient air quality standards: the 8-hour
ozone and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.
In recent weeks, two new rules have been finalized; the
Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. The
various rules and standards that the States were required to
comply with highlights the necessity in my opinion for
comprehensive national clean air policy that provides certainty
and also ease of implementation. The Clean Air Act has gone far
to improve the Nation's air quality and these rules would
appear to be helpful but at some time it would seem to me that
we need to also legislate.
Progress can only be sustained through a cost effective
process such as the Clear Skies Initiative the President has
proposed. The success of the Acid Rain Program established
under the 1990 Clean Air Act, demonstrates that a National Cap
and Trade Program will clean the air efficiently while giving
industry the flexibility it needs to deliver affordable
electricity to our homes.
The Clear Skies Initiative has stirred intense political
debate over the best way to improve air quality. Of particular
interest has been the appropriate mechanism to control
emissions from the electric utility industry, a vital sector of
our Nation's economy. Needless to say, people need both clean
air and reliable power. Nobody should have to breathe polluted
air, but people also don't want to be left in the dark, or not
have a job.
Throughout this discourse there has been a lack of
understanding as to how the elements of the Clear Skies
Initiative would amend the Clean Air Act. The new designations
under the new 8-hour standard for non-attainment are of
particular concern. My district, Ellis County, is a rural
county with few major emitters. Yet, it has been designated as
non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard even though,
according to the EPA's own estimating procedure, it supplies
less than .2 of a percent of the ozone in the affected region
that is already in non-attainment.
In time, as the new State implementation Plans are coming
due, my constituents are going to come to me and point out the
confusing time lines and misaligned deadlines. I hope I will be
able to tell them that the Congress will be helpful. I want to
be able to say that we had a chance to make the rules simpler
and more straight forward and we did. I hope the experience and
knowledge gained over 15 years with the successful Acid Rain
Program shows us how to provide market mechanisms to being
about cleaner air in a more cost effective way.
Twenty-five of the 33 members of this subcommittee
represent areas that have been designed non-attainment under
the new PM<INF>2.5</INF> or 8-hour ozone NAAQS standard. I
expect soon that their constituents are going to begin coming
to them complaining they are unable to attract new industry and
new jobs, that they are prohibited from building roads to
alleviate congestion, that the process is too complex, and that
they have exhausted their local resources.
We have an opportunity to be responsible, to simplify, and
to allow market forces to determine the best course of action.
We have a chance now to make even greater strides in approving
America's air quality by preventing much of the postponements
that have occurred in the past. It is time for us to put to
good use the lessons we have learned in the last 15 years.
We have much to learn from our two witnesses today. How do
the Cap and Trade Programs make achieving the Nation's air
quality goals easier? How do they assist newly designated non-
attainment areas achieve their clean air requirements? What can
only be done by Congress? These are just some of the issues
that the administration's experts have been asked to testify on
today during the hearing. Some important reforms to the Clean
Air Act can only be achieved through legislative action.
I support the goals of the President's proposed Clear Skies
Act. Myself and former Chairman Tauzin were sponsors of the
President's proposal in the last Congress. I am willing to work
toward a bipartisan solution on this legislation. Today's
hearing should provide members of the committee on both sides
of the aisle an opportunity to become educated on all parts of
the Clear Skies proposals, rules, and necessary legislative
action.
One of the things that I hope to learn today is whether we
can agree that jobs, growth, and opportunity are just as
important as clean air. I am interested in learning if others
in our committee are prepared to work on a bipartisan basis,
roll up our sleeves, and work together in a good faith fashion
to construct the legislative proposal that all members in the
community, on the industrial side and the environmental side,
can be supportive of.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time. I thank you for holding this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since the Committee last focused on the
Clear Skies Initiative, many clean air developments have occurred. In
the past year, the Environmental Protection Agency has moved forward
with the designation of nonattainment areas for the two new National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): the 8-hour ozone and the PM 2.5
standards. In recent weeks, two new rules have been finalized: The
Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. The various
rules and standards the states are required to comply with highlight
the necessity for comprehensive national clean air policy that provides
certainty and ease of implementation. The Clean Air Act has gone far to
improve the nation's air quality, and these rules also appear to be
helpful.
However, progress can only be sustained through a cost-effective
process like the Clear Skies Initiative. The success of the Acid Rain
Program established under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
demonstrates that a national cap-and-trade program cleans the air
efficiently while giving industry the flexibility it needs to deliver
affordable electricity to our homes.
The Clear Skies Initiative has stirred political debate over the
best way to improve air quality. Of particular interest has been the
appropriate mechanism to control emissions from the electric utility
industry, a vital sector of our Nation's economy. Needless to say,
people need both clean air and reliable power. Nobody should have to
breath polluted air, but people cannot be left to sit in the dark while
we figure it out. Throughout this discourse there has been a lack of
understanding as to how the elements of the Clear Skies Initiative will
amend the Clean Air Act.
The new designations for nonattainment are of particular concern.
In my district, Ellis County, a rural county with few major emitters,
has been designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. And in
time, as the new state implementation plans are coming due, my
constituents are going to come to me and point out the confusing
timelines and the misaligned deadlines. I hope I will be able to tell
them Congress was helpful. I want to be able to say that when we had a
chance to make the rules simpler and more straightforward, we did. I
hope the experience and knowledge gained over 15 years with the
successful Acid Rain program will allow us to provide market mechanisms
to bring about cleaner air in a cost-effective way. Continued
oppressive regulation is not the best or only way to improve our
environment.
Twenty-five of the thirty-three Members of this subcommittee
represent areas that have been designated nonattainment under the new
PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS. I expect soon our constituents will come
to us complaining they are unable to attract any new industry and new
jobs; they are prohibited from building roads to alleviate congestion;
and that the process is so complex that they have exhausted their
resources. We have the opportunity to be responsible, to simplify, and
to allow market forces determine the best course of action. And we have
the chance now to make even greater strides in improving America's air
quality by preventing much of the postponements that have occurred.
It's time for us to put to good use all the lessons we have learned
from the past 15 years.
We have much to learn from these witnesses today. How do the cap-
and-trade programs make achieving the nation's air quality goals
easier? How do they assist newly-designated nonattainment areas achieve
their clean air requirements? What can only be done by Congress? These
are issues the Administration's experts are invited to address during
today's hearing.
Some important reforms to the Clean Air Act can only be achieved
through legislative action. I support the goals of the President's
proposed Clear Skies Act. I am willing to start the hard work towards a
bipartisan agreement and today should provide Members of the Committee
to become educated on all parts of the Clear Skies Initiative--the
rules and the legislation.
One of the things I hope to learn today is whether we can agree
that jobs, growth and opportunity for our people are important. I am
interested in learning if others on our committee are prepared to work,
really roll up our sleeves, and work together on a good faith,
bipartisan, constructive basis to achieve clean air, reliable power,
and economic growth for the people who depend on us for all three.
I thank the Chairman for having this hearing and look forward to
the testimony. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Hall. I thank the chairman for his time and his good
remarks.
I recognize at this time the former, long-time, very
vererable chairman of this committee, John Dingell, 5 minutes.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I commend you for
holding this important hearing on the administration's Clear
Skies Initiative.
In July 2003, we last met to discuss this same legislative
program. Since that time, there have been a number of key
developments that affect both the wisdom and the necessity of
entertaining extensive amendments to the Clean Air Act at this
time. I am hopeful that this hearing will provide us with an
opportunity to explore these developments and to gain a better
understanding of whether moving forward in this area continues
to make sense. I am troubled about the lack of information on
this matter and intend to explore those questions today. I must
confess that I am not convinced at this particular time that
moving forward with legislation is a good idea.
As an initial matter, we suffer from a lack of reliable
information regarding the options available to the committee.
Before we begin to seriously consider substantial changes in
the Clean Air Act, we need advised information from the
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA that relates to the
complete range of legislative possibilities including leaving
the existing Clean Air Act in place.
At our last Clean Skies hearing nearly 2 years ago, I
quoted one of our witnesses today, Mr. Jeffrey Holmstead as
saying, ``This sort of analysis that we are showing you today
is result of months, and months, and months of staff work and
we have no intention of doing that kind of work on other
legislative proposals.'' As I mentioned at that time, such an
approach to information sharing does not bode well for a
thoughtful and thorough inquiry into what changes, if any, need
to be made in the Clean Air Act.
Last week in advance of the hearing, I sent a letter to the
two witnesses appearing before us today and reiterated my
position that before we begin to work, we should look seriously
at the changes to the Clean Air Act--that we would need to
analyze a range of multi pollutant programs and not just this
one here.
Since EPA has recently finalized important Clean Air Act
rules using the authority of the existing Clean Air Act, I
noted that EPA should include those rules in its analysis of
what would happen without extensive amendments to the Clean Air
Act. That way, a fair comparison could be made between the
existing act and the changes sought by the administration and
others.
I noted that because the administration's bill relaxes key
provisions of existing law, the effect of these changes should
be projected as well. Anything less will result in an one-sided
analysis and a situation where the committee does not have full
information upon which it may predicate its judgments.
Finally, given that EPA finalized its own proposal using
state-of-the-art models, I asked that the same models be used
to analyze other proposals so that direct comparisons are
available to everyone and we are not compelled to compare
apples and oranges to arrive at a curious decision that may
perhaps only be described best as fruit salad. Only then can we
fully and truly evaluate the relative merits of the
administration proposal.
As I noted in my letter, I remain highly skeptical about
the need for extensive reworking of the Clean Air Act. The
compromise we forged in 1980 has proven to be a sound one, one
that balances environmental needs and economic viability. We
worked hard on that legislation, as many will recall, for many,
many months, and well into the night and sometimes into the
next day in our attempts to develop something that all parties
could agree upon. I will not support diverging from that
compromise unless there is no question that the result will be
better in all respects. Better for the environment, better for
our energy uses, and better for our economic future. And a
better and simpler policy that provides more certainty and
rationality for everyone.
At this time, I am afraid that we are a long way from that
goal. I look forward to this hearing and learning more about
this important topic at future hearings and I thank you for
your recognition, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. I thank the chairman.
At this time, I recognize, Mr. Murphy, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you also for
holding this important hearing on Clear Skies Initiative.
Although we have not been able to get the consensus on
moving these forward on the other side of the hill, I do
believe we have a lot of work that we have to continue to take
the lead on.
Like many other districts, my district is one that has some
problems with this, although sadly, some of the problems, many
of the problems that have come with non-attainment designation
don't even originate in the counties I represent and quite
frankly, don't even originate in Pennsylvania. For this reason,
it is a concern that even though our areas are in non-
attainment and it affects our ability to do manufacturing and
industry work, it is something that comes from farther away and
I believe it is something that we need to address in this Clear
Skies Initiative to work on employment in this Nation.
But ultimately, this is also a public health issue and that
is where I am pleased that we are moving forward in this, Mr.
Chairman, because it is vitally important. I recognize that
moving forward more progressively on Clear Skies is a way of
saving millions of dollars in healthcare costs, perhaps even
more and for that reason, I am eager to hear some of the
testimony and some of the actions that we can move forward on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. I thank you and at this time recognize the
gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today this committee is holding only its second hearing in
3 years on the President's proposal to change the Clean Air
Act. Congress has passed major amendments to the Clean Air Act
of 1970 just twice, in 1977 and 1990. Representative Dingell
and I are the only two members of the committee who were around
for both the 1977 and 1990 amendments and we know how hard the
committee worked and how many hundreds of hours of hearings and
markups it took to pass those landmark laws. And certainly
those who were there for the 1990 Clean Air Act revisions had
firsthand experience of how much work we put into it.
The legislation we are considering today is fundamentally
different than the 1977 and 1990 amendments. Those laws
strengthen the Clean Air Act and brought clean air to millions
of Americans. The President's proposal I believe undermines the
Clean Air Act and will increase pollution and delay clean up
efforts.
The President, its sponsors, and big power plants and
chemical companies want Americans to believe that their
proposal will clean up the air. In reality, this bill will
dismantle one of the most effective environmental laws ever
adopted. The result will be decades of dirtier air, tens of
thousands of unnecessary illnesses and premature deaths, and
ongoing damage to lakes, rivers, and forests. I support clean
air; that is why I oppose the President's proposal.
The Clean Air Act says that the air should be healthy for
people to breathe. Areas that fail to meet the health based air
quality standards must take steps to reduce pollution over a
reasonable timeframe. The President's proposal amends the Clean
Air Act to extend the existing timeframes for cleaning up the
air in many areas, but it does not require them to do anything,
so people will breathe unhealthy air for years longer if this
bill passes.
The Clean Air Act requires old power plants to adopt modern
pollution controls when they upgrade. The President's proposal
removes this requirement allowing plants with no pollution
controls at all to keep on polluting. The Clean Air Act allows
downwind States suffering from pollution from beyond their
borders to petition EPA to require upwind reductions. The
President's proposal dismantles this, making it almost
impossible for downwind States to obtain any relief.
The Clean Air Act has been successful in part because it
provides multiple tools for tracking air pollution and for
tackling the problem of how to reduce it. This bill would
eliminate proven and effective tools such as enforceable
deadlines, State authorities, and technology based standards.
In fact, using its authorities under the existing law, EPA has
already required through regulation almost all of the emissions
reductions the President claims the bill will provide.
This proposal is not about clean air, it is about letting
polluters off the hook.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Shimkus of Illinois.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thanks for holding
this hearing.
I have great respect for my friend from California and
there has been great success in environmental standards.
What this debate now is about is bringing some sense to the
different components of having a good energy portfolio and
monitored and being constricted by the old rules. One of the
greatest things they did was the cap and trade system for
sulfur. And it has been very, very successful. And why has it
been successful? Because it incentifies new abilities for
people to clean the sulfur out of emissions and then they got
benefits from it. And all Clear Skies does is move that same
provision into the other emmittants.
And that is why I am very excited about this proposal. We
have--because there has been a down side with the Clean Air Act
and that has been thousands of coalminer jobs in Southern
Illinois. It has also been a one fuel policy that this
country's had that has caused natural gas prices to skyrocket.
Now we have high skyrocketing natural gas prices. We cannot get
liquefied national gas in on the coast because the
environmentalists don't want the L&G facilities there. So if we
want a balanced energy program and clean air, the Clear Skies
is a great way to go. And so I am all encouraged and look
forward to working very diligently for it.
Two real world instances. We have two new coal generating
plants on the board in Southern Illinois. Now I would ask my
friends, what would you rather have, a 40-year-old coal
generating facility that may have been grandfathered or would
you rather have new technology and new plants with higher
standards and new technology? And I think the answer is clear.
You are going to get a better burn, you are going to get better
generating capacity, and you are going to have cleaner air
because they are going to reap financial benefits because of
the cap and trade provisions.
So the time for this legislation has come. I am glad it is
now right after the Energy Bill. They are--they already go hand
and hand and I look forward to moving the President's
legislation forward.
I yield back to balance my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
America's air has become markedly cleaner in the 35 years since the
Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. Mercury emissions, which reached a
peak in the 1960's, have continually decreased. We will continue to do
more to improve air quality; however, we need to consider the most
efficient and productive way to achieve the desired result.
Existing law is now a hodge-podge of overlapping and conflicting
regulations, often held up in legal battles, and fails to provide
consistency, clarity or certainty. This process makes achieving cleaner
air more complicated and costlier, while at the same time delaying
improvements in air quality, and costing many people in my home state
of Illinois, valuable jobs. The mining industry in Illinois was once a
vibrant industry with over 14,000 jobs only 15 years ago. That was
before the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Today, there are only a
little over 3,000 mining jobs. The future of the Illinois coal industry
can be bright again, if we provide them with the regulatory certainty
provided under the Clear Skies plan.
Clear Skies provides a balance between our environmental and our
energy policies. Not finding a balance between these 2 issues is one of
the biggest reasons while natural gas prices are so high. The
government forced the use of natural gas for years, without thinking of
the potential impact on prices.
Clear Skies is significantly better for the environment than the
existing Clean Air Act because it provides predictably that significant
pollution reductions will occur and certainty as to when they will
occur. The existing Act cannot guarantee either result.
The cap and trade program in Clear Skies has shown it can work with
the Acid Rain program, reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions faster and at
far lower costs than anticipated. The cap and trade program gives
states the flexibility they need to meet our clean air goals.
The way to achieve real emission reductions is through legislation,
not agency regulations. Because with regulations, we get litigation.
And with litigation, we get delays. Clear Skies will bring emission
reductions sooner than current law, while at the same time keeping our
economy moving forward.
Thank you.
Mr. Hall. Okay. Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. I am sort of in the middle of two microphones,
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for giving our subcommittee the
opportunity to consider the President's proposal Clear Skies. I
have been having a balancing act all day between this
subcommittee and the telecom subcommittee of our committee in
which I serve. They are holding simultaneous hearings so I
apologize in coming in and coming out.
I want to welcome EPA Assistant Administrator, Jeffrey
Holmstead and James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality to our subcommittee today.
The adoption of the Landmark Clean Air Act in 1970 and its
updated provisions in 1990 were significant because for the
first time, Congress set National environmental standards to
protect our environment and citizens from the harmful effects
of air pollution.
Through key environmental attainment deadlines and census
for smog reduction and empowerment of State and local
Government to take control of their pollution problems, real
progress was made. We obviously still have more work to do. It
has been estimated that over 25,000 people die each year
prematurely from power plant pollution. Additionally, power
plant emissions are responsible for 38,000 heart attacks, over
3 million lost work days, and more than half a million asthma
attacks.
The last health consequence is particularly troubling to
me. Today over 7 million kids suffer from asthma, including two
of my own, and the rates of asthma affliction keep going up so
it is clear we have to continue the fight for environmental
health and safety.
I am willing to have an open mind on this bill. I
appreciate Mr. Connaughton contacting me and coming to my
office to discuss Clear Skies and to answer many of my
questions. But what troubles me is I am told that this proposal
only significantly extends communities deadlines to responsible
reduce pollution, but also undermines State's abilities to
confront pollution problems caused by industry emissions both
near and far away. I would be willing to hear if that is not
the case.
My own State of New York has utilized both Sections 1 to 6
and new source review statutes to effectively and significantly
reduce our exposure to pollutant sources. It seems to me
logically that eliminating those tools is not progress and
certainly will not result in clear skies for New York.
Furthermore, I worry about a one size fits all approach to
pollution control. There is no reason to essentially apply the
same cap and trade system to sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides,
and mercury. In the first place, the Cap and Trade Program is
not an adequate substitute, I believe, for all the Clear Air
Act requirements.
And second, it is not appropriate and unsafe to allow
plants to buy emissions reductions credits rather than install
mercury emissions controls as mercury deposits locally is toxic
and could result in concentrations of mercury contamination
known as hot spots. These concentrations of mercury are known
to result in birth and developmental defects for children
40,000 of whom are born each year in New York and
cardiovascular and immune system problems in adults. This is
simply not acceptable.
In 2000, the EPA recognized that mercury was appropriate
and necessary to be regulated and determined that plants should
install the strictness emissions control technology possible to
protect against excessive mercury emissions. In March, the
agency took a giant step backwards with the issuance of their
troubling mercury rule which both delisted mercury from a list
of pollution sources subject to the strict pollution controls
and established the Cap and Trade Program.
New York, along with a number of other States, sued EPA
over both issues. Notably both the Government Accountability
Office and EPA Inspector General have also issued reports
deeply critical of the way in which EPA developed the rule. I
welcome the opportunity to open the debate on how to best
improve our environment.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee which
have had over 24 extensive hearings on multi-emissions
legislation since 1998 and at the end of which could not muster
a majority to support the Clear Skies proposal has in many
instances demonstrated a strong commitment toward crafting and
proven environmental standards. We must craft legislation that
strengthens and expands our current policies without
undermining its most fundamental protection.
Again, I am willing to listen. I know there are answers to
some of my questions and perhaps I can be convinced but I
thought it would be best for me to put my concerns on the
record and I eagerly await to hear what the gentlemen have to
say.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman and recognize the gentleman
from Idaho, Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. I will waive, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Wilson, the young lady
from New Mexico.
Ms. Wilson. I will waive as well, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. I accept all waivers.
The Chair recognizes Mrs. Solis, the young lady from
California.
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good afternoon.
Thank you for holding this important hearing, and I welcome
Mr. Holmstead and Chairman James Connaughton. I appreciate your
being here this afternoon. I am very concerned about clean air
as it relates to our public health.
More than 159 million people live in areas that do not meet
attainment for ozone standards and many of these individuals
that are affected tend to be minority communities. In fact,
more than 70 percent of Latinos and African Americans live in
counties that have dirty air, high levels of air pollution; 5.5
million Latinos live within 10 miles of coal fired power plant
and 68 percent of all African Americans in the U.S. live within
30 miles of a coal fired power plant, the distance within which
the health impacts are more acute. Latino children have high
rates of asthma, more than 2 to 3.5 times that of non-Latino
white children. Death rates from asthma among African Americans
at 2.5 times higher rates than white. Nationwide, African
Americans are rushed to the emergency room with asthma attacks
three times more than whites.
If implemented and enforced, the existing Clean Air Act
could help remedy these problems. But rather than fully
implement and enforce existing law, the administration is
pushing forward what I believe is one of the biggest gifts yet
to corporate polluters, Clear Skies.
In 1990, the Clean Air Act amendments risk based processes
were implemented to regular air toxins. One such toxic emitter
is industrial boilers like those used in refineries, chemical
plants, and manufacturing facilities which emit hydrogen
chloride, lead, arsenic, and mercury.
Clear Skies, as proposed by President Bush, would exempt
industrial boilers from existing standards on all of these
toxic emissions if the facility chooses to accept weaker
regulations on nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxides, and mercury. The
Clear Skies proposal weakens regulations and ignores release of
toxic emissions like lead and arsenic. As a result of President
Bush's proposal, there are likely to be 14,000 more lost days
of work, and 175 more cases of bronchitis in Los Angeles
County, 574 more heart attacks in Cook County, Illinois, and
160 more people suffering from asthma in Franklin County, Ohio.
Clear Skies should really be called, in my opinion, ``Dirty
Skies'' because it weakens existing law and worsens our air
quality and harms the public heath, in particular, low income
communities and communities of color. I urge my colleagues to
take this issue very seriously, as I do. The potential damaging
impacts of Clear Skies is one that will be felt for many
generations. It is our responsibility to provide them with air
that is clean and an environment that is healthy and thriving.
I hope that the gentlemen that are sitting before us will
be able to address some of the questions that I have regarding
the implementation of this proposal.
Thank you.
Mr. Hall. I thank you.
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this important
hearing.
I can't think of a better time to hold a hearing on clean air. My
Congressional District, like the Chairman's, is located in the Dallas-
Fort Worth Metroplex in North Texas. Each summer the Metroplex faces a
serious public health problem in the form of ozone.
The hot Texas air combines with Volatile Organic Compounds and
nitrogen oxides to form ground level ozone, which causes health
problems for our elderly and children, and especially those with
asthma.
I believe that clean air will be one of the North Texas region's
most important and challenging issues over the next decade. I support
efforts to clean up our air--clean air is one of the most important
legacies that we can leave our children.
In North Texas, there is a significant commitment to clean the air.
The EPA, the State of Texas, the Cities of Fort Worth and Dallas, and
the North Texas Clean Air Coalition, which is comprised of the North
Texas Council of Governments and community leaders, are all working
together to improve air quality in the North Texas region. They've done
a good job so far--North Texas has grown rapidly over the last decade
and the degree of air pollution has not increased, and has even
improved.
The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex has been designated as in
``moderate'' non-attainment under the recently announced 8-Hour ozone
designations, with an attainment date of 2010. This is an improvement
over its 1-hour ozone designation, when Dallas-Fort Worth was
classified as in ``serious'' non-attainment. I am pleased about the
progress we have made over the last few decades on cleaning up our air,
but there is a lot of work still to be done.
The Clean Air Act has helped to improve our air quality since it
was enacted, but I believe that the time is right for Congress to
examine whether or not it makes sense for the future.
The complexity alone makes it difficult for states and localities
to comply. I do not believe that we should let states and cities ``off
the hook'' for cleaning the air, as some have alleged.
But I think that it makes common sense to allow states and cities
to spend their resources on cleaning up the air rather than complying
with unnecessarily complex federal laws and regulations.
And, as a former member of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, I am also concerned about the transportation conformity
provision in current law.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome Chairman
Connaughton and Administrator Holmstead and thank them for testifying
before us today. I look forward to learning more about the President's
Clear Skies Initiative.
Mr. Hall. Now we get to the main feature. We have two
gentlemen here that are going to testify for us and answer
questions for us. We first have Jeffrey Holmstead who is in
charge of all activities in the EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation. He was Associate Council to the President in the
White House, from 1989 to 1993 for George H. W. Bush. From 1993
until his EPA appointment, he practiced law at the firm of
Lathem and Watkins. He is a native of Colorado, which I
understand is a State made up of people from Iowa that don't
want any more Texans. Is that right? And he graduated, unlike
the Chair, first in his class at Brigham Young University with
degrees in Economics and English, and he is a graduate of Yale
Law School. I recognize you hopefully for about 5 minutes.
Mr. Holmstead. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask----
Mr. Hall. You can. And we will go with Mr. Connaughton
first. Is that what you want to do? They just told me. They
said we are going to start with Mr. Connaughton first: I said,
``no we are not.''
Mr. Holmstead. Well we will defer to you but my testimony
makes more sense after he gives his.
Mr. Hall. We recognize Mr. Connaughton, who is a very
intelligent advisor to the President, as well as Director of
White House Office on Environmental Policy and he graduated
high up in his class. He must have been in the same class with
Mr. Holmstead because he graduated second in his class, magna
cum laude at Yale University and also graduated from the
Northwestern University School of Law. We all would recognize
you for whatever time you take.
STATEMENTS OF JAMES L. CONNAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; AND
HON. JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND
RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And it is a pleasure to be here before members of the
subcommittee. And for those of you with whom I was able to meet
before this hearing, I appreciate that and I do look forward to
meeting with those of you whom I have not yet had a chance to
sit down privately.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to talk about and to
strongly urge the passage of the President's Clear Skies
Initiative. President Bush is dedicated to providing our
families and our children with a healthier, more economically
vibrant and secure future. Important to achieving that future
is bringing proven innovative tools to the task, and Clear
Skies legislation is just such a proven innovative tool. It
will mean healthier citizens, stronger communities, more
affordable and reliable and secure energy, and more vibrant
wildlife habitat across America.
It will do this by significantly expanding the Clean Air
Act's most innovative and successful program in order to cut
power plant pollution of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and
for the first time mercury by an unprecedented 70 percent in
two phases. These cuts in pollution will provide substantial
health benefits, prolonging the lives of thousands of Americans
annually and improving the conditions of life for hundreds of
thousands of people with asthma, other respiratory illnesses,
and heart disease. As the son of a pediatrician who is also a
chronic asthmatic and someone who I had to take to the hospital
usually about once a month or every 6 weeks, my passion for
this policy is deeply personal.
Clear Skies will produce the benefits, these health
benefits with greater certainty by imposing a mandatory
permanent multi-pollutant cap on emissions from more than 1,300
power plants nationwide, reducing pollution by as much as 9
million tons annually at full implementation. Now your
utilities will achieve this by spending more than $52 billion
to install, operate, and maintain new primarily coal pollution
abatement technology on both old and new power plants. That is
twice the expenditure that was undertaken to achieve the
ambitious goals of the Acid Rain Trading Program in 1990.
Clear Skies will require only a few dozen Government
officials to operate it and will assure compliance through a
system that is easy to monitor but more importantly is easy to
enforce.
Accordingly, the Clear Skies cap and trade approach will
give our States the most powerful, efficient and proven tool
available for meeting the new tough health based air quality
standards for fine particles and for ozone. At the end of last
year, EPA completed the process of informing over 500 counties
that they either do not meet or that they contribute to another
county not meeting new standards. That relatively
straightforward act has now triggered a very complex process
that will lead later this year to a frenzy of intrastate
negotiation and conflict, interstate negotiation and conflict,
Federal and State negotiation and conflict, State and citizen
petitions, lawsuits, and heightened uncertainty and energy
markets producing an avoidable but negative impact on local
investment, jobs, and consumer energy bills. It is not a pretty
picture. This is a chart that gives you an example of the
numerous steps ahead of us, each of which is a field day for
lawyers.
Now as a former Governor, the President personally
experienced and understands the complexities of developing and
implementing State plans to meet air quality standards. That is
why he places a premium on practical and common sense
solutions. Clear Skies, in conjunction with the Bush
Administration's new rules cutting diesel engine pollution by
more than 90 percent, will provide that solution. Most counties
will be able to meet the new tougher air quality standards
without having to take local measures beyond the Clear Skies
power plant reductions and the diesel ryles. For the relative
few that remain, their burden will be substantially lighter and
their likely challenge a local one. This simple approach could
save governments and the private sector tens of millions of
dollars in negotiations, litigation and otherwise inevitable
delay in meeting the air quality standards.
Now I would like to show you the attainment maps. These are
the 350 counties monitored that have to meet these new ozone
and fine particle standards. The next chart will show you what
happens after the new diesel rules, current Clean Air Act
programs and the Clear Skies legislation. Most of those
counties will meet the standards. And by the way, most of them
will meet them on time without having to take local measures.
Now that is how the program will work so we will attain the
standards, but let us talk about what it means to our
communities. Clear Skies will help keep communities together.
The up front assurance that legislation would provide of
meeting air standards will give communities the certainty that
they need to keep and attract manufacturing jobs in the places
where generations of their families currently live, work, play,
and pray. The absence of such certainty could exacerbate the
break up of communities experiencing the exodus of industrial
jobs to either ``greenfields'' locations in the United States
or, even more consequentially and more often these days,
overseas.
If we could go back to the previous slide. If you look at
the non-attainment areas, this is industrial America. These are
the urban communities that we care about. Now by cleaning up
these communities with certainty through legislation, it allows
them to stay together and re-attract the new investment that
they so desperately need. It allows us to take our
``brownfields'' legislation that this committee and the
Congress so strongly endorsed and provide for new reinvestment
in those ``brownfields'' for new good paying jobs.
Clear Skies is also going to make these communities
stronger by helping to keep energy affordable, reliable, and
domestically secure for their businesses and homes. Now that is
particularly important to those least able to afford their
energy needs. The market based trading approach will
substantially cut the overall cost of compliance that is passed
on to consumers and to fixed income shareholders. In addition,
the specific cap levels in Clear Skies which have been endorsed
by organizations such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the
National Association of Counties are calibrated to encourage
utilities to put controls on coal rather than switch to natural
gas in order to comply. That minimizes the overall impact on
energy prices. Forcing fuel switching from coal to natural gas
is a tool of compliance by contrast maximizes the costs of
compliance.
This chart gives you a picture of coal, what happens to
coal under Clear Skies. You see a steady increase in the rise
of coal which is our most affordable, abundant, and
domestically secure energy source. If we proceeded with other
measures where there is less certainty about how they can
comply, we will see switching out of coal into natural gas. And
many of these--many members of the subcommittee have
communities that are currently under a great burden in terms of
their natural gas prices.
Finally, Clear Skies will help our ecosystems and wildlife
thrive. It will eliminate chronic acidity in the Adirondacks
which was the purpose of the Acid Rain Trading Program and
virtually eliminate it in other Northeastern lakes. It will
improve long-term conditions in streams, rivers, lakes, and
bays, and it will vastly improve visibility in many of our
parks and other scenic locations.
Now several members of the subcommittee have raised the
questions about additional modeling and additional information
and I would just like to indicate to the subcommittee that we
will be providing that. Administrator Johnson has a letter
going up to the Senate and we will share that if I could put
that into the record, Mr. Chairman, we will be sharing that
with the subcommittee as well.
Mr. Hall. No objection.
Mr. Connaughton. So Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons,
a broad array of State, regional, and local officials, as well
as unions and non-Governmental organizations have endorsed the
approach to meeting the air quality that Clear Skies delivers.
We, therefore, look forward to the Congress delivering Clear
Skies Legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of James L. Connaughton follows:]
Prepared Statement of James L. Connaughton, Chairman, Council on
Environmental Quality
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to strongly urge passage of the
President's Clear Skies Initiative. President Bush is dedicated to
providing our families and children with a healthier, more economically
vibrant and secure future. Important to achieving that future is
bringing proven, innovative tools to the task. Clear Skies legislation
is just such a tool, and means healthier citizens, stronger
communities, more affordable, reliable and secure energy, and more
vibrant wildlife habitat across America.
Clear Skies will significantly expand the Clean Air Act's most
innovative and successful program in order to cut power plant pollution
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and, for the first time, mercury by
an unprecedented 70 percent in two phases. These cuts in pollution will
provide substantial health benefits, prolonging the lives of thousands
of Americans annually, and improving the conditions of life for
hundreds of thousands of people with asthma, other respiratory
illnesses, and heart disease.\1\ As the son of a pediatrician who is
also a chronic asthmatic, my passion for this policy is deeply
personal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Further detail about these benefits can be found in the
materials accompanying this testimony and on the EPA and White House
Web sites (www.epa.gov/clearskies and http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/
clear-skies.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Skies will produce these health benefits with greater
certainty by imposing a mandatory, permanent, multi-pollutant cap on
emissions from more than 1300 power plants nationwide, reducing
pollution by as much as 9 million tons annually at full implementation.
Utilities will achieve this by spending more than 52 billion dollars to
install, operate and maintain new, primarily clean coal pollution
abatement technology on both old and new power plants. Clear Skies will
require only a few dozen government officials to operate and will
assure compliance through a system that is easy to monitor and easy to
enforce.
Accordingly, the Clear Skies cap and trade approach will give our
states the most powerful, efficient and proven tool available for
meeting our new, tough, health-based air quality standards for fine
particles and ozone. At the end of last year, EPA completed the process
of informing over 500 counties that they either do not meet or that
they contribute to another county not meeting the new standards. That
relatively straightforward act has now triggered a very complex process
that will lead later this year to a frenzy of intrastate negotiation
and conflict, interstate negotiation and conflict, federal-state
negotiation and conflict, state and citizen petitions, lawsuits, and
heightened uncertainty in energy markets, producing an avoidable and
negative impact on local investment, jobs and consumer energy bills.
Not a pretty picture.
As a former governor, the President personally experienced and
understands the complexities of developing and implementing state plans
to meet air quality standards. That is why he places a premium on
practical, common sense solutions. Clear Skies, in conjunction with the
Bush Administration's new rules cutting diesel engine pollution by more
than 90 percent, provides that solution. Most counties will be able to
meet the new standards without having to take any new local measures
beyond the Clear Skies power plant reductions. For the relative few
that remain, their burden will be substantially lighter and their
likely challenges local ones. This simple approach could save
governments and the private sector tens of millions of dollars in
negotiations, litigating and otherwise inevitable delay in meeting air
quality standards.
Clear Skies will also help keep communities together. Up front
assurance of meeting air standards will give communities the certainty
they need to keep and attract manufacturing jobs in the places where
generations of their families currently live, work, play, and pray. The
absence of such certainty could exacerbate the breakup of communities
experiencing the exodus of industrial jobs to either ``greenfields''
locations in the United States or, even more consequentially, overseas.
Clear Skies will also make communities stronger economically by
helping to keep energy affordable, reliable, and domestically secure
for their businesses and homes--particularly important to those least
able to afford their energy needs. The market-based trading approach
will substantially cut the overall cost of compliance that is passed on
to consumers and shareholders. In addition, the specific cap levels in
Clear Skies--endorsed by organizations such as the U.S. Conference of
Mayors and National Association of Counties--are calibrated to
encourage utilities to put controls on coal rather than switch to
natural gas in order to comply. That minimizes the overall impact on
energy prices. Forcing fuel switching to natural gas, by contrast,
maximizes it.
Finally, Clear Skies will help our ecosystems and wildlife thrive.
It will eliminate chronic acidity in the Adirondacks and virtually
eliminate it in other Northeastern lakes. It will improve long-term
conditions in streams, rivers, lakes and bays. It will vastly improve
visibility in many of our parks and other scenic locations.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, a broad array of state, regional
and local officials, as well as unions and non-governmental
organizations, have endorsed the approach to meeting air quality that
Clear Skies delivers. We look forward to the Congress delivering Clear
Skies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.002
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
Now I recognize Mr. Holmstead for 5 minutes with the same
request that you stay within the 5 minutes and then we will ask
you questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD
Mr. Holmstead. I will do so, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
It is a pleasure to be here and to have the opportunity to
testify before this subcommittee.
As I think many of you know, this is the very room where
much of the hard work on the 1990 amendments took place and
frankly, I would not mind if a little of that magic rubbed off
on us today and we could really move forward on this important
proposal.
As Chairman Connaughton just testified, the President's
Clear Skies Initiative would build on the Clean Air Act and
ensure that we continue to clean up the Nation's air and
protect the public health.
In my oral statement, I would like to address just two
major issues. One, why do we need the legislation, which I
think is a question that Mr. Engel and Mr. Dingell and others
asked. And second, why does our proposed approach for reducing
mercury emissions make sense. As several of you have mentioned,
the Agency has recently issued what we call the Clean Air
Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule which if they
are implemented as designed will achieve much of the pollution
reduction that we would get under Clear Skies. But these
regulations are limited in both scope and function.
Importantly, the CAIR rule applies to only 28 States and the
District of Columbia. That is because under the authority we
have under the current Clean Air Act, those were the only
States we could cover under the authority. So unlike CAIR,
Clear Skies would be national in scope and would achieve
additional emission reductions in the west principally but also
in the east.
CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule are also inherently
more uncertain over time. They are regulations, not law, and as
final regulations, they are subject to legal challenge and
litigation. I would say that we have done everything we can to
make sure that they are legally defensible. But the only other
time the agency tried to use this regulatory authority there
were many lawsuits, the regulations that we tried to implement
were delayed and, in fact, were paired down as a result of some
of those lawsuits.
Aside from the delays that could result from judicial
action, CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule will also provide
less certainty for private investment and planning for
compliance with regulations. Our experience with Acid Rain
Program which was enacted in this room tells us that when
incentives are built into the law and rules are clear for
affected industries, sources will comply in advance of the
actual deadlines.
In summary, we think that by far the better thing to do
from a public policy perspective is to provide certainty to the
environment, to State and local agencies, to citizens who need
the clean air, and to be fair to industry and provide them with
the regulatory certainties so that they can go out and with
certainty to invest the billions of dollars that will be
necessary to achieve our clean air goals.
If I could, Mr. Chairman, take a minute just to talk about
one of the more controversial issues, which is mercury. And I
hope that we have a chance to talk more about this because over
the last 18 months or so, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency has conducted the most comprehensive study
ever of how Americans are exposed to mercury and in particular,
the role that coal fired power plants play in that exposure.
And I need to make just a couple of points if I can.
First, Americans are exposed to mercury mainly through
eating fish and shellfish that contain methyl mercury. Ninety
percent of the fish and shellfish that we eat are from the
ocean environments and nearly 80 percent of those are imported
from waters far beyond our borders. Because the U.S. represents
just a few percent of global manmade mercury emissions, we
cannot expect a quick fix to the global mercury problem. But we
recognize that although the vast majority of mercury exposure
comes from ocean fish, there are at least some people who eat
significant amounts of fresh water fish here that are caught
locally and this is something we have looked at very carefully.
[Slide.]
If I could show you just a couple of slides. This shows of
all the mercury that gets deposited in the United States, it is
about 144 tons a year that gets deposited within our borders.
Of that, you can see the little slivers at the bottom that 11
tons and 12 tons represent the amount that emitted in the
United States that gets deposited here. So 84 percent of what
is deposited in the United States comes from outside of our
borders. Only about 16 percent is emitted in the United States
and gets deposited here and power plants represent about 11 of
the 144 tons, or about 8 percent. Now if you look on the right
hand side, we have blown up the power plant portion. And so
right now power plants deposit 11.1 tons. And under the
President's proposal, that would be reduced by about 70 percent
down to 3 tons by 2010. So it represents a very small portion.
But we also realize that it is not correct simply to look
at it on an aggregate basis because there are certain areas
that receive higher amounts of pollution of this deposition
than others.
[Slide.]
If I can go to the next slide. So this tells you total
deposition. The next slide actually shows mercury deposition
from all sources in 2001 based on the most recent state of the
science models from our office in research and development. It
is hard to see the legend there but the darker colors represent
where the greater deposition occurs.
So look at this map and then go to the next map and keep
this one in your mind. This is mercury deposition from all
sources in the U.S. and Canada. So you can see this just gives
you the distribution what I showed before that about--it is
only about 16 percent comes from U.S. sources. Now I don't mean
to suggest that we have control over Canadian sources but
because of the way our models work, I wanted to show you this
map.
[Slide.]
Now let me go to the next slide and that shows you mercury
deposition today from coal fired power plants. So they are at
subset and almost exclusively in the eastern part of the United
States. That is today.
[Slide.]
Now let me go onto the next slide. This shows you what
happens under the rules that we recently promulgated which are
roughly equivalent to Clear Skies. So we go from having really
very, very little impact--and I would be happy to provide you
more information--to something we have been trying to explain
all along that the President's proposal gets the greatest
reduction in the places where you need it most. And so we only
have about one microgram per meter here that comes from power
plants.
[Slide.]
Now let me--if you look at this slide and then go to the
next slide which again shows you that even with those dramatic
reductions of over 70 percent from U.S. coal fired power
plants, this is a rough estimation of what things--if we hold
other emissions constant, this is what it will look like in the
year 2020. So we believe the President's proposal really does
essentially eliminate the problem of mercury deposition from
U.S. power plants.
And again, I would be happy to provide any of you with more
detailed information. But I know for instance in the State of
Maine, which Mr. Allen cares about very much, right now power
plants represent about 3 percent of mercury deposition. We
estimate it will be about 1 percent of mercury deposition after
the President's proposal is put in place.
Overall, the Clean Air Act has been and continues to be a
vehicle for great progress but we know we can do better. We
believe that Clear Skies would build on proven portions of the
Clean Air Act and we look forward to working with this
committee to see that it could be enacted into law.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jeffrey R. Holmstead
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
I. INTRODUCTION
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to testify today concerning the President's Clear Skies
Act, which would reduce substantially emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and mercury from
power plants. Although I am very proud that the Agency has just issued
two regulations limiting power plant emissions (the Clean Air Intestate
Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule), legislation would be a more
effective, efficient and long-term mechanism to achieve large-scale
national reductions.
This country should be very proud of the progress we have already
made in cleaning up our air. Since the Clean Air Act was first enacted
in 1970, total national emissions of the six most common air pollutants
have been reduced 54 percent. Remarkably, this improvement in national
air quality has occurred even while, during the same almost 35-year
period, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product increased 187 percent, energy
consumption increased 47 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased
171 percent.
The President's Clear Skies Act is the most important next step we
can take to continue our progress in providing healthy air and a clean
environment for all Americans. Clear Skies would make great strides
towards solving our remaining air quality problems in a way that also
advances national energy security and promotes economic growth. It
would reduce power plant emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>
and mercury by approximately 70 percent from today's levels and do it
with more certainty than would current law. Because of the innovative
capandtrade approach used in Clear Skies and the legal certainty
provided by caps and deadlines set by statute, power plants would have
an incentive to start reducing emissions as soon as Clear Skies is
passed, resulting in emissions reductions more quickly than required.
When fully implemented, Clear Skies would deliver tens of billions
of dollars in annual health benefits by prolonging thousands of lives
and preventing millions of illnesses each year. It would also provide
billions of dollars of economic benefits, including saving millions of
dollars in health care costs.<SUP>1</SUP> The added benefit of Clear
Skies would virtually assure attainment of the new ozone and
particulate matter standards for much of this country, yielding a level
of air quality that meets the new, more protective health-based
national air quality standards for millions of people. Clear Skies
would also virtually eliminate chronic acidity in modeled northeastern
lakes, reduce nitrogen loading in coastal waters, and help restore
visibility in our national parks and wilderness areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless otherwise noted, all projections about the costs and
benefits of the Clear Skies Act are based on EPA's 2003 analysis of the
Clear Skies Act of 2003. The analysis can be found at http://
www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/technical.html. To calculate the costs and
benefits of Clear Skies, EPA compared the Clear Skies Act of 2003 to a
Base Case (Existing Control Programs), which is the typical approach
EPA uses in calculating the costs and benefits of Agency rulemakings.
The Existing Control Programs reflected implementation of only
finalized control programs and the non-road diesel rule as it was
proposed in April, 2003; it did not include yet-to-be developed
regulations, such as the now final Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean
Air Mercury Rule, or other regulations that may be developed to
implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air
Mercury Rule (CAMR) are very important rules, with significant health
and environmental benefits, the country would be even better off if
Congress passed the President's Clear Skies Act. Clear Skies would
provide more expansive and certain results. Clear Skies would enable us
to achieve broader reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions because the legislation would apply nationally, while CAIR is
limited in geographic scope to 28 states and the District of Columbia.
Although CAIR addresses the bulk of power plant emissions of S02 and
NO<INF>X</INF>, Clear Skies would also reduce SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the West and incorporate the SO<INF>2</INF>
program developed by Western states. Based on our experiences with
litigation on the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call versus that on the Acid Rain
Trading Program, Clear Skies would provide more certainty for the
utility industry, and for state and local air quality planners.
Although the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call is now in place, litigation on
this rule delayed compliance, making planning for pollution control
installations difficult, raising costs to industry and consumers, and
delaying health and environmental benefits. In contrast, the Acid Rain
Trading Program, enacted by Congress as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, has been almost free of litigation and started on schedule.
Compliance has been nearly 100 percent, and the inherent flexibility of
the allowance trading program has reduced costs by 75 percent from
initial EPA estimates.
As Chairman Connaughton said before me, we strongly urge passage of
Clear Skies. Clear Skies gives our states a critical, proven tool for
meeting our new air quality standards for fine particles and ozone. We
urge you to act soon as the States are now developing their
implementation plans.
II. CLEAR SKIES PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS
The heart of Clear Skies is a proven cap-and-trade approach to
emissions reductions. Mandatory caps restrict total emissions and
decline over time. When fully implemented, Clear Skies would result in
a 70% reduction in power plant emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>,
NO<INF>X</INF> and mercury from 2000 levels. Clear Skies would continue
the existing national cap-and-trade program for SO<INF>2</INF>, but
dramatically reduce the cap from 9 million to 3 million tons. Clear
Skies would also use a national cap-and-trade program for mercury that
would reduce emissions from the current level of about 48 tons to a cap
of 15 tons. The legislation would also employ two regional cap-and-
trade programs for NO<INF>X</INF> to reduce emissions from 2000 levels
of 5 million tons to 1.7 million tons.
Although national in scope, Clear Skies recognizes and adjusts for
important regional differences in both the nature of air pollution and
the relative importance of emissions from power generation. The eastern
half of the country needs reductions in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to
help meet the ozone and fine particle standards, which generally are
not a regional issue in the western half of the county (with the
exception of California, which does not have significant emissions from
existing coal-fired power plants). The western half of the country
needs NO<INF>X</INF> reductions primarily to reduce the regional haze
that mars scenic vistas in our national parks and wilderness areas, and
the nitrogen deposition that harms fragile forests. Recognizing these
regional differences, Clear Skies would establish two trading zones for
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and prohibit trading between the zones to
ensure that the critical health-driven goals in the East are achieved.
Clear Skies also recognizes the special visibility protection
measures that have been developed by states participating in the
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). Clear Skies would essentially
codify the WRAP's separate SO<INF>2</INF> backstop cap-and-trade
program, which would come into effect only if the WRAP states did not
meet their 2018 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions targets.
Finally, Clear Skies requires tough, technologybased new source
standards on all new power generation projects and maintains special
protections for national parks and wilderness areas when sources locate
within 50 km of ``Class I'' national parks and wilderness areas.
Significant Public Health and Environmental Benefits
The public health and environmental benefits of Clear Skies present
compelling reasons for its immediate passage. EPA's 2003 analysis of
the President's Clear Skies Act (which did not account for CAIR and
CAMR) projected that Americans would experience significant health
benefits each year by 2020, including approximately:
14,100 fewer premature deaths;
8,800 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis;
23,000 fewer non-fatal heart attacks;
30,000 fewer visits to hospitals and emergency rooms for
cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms, including asthma
attacks; and
12.5 million fewer days with respiratory illnesses and symptoms.
Many of these benefits, as well as the benefits described below,
would be achieved by CAIR and CAMR if they are not delayed or blocked
by litigation.<SUP>2</SUP> Clear Skies would lock in the benefits of
CAIR and CAMR and provide additional benefits, particularly in the
West.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See explanation in footnote 1 for more detail regarding EPA's
2003 analysis of costs and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Skies' benefits would far exceed its costs. EPA estimated in
2003 that the monetized value of the health benefits we can quantify
under Clear Skies would be $110 billion annually by 2020--substantially
greater than the projected annual costs of approximately $6.3 billion.
The Agency estimated an additional $3 billion in benefits from
improving visibility at select national parks and wilderness areas.
These estimates did not include the many additional benefits that were
not monetized, such as human health benefits from reduced risk of
mercury emissions, and ecological benefits from improvements in the
health of our forests, lakes, and coastal waters.
Clear Skies would achieve most of these benefits by dramatically
reducing fine particle pollution caused by SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, which is a year-round problem. Of the many
air pollutants regulated by EPA, fine particle pollution is perhaps the
greatest threat to public health. Hundreds of studies in the peer-
reviewed literature have found that these microscopic particles can
reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to fine particles is
associated with premature death, as well as asthma attacks, chronic
bronchitis, decreased lung function, and respiratory disease. Exposure
is also associated with aggravation of heart and lung disease, leading
to increased hospitalizations, emergency room and doctor visits, and
use of medication.
By reducing NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, Clear Skies also would reduce
ozone pollution in the eastern part of the country and help keep ozone
levels low in the western portion of the country. Ozone (smog) is a
significant health concern, particularly for children and people with
asthma and other respiratory diseases who are active outdoors in the
summertime. Ozone can exacerbate respiratory symptoms, such as coughing
and pain when breathing deeply, as well as transient reductions in lung
function and inflammation of the lung. Ozone has also been associated
with increased hospitalizations and emergency room visits for
respiratory causes. Repeated exposure over time may permanently damage
lung tissue.
Analyzing the Clear Skies reductions, coupled with the decreases
associated with the nonroad diesel engine rule and other existing state
and federal programs, EPA's 2003 analysis projected that 86% of
counties monitoring nonattainment for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard
(based on 1999-2001 data) would monitor attainment by 2020, and 91% of
counties monitoring nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard (based
on 1999-2001 data) would monitor attainment by 2020.
Even in the few areas that would not attain the standards, EPA's
modeling projected that Clear Skies would significantly improve air
quality. Throughout the West, Clear Skies would hold emissions from
power plants in check, preserving clean air in high-growth areas and
preventing degradation of the environment, even as population, the
economy and electricity demand increase. (See Attached Figures 1 and
2.)
Clear Skies would also address mercury emissions from power plants.
People are exposed to mercury mainly through eating fish and shellfish
that contain methylmercury. While mercury in fish is not an issue for
most people, mercury can put a developing fetus or young child's
developing nervous system at risk when ingested in sufficiently high
quantities. Some recent studies raise a possibility that exposure to
methylmercury may attenuate the cardioprotective effects of fish
consumption in some populations of men, although other studies have not
observed an association. This is a new area of research and these
potential effects need to be further evaluated in the context of the
known heart-health and developmental benefits of a well-balanced diet
that includes a variety of fish and shellfish.
Mercury is released into the environment from many sources. Mercury
emissions are a complex atmospheric pollutant transported over local,
regional, national, and global geographic scales. As previously
indicated, Americans are exposed to mercury through eating fish that
contain methylmercury. Of the mercury that falls directly onto the U.S.
we estimate that approximately 16% comes from U.S. sources, about half
of which is from power plants. This fraction varies significantly
across the U.S. (See Figures 3 and 4.) Ninety percent of the fish and
shellfish we eat are from the ocean environment; and nearly 80 percent
of those are imported. Because the U.S. represents just a few percent
of global man-made mercury emissions, we cannot expect a quick fix to
the global mercury problem. For the foreseeable future, EPA advises
that women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers,
and young children carefully observe the joint EPA-FDA Fish Advisory
issued last year. We are also committed to working collaboratively with
those countries that are the largest sources of airborne mercury to
help them reduce those emissions to the global pool. Our actions reduce
our contribution to the global pool and promote the technologies so
other countries can follow our lead.
Clear Skies will require a 69% reduction of mercury emissions from
power plants from 1999 levels. Under Clear Skies, units are projected
to install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and scrubbers to meet
their SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> requirements and take
additional steps to meet the mercury reduction requirements, including
adding mercury-specific control technologies (such as Activated Carbon
Injection). The specific controls we anticipate will be adopted by
utilities under the Clear Skies are particularly good at reducing the
forms of mercury that are of concern with respect to U.S. deposition.
Therefore, we expect U.S. deposition to be reduced faster than
emissions.
Not only do the controls tend to reduce the forms of mercury that
matter most for reducing U.S. deposition from power plants but many of
the mercury emission reductions are projected to result from large
units installing these controls. Under the cap-and-trade approach we
are projecting that mercury reductions result from units that are most
cost effective to control, which enables those units that cannot
install controls cost-effectively to use other approaches for
compliance. The largest emitting plants are generally more cost-
effective to control than small plants and under our cap-and-trade
approach, the large plants produce the greatest reductions in the form
of mercury that matters most for reducing U.S. deposition. For all of
these reasons, Clear Skies is projected to lead to the greatest
reduction in power plant deposition where it is the greatest. (See
Figures 5 and 6.)
In addition to substantial human health benefits, Clear Skies would
also deliver numerous environmental benefits. Nitrogen loads to the
Chesapeake Bay and other nitrogen sensitive estuaries would be reduced,
reducing potential for water quality problems such as algae blooms and
fish kills. Clear Skies would also accelerate the recovery process of
acidic lakes, virtually eliminating chronic acidity in all but 1% of
modeled Northeastern lakes by 2030, according to our 2003 analysis. The
Acid Rain Program has allowed some of these lakes and the surrounding
forests to begin to recover. Clear Skies would also help other
ecosystems suffering from the effects of acid deposition by preventing
further deterioration of Southeastern streams. Finally, Clear Skies
would improve visibility across the country, particularly in our
treasured national parks and wilderness areas, resulting in projected
improvements of approximately two to seven miles in visual range in
many areas (based on our 2003 analysis).
Reasonable Costs and Energy Security for Consumers and Industry
The President directed us to design Clear Skies to meet both our
environmental and our energy goals. While delivering substantial
emission reductions, Clear Skies is not projected to impact electricity
prices significantly. Our extensive economic modeling of the power
industry looked at a broad array of factors to gauge the effects of
Clear Skies on the energy industry--and they all show that cleaner air
and energy security can go hand-in-hand.
Clear Skies would maintain energy diversity. With Clear Skies, our
analysis indicated that coal production for power generation would be
able to grow by 10 percent from 2000 to 2020 while air emissions are
significantly reduced. Our analysis showed that the legislation would
also have little effect on natural gas prices. EPA's economic modeling
for Clear Skies demonstrated that the proposal's emission reductions
would be achieved primarily through retrofitting controls on existing
plants, where those controls would likely be most cost-effective. Clear
Skies' timeframe and certainty enable the power sector to meet
aggressive emission reduction targets without fuel switching. This is
important not only to power generators and their consumers who want to
continue to rely on our most abundant, reliable, affordable and
domestically secure source of energy, but also to other consumers and
industries whose livelihoods could be hurt by a rise in natural gas
prices.
One of the key reasons Clear Skies would be cost-effective is its
reliance on cap-and-trade programs. Like the Acid Rain Trading Program
upon which it is based, Clear Skies would give industry flexibility in
how to achieve the required emission reductions, which allows industry
to make the most cost-effective reductions and pass those savings on to
consumers. Power plants would be allowed to choose the pollution
reduction strategy that best meets their needs (e.g., installing
pollution control equipment, switching to lower sulfur coals, buying
excess allowances from plants that have reduced their emissions beyond
required levels). Like the Acid Rain Trading Program, Clear Skies
includes banking provisions, enabling companies to save unused
allowances for future use. Banking creates a tangible, quantifiable,
economic incentive to decrease emissions beyond allowable levels, which
EPA projects will result in significant early benefits due to over-
compliance in the initial years, particularly for SO<INF>2</INF>. It
also leads to gradual emissions reductions over time, and therefore a
less disruptive transition to tighter emission controls needed to
address lingering problems. Based on past experience under the Acid
Rain Trading Program, by placing a monetary value on avoided emissions,
Clear Skies would stimulate technological innovation, including
efficiency improvements in control technology, and encourage early
reductions.
Assistance to State and Local Governments
Under the current Clean Air Act, state and local governments face
the daunting task of meeting the new fine particle and ozone standards.
Clear Skies would substantially reduce that burden. By making enormous
strides towards attainment of the fine particle and ozone standards,
Clear Skies would assist state and local governments in meeting their
obligation under the Clean Air Act to bring areas into attainment with
these health-based standards, and provide Americans with cleaner air.
As noted previously, the combination of Clear Skies, EPA's rule to
decrease emissions from nonroad diesel engines, and other existing
state and federal control programs--such as pollution control
requirements for cars and trucks--would bring a substantial number of
counties that currently monitor nonattainment into attainment with the
fine particle and ozone standards. Even in the few areas that would not
attain the standards without adoption of local control measures, Clear
Skies would significantly improve air quality. This would make it
easier for state and local areas to reach the ozone and fine particle
standards.
Clear Skies' assistance to states goes beyond ensuring that power
plants will reduce their emissions. Clear Skies relies on a common-
sense principle--if a local air quality problem will be solved cost-
effectively in a reasonable time frame by the required regional
reductions in power plant emissions, we should not require local areas
to adopt local measures. Under Clear Skies, areas that are projected to
meet the ozone and fine particle standards by 2015 would be able take
advantage of the broad emission reductions occurring at the regional
level as a result of Clear Skies.<SUP>3</SUP> If certain conditions are
met, these areas could be designated ``transitional'' areas, instead of
``nonattainment'', and they would not have to adopt local measures
(except as necessary to qualify for transitional status). They would
have reduced air quality planning obligations and would not have to
administer more complex programs, such as transportation conformity,
nonattainment New Source Review, or locally-based progress or
technology requirements in most circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Clear Skies legislation introduced in the House of
Representatives (H.R. 999, February 27, 2003) was introduced before EPA
designated nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone or PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standards. Such areas have since been designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. IMPROVING THE CLEAN AIR ACT WITH CLEAR SKIES
Clear Skies would improve the Clean Air Act in a number of ways. It
would build on the proven portions of the Clean Air Act--like the
national ambient air quality standards and the Acid Rain Trading
Program--and reduce reliance on complex, less efficient requirements
like New Source Review for existing sources. The mandatory emission
caps at the heart of Clear Skies guarantee that reductions will be
achieved and maintained over time. In contrast, litigation
uncertainties make it difficult to estimate how quickly and effectively
current regulations would be implemented under the current Clean Air
Act.
Legislation Now Is Better than Regulation Followed by Years of
Litigation
Clear Skies has several benefits over the regulatory scheme that
will otherwise confront power generators. Clear Skies provides
regulatory certainty and lays out the timeframes necessary for plant
managers to design a cost effective strategy tailored to both their
current budgets and future plans. Clear Skies is designed to go into
effect immediately upon enactment. Power plants would immediately
understand their obligations to reduce pollution and would be rewarded
for early action. As a result, public health and environmental benefits
would begin immediately and result in emissions reductions more quickly
than required. Given Clear Skies' design, it is unlikely that
litigation could delay the program (particularly since Congress would
decide the two most controversial issues--the magnitude and timing of
reductions).
Past experience suggests that litigation delays on the regulatory
path are likely. Our experience with two cap-and-trade programs--the
legislatively-created Acid Rain Trading Program and the
administratively-created NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call--illustrates the
benefits of achieving our public health and environmental goals with
well-designed legislation rather than relying solely on existing
regulatory authority. Even when regulations are ultimately upheld in
the courts, emission reductions can be delayed and costs can increase
simply because of uncertainty.
Reductions from the Acid Rain Trading Program were experienced
early, well before compliance deadlines. There were few legal
challenges to the small number of rules EPA had to issue--and none of
the challenges delayed implementation of the program. The results of
the program have been dramatic--and unprecedented. Reductions in power
plant SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were larger and earlier than required,
providing earlier human health and environmental benefits. Now, in the
tenth year of the program, we know that the greatest SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions reductions were achieved in the highest SO<INF>2</INF>-
emitting states; acid deposition dramatically decreased over large
areas of the eastern United States in the areas where it was most
critically needed; trading did not cause geographic shifting of
emissions or increases in localized pollution; and the human health and
environmental benefits were delivered broadly beyond what EPA had
projected.
It is clear from this example that existing regulatory tools often
take considerable time to achieve significant results, and can be
subject to additional years of litigation before significant emissions
reductions are achieved. Even when the regulation is ultimately upheld
by the courts, litigation creates uncertainty that can delay emission
reductions or increase costs.
Conclusion
The President's Clear Skies Act provides a balanced approach that
our nation needs for meeting clean air goals, while safeguarding
economic growth and promoting energy security. Congressional action on
Clear Skies legislation is the preferable route toward ensuring that
health and environmental goals can be met. We stand ready to work with
this Committee and the Congress to get a bill on the President's desk
as soon as possible.
Mr. Hall. Thank you and it is good to have you.
I would like to now yield my time as chairman to Chairman
Barton, the chairman of the full committee.
Chairman Barton. Well, thank you. And thanks again to both
of you gentlemen.
When does the enforcement mechanism kick in for all these
counties that were in attainment for the 1 hour standard, but
will be non-attainment for the new 8-hour standard?
Mr. Holmstead. Some of the requirements kicked in already
late last year. Automatically, upon designation, there are
certain requirements that apply such as increased difficulty in
permitting, increased planning when it comes to transportation
conformity. The real burden on the counties and the local
Government comes as part of the State planning process. So they
now have 3 years to submit State implementation plans.
Typically, that process is not a smooth one. There is often
litigation involved. I can tell you that we have been sued by
any--quite a number of State and local organizations, as well
as, industry groups over those designations so we are in a
period right now that will eventually lead to cleaner air but
is often a pretty difficult and cumbersome process.
Chairman Barton. Mr. Connaughton, do you want to comment on
that?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, we have this period that we went
through in the 1990's which was extremely conflict ridden
because the burden was primarily on local communities. That is
the design of the Clean Air Act. This burden, and really it
starts about this summer and this fall for the new standards,
each county is going to start figuring out its portfolio of
where it can go after this high hanging fruit now because we
have gotten the low hanging fruit, we have gotten the middle
fruit, we are now going after the high hanging fruit, the tough
stuff, especially on ozone but also the fine particles is new.
And so this is going to be a new challenge for our States and
their local communities.
Because it is new and because it is tough, it makes the
deal making within the State a lot harder and then every State
has an incentive to blame the other guy, the State across the
border. And so--and that is understandable because also the
costs are quite high. And so that is a recipe for litigation.
It is a recipe for what we saw in the 1990's with States and
localities asking EPA or asking the Congress to give them
extensions of time on meeting attainment deadlines.
Understandably.
Many did not meet the air quality standards on time and
that resulted in this mechanism under the Clean Air Act that
imposes an additional burden. It raises them to a new level of
concern at the agency and requires them to do even more so
there is a penalty for not being able to make it on time.
What we are trying to do with this policy which I think is
the opposite of your question, Mr. Chairman. What we are trying
to do with this policy is turn that dynamic around. Let us give
a reasonable, opportunity to meet the standards through this
combined set of programs so that the few that remain and there
will be fewer that remain, will be able to concentrate on truly
local issues.
And I think you gave the example of Ellis County where your
main burden is coming from other counties. And I think to the
extent there is a little bit of extra work to do in Ellis
County. I would assume the county is a little bit better off
and feels a little better about it when they know that
pollution coming across from other locations has been addressed
first. And that is what this legislation is intended to do.
Chairman Barton. It is my understanding that the Clear
Skies Initiative will achieve through incentive and market
certainty the installation of the pollution control equipment
that is sought by the ongoing New Source Review litigation.
Mr. Holmstead, has the EPA or the Department of Justice
estimated the cost associated with the Government's expenses so
far and their expected continuing expenses in the existing
prosecution of new source cases? If not, could the EPA and/or
the Department of Justice supply the committee with that
information?
Mr. Holmstead. What I can say is I know it represents a
very significant portion of the enforcement office budget and
the Department of Justice Environment Division Budget. I don't
know the exact numbers but we could provide those to you, I am
sure.
Chairman Barton. We would like that. And if we were to pass
this legislation and it would become law, how would that
improve this? What would be different if we were to do Clear
Skies?
Mr. Connaughton. Mr. Chairman, the litigation currently is
against several dozen power plants. The U.S. Government is
bringing it as are a number of States. It is not against all
1,300 that would be covered by Clear Skies so you have a
difference there. The litigation is only against firms against
which there is an argument they made an upgrade.
Most power plants avoided doing investments in efficiency
and other things because of the fear of New Source Review
litigation so we only have a hook with respect to a few dozen
right now. And as it turns out, we have had a few successful
settlements, several billion dollars in settlements and so far
though we have only won about half the cases. We are 8 years
into the litigation and we have probably eight to 12 more years
to go with respect to the current filed cases.
Now take Clear Skies by contrast instead of a few dozen
power plants it is over 1,300 power plants. Instead of lots of
lawsuits in different locations all around the country, you
have no lawsuits. You get the retrofits that we are looking for
through the New Source Review litigation. You get the retrofits
not just at the, you know, several dozen plants where we have
litigation but you get it at a whole lot more, nearly all the
big ones and all the medium size ones and many of the small
ones. So you also then save all those enforcement costs.
The Acid Rain Program has proved to be the most enforceable
program of the Clean Air Act. We have nearly 100 percent
compliance and have not had to see the inside of a court room
because you have 24-hour monitoring, you know exactly how much
someone is polluting and they have to have an allowance to meet
that commitment. In order to be able to pollute, you have to
have an allowance so it is 100 percent enforceable. It also
only takes a few dozen EPA employees to actually run the whole
program rather than the thousands of government officials and
private sector people and lawyers involved in trying to pursue
the New Source Review process. So that is why the benefits are
enormous and the certainty is nearly complete.
Chairman Barton. My final question is if this subcommittee
and perhaps the full committee were to pass this legislation,
would that in any way enhance the possibility the Senate might
take this up again? In other words, is it worth our time to try
to legislate here responsibly given what has happened in the
Senate, where the proposal has already died because of a
deadlocked committee?
Mr. Connaughton. Action by the House always is an
inspiration to the Senate.
Chairman Barton. Good answer for this group.
Mr. Connaughton. I also noted a number of the opening
statements by members. I have not seen that level of deference
to the Senate from this body in a long time. The Senate process
is not dead, Mr. Chairman. I participated very actively in it.
We hit a roadblock over the modeling issues. Senator Carper in
particular wanted to see more information. You will have in the
record today a commitment from Administrator Johnson to provide
that additional information. We are going to do the next round
of modeling because we can now. The rulemaking process is over.
And the folks who are working on a bipartisan basis toward a
constructive solution by the way included Senator Carper who
has indicated that he still wants to see legislation this
summer.
Now whether that can happen or not will really turn on
reengagement in the Senate but the President and his team, Jeff
Holmstead and I are firmly committed to keeping up the effort
in the Senate. The House inspired Healthy Forests legislation
in the Senate, it inspired ``brownfields'' legislation in the
Senate, the House has inspired energy, action again in the
energy bill in the Senate. I think leadership in the House is a
wonderful thing and we look forward to further leadership from
the House.
Chairman Barton. Well we are interested if the Senate is
also interested. We are, as I have told you privately, I am not
interested in engaging in the process here that is sterile from
the beginning because lack of apparent ability to act in the
Senate. But, if it will help our friends in the Senate to do
something, we are certainly willing to that.
Thank you.
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be back.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Hall. We will wait right here. I have just cast the
last vote of the day and others are going over to cast the last
vote and probably the next vote they cast will be what airplane
they are going to get on. So you are going to have it get a
little bit easier.
But I have a question, sir, I want to ask you. And one I
will throw out here that you can knock clear out of the park,
but we would like to have it for the record. You have partially
answered it, Mr. Holmstead. You have heard critics, and one of
the panel mentioned that the Clear Skies is a rollback of the
Clean Air Act, arguing that the current act is properly
interpreted and faithfully executed it could potentially
achieve more emission reductions in this bill. And for the
record, why don't you give us your answer to this assertion.
Mr. Holmstead. Mr. Chairman, this is designed to
substantially improve upon the Clean Air Act. And we will get
more certain reductions. We will get greater reductions and we
keep in place all of the important parts of the Clean Air Act
that actually get real reductions in pollution. So if I can
just say in a more positive way, this bill is designed to and
will improve upon the pollution reductions that we would
otherwise get under the current Clean Air Act.
Mr. Connaughton. Mr. Chairman, if I might, let me add----
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, please do.
Mr. Connaughton. [continuing] just an essential specific
reason why. The Clean Air, ambient air quality standards for
ozone and fine particles were set in 1997, were litigated all
the way through to the Supreme Court. President Bush and his
team completed the litigation process and we have now done all
the designations required for setting the air quality standard
so we already have in place in America today the performance
standard that we are trying to meet and that does not change.
So the air quality standard is the performance standard.
What we are talking about today is merely the tool by which we
can enable our States to meet these tough new standards. And so
for those who suggest that we are rolling back Clean Air Act
protections, the facts are the complete opposite of that
assertion because nobody is suggesting changing the new health
based ambient air quality standards. This is how we get there.
And Clear Skies will help most counties do it without having to
do any additional work as we indicated in our earlier testimony
and it will actually provide a simple and effective tool as a
replacement for a whole series of tools that again they can
work too but they are not nearly effective and they are much
more costly and they tend to produce delay. And so this is the
most effective way to getting to our shared goals.
Mr. Hall. Well I thank you for that.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Holmstead. What happens to those
facilities that have already installed emission control
technology on their plants? What will be the impact of Clear
Skies on those companies and will they be penalized or
disadvantaged in any way under the new program?
Mr. Holmstead. Absolutely not. The design of the Clear
Skies Program essentially gives people allowances based on
something we called heat input. But the design of that system
is specifically designed to reward people who have already put
on good control. So for example, a facility that is very well
controlled may receive more allowances than it needs so it
actually would have something of value that it could sell to
someone else. But it is specifically designed not to penalize,
in fact, it is designed to reward facilities who have already
installed good pollution controls.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Connaughton?
Mr. Connaughton. The only thing I would add, those who have
done it already are lucky in one sense because they don't bear
the additional burden that will be required of the facilities
that have not. But as Mr. Holmstead said we are not going to
penalize them but we are also looking to facilities that can
reduce earlier and there is a whole class of big power plants
that with the Clear Skies legislation that currently don't have
controls that will now have an incentive to put on controls
fast, do it early rather than wait to some compliance date in
the future. So the old ones will be in good position, the ones
who have already done the investment. But it is this group that
have the potential to reduce early and fast are the ones we
want to incentivize and that is what this legislation will do.
Mr. Hall. But they won't have the ability to improve as
they have already improved and what affect will that have on
their credits and the cost of it?
Mr. Holmstead. One of the concerns about the Clean Air Act
before 1990 was that there was something called the percent
reduction approach where, often times, wherever you were, you
had to get an additional reduction. And for the very reason you
outlined, the Agency has avoided that approach altogether
because we really do want to make sure that we are fair to
people who have already taken actions to reduce their
emissions. So the way that it works, just mechanically, is that
all of those facilities get allowances under the current Acid
Rain Program. They will continue to get those allowances. Many
of those companies will have allowances to sell and will
continue to have allowances to sell under the President's
proposal.
Mr. Hall. I thank you and I yield to the gentleman from
Virginia for 5 minutes, Mr. Boucher.
Mr. Boucher. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to thank both of our witnesses for their illuminating
testimony today.
Mr. Holmstead, I was glad to hear you talk about mercury
and your mercury rule and I have a couple of questions about
that.
I am looking at the phase one mercury allocations in your
rule and its application to particular coal types. And I am
concerned that it has a disproportionate affect among the
various types. Here are the numbers I have, correct me if I am
wrong. With regard to allocations between now and 2010, the
bituminous coal allowance is about 87 percent. So there could
be emissions equal to 87 percent of current emissions by 2010.
With regard to sub-bituminous, the allocation is
considerably more generous. For sub-bituminous, the emissions
by 2010 could be 104 percent of the current levels so there is
an increase of 4 percent for bituminous and decrease of 13
percent. And then you get the lignite and you have the largest
disparity of all. By 2010, the permitted emissions for lignite
would be 175 percent of current. And so you would have a 75
percent increase.
And I just don't see how that kind of desperate treatment
can be sound public policy. The ultimate effect would be that
the users of bituminous coal are going to have to go to the
users of lignite and buy emission allowances. And that strikes
me as being unjust. So would you like to have a word about your
methodology and first of all if these numbers are wrong tell me
but assuming they are right, why are we doing it this way?
Mr. Holmstead. Let me see if I can correct that a little
bit.
Mr. Boucher. Fine.
Mr. Holmstead. And I can tell you that this has been
something that we have worked very hard and looked very hard at
because there is I think a real sensitivity to making sure that
we have a level playing field among all the coal types, among
all the regions of the country. And we did extensive analytical
work in an effort to make sure that we were not in any way
artificially advantaging one type over another, one region of
the country over another.
What we tried to recognize--and again, the way the rule
works is there is an adjustment factor that is specifically
designed to reflect the additional cost of reducing mercury
from some coal types. We know based on a lot of data that the
cost of reducing an ounce of mercury from bituminous is less
than the cost of reducing an ounce of mercury from sub-
bituminous or lignite. And that is where we have the adjustment
factor. And I assume that is how you derive those numbers. But
the adjustment factor is one for bituminous, 1.25 for sub-
bituminous, and three for lignite.
What our analysis shows is that when you apply those
factors, you do not get any switching of coal use from one
region of the--to another. And, in fact, I don't think we see--
no one is buying or selling mercury allowances until after
2010----
Mr. Boucher. Yes.
Mr. Holmstead [continuing]. Because there is no cap today
and so there is no reason for bituminous to buy from lignite or
sub-bituminous because----
Mr. Boucher. I understand all that, Mr. Holmstead, but the
reason that you might not get switching is because it is
impractical to utilize lignite in an application that uses
bituminous for example. There are a lot of investments in clean
coal technologies and other things that would not be compatible
with that other coal type perhaps and there are probably a lot
of other reasons too. And I fully understand that you don't
have the capping effect until a later date. But at some point,
you are going to get this kind of disparity. If you disagree
that this disparity exists, I would like for you to send a
letter out that explains why it does not because this is the
information presented to us and if it is wrong, I hope it is
wrong. If it is, I would like for you to correct it.
Mr. Holmstead. I would be happy to provide that technical
information. One thing I would like to say, if I can, just to
make sure that everybody hears this today, all of our analyses
suggests that there will be an increase not only in total coal
usage but in each type of coal over time so that we do project
the use of bituminous will continue to grow, the use of sub-
bituminous, and use of lignite will all continue to grow and--
--
Mr. Boucher. Well, I agree with you that there is going to
be an increase in coal use, but I think that is occasioned by a
lot of factors, the confluence of a range of factors and not a
market force----
Mr. Holmstead. No, that is absolutely right.
Mr. Boucher. The high cost of natural gas which is not
projected to come down and a lot of other reasons will
contribute to that. This particular analysis, if it is correct
and there is this disparate effect against bituminous, will
have a degrading effect on the willingness of people to use
that particular fuel type because they will have the cost of
going out and buying allowances from the users of lignite
presumably. So if this is wrong, let me know and if it is not,
we will have a continual discussion about it.
Let me just say one other thing. I understand that your
mercury rule approximates what you would get should Clear Skies
pass. I think you said that in your testimony.
Mr. Holmstead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boucher. I also believe your CAIR rule approximates the
kind of result you would have on SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> were Clear Skies to pass.
Mr. Holmstead. That is not correct.
Mr. Boucher. That is not correct.
Mr. Holmstead. With respect to mercury, the results are
very similar. With respect to NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF>, under Clear Skies, you would get additional
reductions because it is a nationwide program and so you get
pretty significant additional reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> and
also NO<INF>X</INF> partly because of working within the
existing regulatory structure, we could not have a cap as far
out into the future that continues to drive things down. So I
don't want to overstate the differences because the mercury is
very similar, but you do get additional benefit in
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>, both in terms of the amount
and getting the nationwide coverage there.
Mr. Boucher. So the eastern region it would be more or less
the same under your rule and under Clear Skies?
Mr. Holmstead. No, even under Clear Skies you would get----
Mr. Boucher. You would still get more.
Mr. Holmstead. Even in the east you would get more, yes.
Mr. Boucher. Okay. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Hall. The Chair recognizes Mr. Waxman, the gentleman
from California for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connaughton, the administration is portraying the
proposal as benefiting the public health but if you compare it
to the implementation of the Clean Air Act, your bill would
allow more pollution as I understand it for years longer. Areas
where the administration bill weakens existing law, it guts the
State authority to address upwind pollution, drops protection
for national parks, exempts utilities from installing controls
when they upgrade and increases the emissions. And then what
you do is extend the deadlines and you hope that you are
going--the areas will achieve emissions.
Under existing law and regulations, most areas have to
attain the health based standards for air quality by 2007 or
2010. But the bill called Clear Skies would allow re-
designation of up to 198 counties including areas like New York
City and Chicago as transitional areas. They will have a level
of air pollution that violates the health base standards. They
could all be given a deadline extension until 2015. Then if
they do not meet the standards by 2015, they will automatically
get another 5 year extension to 2020. Now that is a long time
difference.
How many people that live in these areas will be affected
by these delays in terms of their health?
Mr. Connaughton. Let me take your question in order. First,
Congressman, there is no change in the health based air quality
standards. The new stricter standards for ozone and for fine
particles go into effect and they were enacted in--they were
put in place in 1997, litigated to the Supreme Court----
Mr. Waxman. Do you disagree with the idea that whatever the
standards are under your bill they are given a lot longer time
to achieve them?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, I do disagree with your
characterization of it. The EPA modeling shows----
Mr. Waxman. Then why not leave the existing deadlines in
place rather than change them?
Mr. Connaughton. The only place that the legislation--well
first of all, the modeling shows that most counties will come
into attainment on time with the scheduled attainment dates, so
we need to start there. So then we are talking about a smaller
range, a smaller number of counties. I don't--I have not heard
the 198 counties so I would be interested to see your analysis
on that. But a smaller number of counties may require a little
more time and there then becomes--there then comes the choice--
and this is the logic behind the transition area provision. If
it is shown that within a very short period of time the power
plant reductions will bring an area into compliance with the
new standard, then that county could then seek to obtain the
benefit of the transition county designation. And the logic is
pretty straightforward. If they are very close, they have a
choice then of having to go through a whole State planning
process to get a whole bunch of locally obtained reductions
when in a very short period of time they are going to be
getting those reductions anyway.
Mr. Waxman. Well under----
Mr. Connaughton. That has been a great challenge and it
is----
Mr. Waxman. Under our analysis based on your data there are
76 million people living in areas of the Eastern United States
that are projected to have unsafe air in 2010. The attainment
dates are being pushed back for those areas by 5 to 10 years.
That means your proposal allows an additional 380 million to
760 million person years of exposure to dangerous levels of air
pollution.
The philosophy of the Clean Air Act of 1990 was if an area
was close to attainment of the standards, you did not give them
a long period of time, you gave them a short period of time and
they did not have a lot to do because they were getting close.
But if they were further away from meeting the standards, you
gave them more time but you required them to do more.
I was interested in the comments, I think maybe by Mr.
Barton, but I am not sure, who talked about how terrible it
would be if an area is bumped up. Well, a reason an area would
be bumped up is they did not do what was necessary to get to
the standards in time so if they continued to have even
increased pollution, they would be bumped up to an area where
they would have to do more but they are given more time to do
that.
The problem we had prior to 1990 was that this--there would
be these State implementation plans based on modeling that were
all fictitious. It looked--it did not have anything real in it.
So we had very clear amounts of time requirements for those
areas that were the most polluted to do the most, those that
were least polluted to do the least, and make sure that they
did the things that would get them into compliance.
It seems to me, your bill has a lot of assumptions that I
guess what the off road diesel rule and a few others, there was
something else in there the--I think you have the--your cap and
trade, but that has already been put in place with the
interstate rule, that you think the air is just going to sit
and wait and most of the areas will be clean. But if they are
not, they are just given more time without having to do
anything. That is a real concern because that seems to me that
this--if you don't--if these assumptions don't work out, we are
going to have a lot of dirty areas.
Mr. Connaughton. Very briefly, then I think Mr. Holmstead
could get to some of the more technical points.
The goal here is actually for counties to meet the
standards on time. So I think we have got a shared view there.
And the fact of the matter is these two massive national
programs, the diesel rules and the Clear Skies legislation will
enable most areas to do that. And then the only ones that could
be looking for more time--by the way they tend to be the ones
that more classically have either failed to meet their
deadlines or never: I mean, some have never met their deadlines
but some might be failed to meet the deadlines but even in that
instance, the only ones that could apply for a transition
status is if they could demonstrate that the reductions will
actually occur otherwise by addressing these transported air
pollution reductions. The ones who could not make that showing
are still going to have to develop very stringent local air
quality plans and, in fact, as it turns out there will fewer of
them. They will have less work to do because at least they will
make substantial strides as a result of these transported air
pollution reductions.
So hopefully we will have minimized the local challenge
rather than maximize the local challenge and we will have a
higher level assurance that even those counties have a hope of
finally making it on time. So we are talking about a very small
universe.
But I think it would be helpful then for Mr. Holmstead to
just give you a few more of the very specific points.
Mr. Waxman. If it would be--if he addresses them, I know it
is a little difficult to keep the 5 minutes and I have already
gone beyond. But an area can still get a transitional status if
the power plant emissions or reductions alone will not get them
there to meet the standards and then the area can just simply
promise to adopt measures. Mr. Holmstead?
Mr. Holmstead. That is not the way we read the President's
bill. And I know there has been some confusion about which bill
people are looking at but the way we structured the President's
bill was to make sure that the right mix of power plant
reductions and local reductions are--that we strike the right
balance to bring everybody into attainment as expeditiously as
practical.
Mr. Waxman. But that was not in the Senate though.
Mr. Holmstead. Well in the President's bill that we are
supporting, it does require that State and local Governments
also take the actions that they need to take to show that they
are going to come into attainment on time.
Mr. Waxman. Let me just tell you we disagree about that. I
think even the President's bill allows----
Mr. Holmstead. Well we would be happy to clarify that.
Mr. Waxman. Yes.
Mr. Holmstead. The other point that I think is really
important is what improved air quality is not necessarily
deadlines. As you well know, a number of areas, your own
district has failed to meet many deadlines and what we have
tried to do is focus on those things to get real emission
reductions and that is why we are so focused not on, you know,
an artificial deadline but actually putting in place the things
that get pollution reductions and by in large it has not been
the planning process, it has been specific requirements, things
like the non-road rule, the 2007 highway diesel rule, the CAIR2
program and all of those things coupled with the additional
local reductions that will need to be achieved. And we could--I
would be happy to talk with your staff or to explain but the
idea here is to get most areas into attainment by their
deadlines. Because one of the things that people have
complained about as being unfair is even if they do everything
they can locally, they may not be able to come into
attainment----
Mr. Waxman. But the deadlines are extended.
Mr. Holmstead. Just like they were for California in 1990
when people realized----
Mr. Waxman. My time is up. I appreciate your answer. I beg
to disagree with you and perhaps we can discuss it further to
get clarifications.
Mr. Hall. I am trying to go as long as we can with anybody
that has questions or answers but some of us have a 10 flight
tonight. The Chair recognizes if the gentleman from Maine will
allow me to recognize the Dean again, Mr. Dingell. I recognize
Mr. Dingell for five minutes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy and
I thank the gentleman from Maine.
Gentlemen, I have sent a letter on May 19 to Mr. Stephen
Johnson, Administrator of EPA and the Honorable James L.
Connaughton regarding the questions that might be asked
factually about this legislation. When, gentlemen, will that
letter be responded to?
Mr. Holmstead. If we could have 30 days from the date that
we received it. It does ask a number of complicated questions
but we will definitely get it to you within 30 days, Mr.----
Mr. Dingell. Now gentlemen, EPA last testified on this
subject and admitted it had done months and months of modeling
on its own proposal but it had not analyzed anyone else's
proposal.
In that letter I sent you last week, I asked you to analyze
all other major multi-pollutant proposals to analyze reductions
we would get under existing Clean Air Act, to analyze all the
provisions of the administration bill including those which
relax portions of the Clean Air Act and that you use the same
models for everyone. I understand that you today sent a letter
to Senator Inhofe suggesting that you will do some initial
modeling. As I requested earlier, will you commit to doing the
modeling that I have requested in my letter?
Mr. Connaughton. The letter from Administrator Johnson will
lay out in detail the elements that we are able to model and to
head toward that straight comparison between several of the
most prominent proposals and will enable all of us to get a
very clear sense of the relative differences between the two--
--
Mr. Dingell. It is different modeling though, on different
questions, and you come up with different answers, don't you?
Mr. Connaughton. Well, in this----
Mr. Dingell. And the answers may or may not be compatible.
Is that not right?
Mr. Connaughton. Well, in this particular case, you will
see in the letter, Congressman, Administrator Johnson lays out
in detail the modeling that he will undertake and will be
undertaken equivalently as to the different packages.
Mr. Dingell. Equivalently is not the same is it?
Mr. Holmstead. If----
Mr. Dingell. It is quite different, isn't it?
Mr. Holmstead. No, we will----
Mr. Connaughton. Well, we will clarify that for you right
now.
Mr. Holmstead. Yes, if I could just clarify.
Mr. Dingell. Just tell me, equivalent and the same are not
necessarily identical are they?
Mr. Holmstead. We are going to be using the same models to
analyze sort of the range of bills.
Mr. Dingell. So you will use the same models then?
Mr. Holmstead. I want to just clarify one exception to
that. That is the majority of the modeling will be done on all
of the bills. The air quality--and this is something we have
tried very hard to explain to Mr. Carper and others. The actual
air quality modeling analysis does take many, many weeks and a
lot of----
Mr. Dingell. But it will also get you the facts----
Mr. Holmstead. No, no, and we are going to provide you with
the facts, Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Dingell. Okay. I will----
Mr. Holmstead. We are going to do that for one bill sort of
that is the most stringent and one that is the least
stringent----
Mr. Dingell. So----
Mr. Holmstead. And that will allow us to interpolate
including the President's bill.
Mr. Dingell. So we need to have the same modeling for each
and every one of these bills so that we have the same answers.
Is that right?
Mr. Holmstead. We will give you much more modeling than
anybody ever dreamed possible in 1990.
Mr. Dingell. Will you give us the same modeling in each
instance?
Mr. Holmstead. Yes, we will.
Mr. Dingell. You will. All right.
Mr. Holmstead. Exactly as spelled out in Mr. Johnson's
letter.
Mr. Dingell. That is fine, the same modeling. Now is the
modeling--now let us see. Will the modeling only analyze the
impact of provisions that relax existing law or will they
analyze the provisions that tighten and change existing law?
Mr. Connaughton. Actually, you got that reversed so----
Mr. Holmstead. No, I think I understood the question.
Mr. Dingell. All right.
Mr. Holmstead. Mr. Dingell, we just disagree with the
assumption that there are things that relax existing law.
Mr. Dingell. Okay.
Mr. Holmstead. The caps are so stringent that they overtake
anything that you could possibly----
Mr. Dingell. So you will analyze all provisions, that is
fine.
Now I guess that is all the questions I have, gentlemen,
thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, gentleman. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Shimkus for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And if I have time, Mr. Holmstead, we will go back to this
modeling question because I don't know if--we got all confused
because I think you want--why don't you--is there anything else
you want to say about this modeling provision to clarify this
assertion that there is not similar and I think that was kind
of the intent of the question.
Mr. Holmstead. Yes, thank you for giving me the chance to
do that. In order to model these proposals, we use a number of
different of models sequentially. And I will not go into all
the acronyms, but the bottom line is we will allow an apples to
apples comparison of all the proposals and so we have worked
with our technical people and that is what is contained in Mr.
Johnson's letter, something that we can give to this body, that
we can give to the Senate, and so people with a great deal of
confidence can look at the full range of proposals on an apples
to apples basis.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Mr. Connaughton. Congressman, I would just add we have
already done a massive amount of modeling on the major
proposals and have already enabled very significant apples to
apples comparison so this will be an addition and supplement to
that effort with the most updated information.
Mr. Shimkus. And again, I appreciate that. Unfortunately,
we don't always deal in facts and apples to apples comparisons
will not be portrayed as apples to apples comparisons so I
think we want to encourage to do the best job we can and we
will try to fight it out and let the fourth estate have a crack
at them but we really would--the more precise they can be, the
better it is for us to make the case. And so I think in apples
to apples comparison will help our argument.
Three quick things that if we have time, you kind of talked
about the--this is really tied also with the--our National
energy planner, our Energy Bill and you cannot really divorce
the two because as you constrain, as you don't bring in new
science, as you don't incentivize new generation, cleaner
generation, then you are stuck with the old plan. And what is
the old plan if we don't move this, what will it effect--how
will that affect energy prices? Do you have any idea and
probably not for you, Mr. Holmstead but----
Mr. Connaughton. As a general proposition this--it is fair
to say that this will be the most cost effective way for the
energy sector to meet their inevitable compliance obligations
and so that is why we say we have an obligation to meet our air
quality standards. It is clear the power plants are going to be
a bigger part of the equation than they have been in the past
and so the issue is how can we get more of them to install more
controls at the lowest cost for energy consumers, especially
our manufacturers who are energy intensive and it is very
important for our household consumers, many of whom are
suffering under very high bills. Now you and I can afford it
but there are many in our society for whom it is a struggle to
meet their energy bills. So that is a very important component
of this.
And it is also important to recognize, we spent the last 3
years talking about the concern about the leveling off of
natural gas prices at very high levels. In order to deal with
that situation, we also have to find an increased place for
coal.
Mr. Shimkus. Right.
Mr. Connaughton. And it is an energy security issue for us,
too, because coal is here. This will enable us to keep our base
load energy generation in coal and that will free up natural
gas for its better use which is in people's homes to provide--
you know, to heat and cook food and in manufacturing
enterprises where they use it directly. That is the best place
for natural gas.
Mr. Shimkus. The--and following up on the train wreck that
we are going to experience nationally if we don't get some
certainty on this clean air debate and the State implementation
plans, I always use the example I fly into St. Louis to get
home and then I--if I drive 90 miles to another part of my
district in Illinois, I go through three air quality plans.
When there is a disruption in the fuel, you cannot ship one
fuel to the other area because it does not comply. So it
escalates the price. It is the craziest thing I have ever seen
in my life. But that is current law. And that is going to be
even worse if we don't move because States are going to try to
comply and as you said earlier we have got the low hanging
fruit. So it is just going to be more stringent.
I have--in the Energy Bill, we talked--we addressed some
downwind provisions. Jersey County, Illinois is north of
Madison County rural, it is non-attainment, no manufacturing.
How do they meet it? I mean, what is Jersey County, Illinois
going to do to meet the standards? The answer is nothing.
Other--maybe their own--if I may, Chairman, I will finish with
this--Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hall. Go on. Give him a chance to answer and your time
will be up. Go ahead.
Mr. Shimkus. Just to finish up. Will Jersey County have to
themselves have a county implementation plan and a county fuel
of choice to meet their attainment?
Mr. Connaughton. Jersey County like Ellis County will have
the strong incentive to try to go through a petition process
and a litigation process to make their neighbors do the work
they need to do to help them come into attainment. Now you can
either do it through the litigation driving process or you can
do it with legislation that will guarantee they will get the
reductions they need. I think legislation that eliminates
lawyers from the process is a good outcome.
Mr. Shimkus. And less expensive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Hall. All right.
The Chair recognizes a very patient Mr. Allen from the
State of Maine.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a point of clarification. I was here at the beginning
of the hearing. Do I get 5 minutes or 8 minutes? I did not give
my opening? I was here at the beginning.
Mr. Hall. We are not going to be very restricting on you.
Ask your questions and get your answers.
Mr. Allen. Okay. I have so much to say, I was just
concerned. I want to thank Mr. Connaughton for coming by my
office the other day. We had two brief conversations but then I
think we could go at this for some period of time.
Let me just react to some of the things you have said and
then turn to some questions. Despite all--well, despite
everything you have said so far, I think several things are
true. One is that we are really not debating certainty. That, I
mean, you have said over and over again we want to have
certainty, we want industry to be able to invest to achieve its
clear air goals.
I don't think that is what is going on here. We could
create certainty by requiring every power plant to install
scrubbers tomorrow but the administration would not agree to
it. We could create certainty be repealing the Clean Air Act
but the public will not accept that. And it seems to me that
what we are really trying to do here or ought to be trying to
do is improve the public health in a way that allows industry a
time to adapt and does not sort of, you know, make it
impossible for them to go ahead.
And the way I read the Clean Air Act as it exists today and
the President's proposal whether it is what he said or what is
in Senator and House bill is the Clean Air Act, the Clear Skies
weakens the Clean Air Act as it exists today. The President's
proposal allows non-attainment areas to be reclassified as
transitional areas to avoid local pollution reductions and to
miss their 2007 and 2010 deadlines by more than a decade.
And people were saying, I think Mr. Connaughton, you were
saying well, you know, it is not a smooth process when these
local areas are trying to figure out how to comply with these
regulations. Right, that is the point. What it does as it is
done in Maine and across the, you know, all up and down the
East Coast, it has forced cities, it has forced counties which
are in non-attainment to try to do everything they can to
regulate air pollution that they can. We regulate gas
containers in Maine. And what Clear Skies does, what Senate and
House bill does, what your legislative proposal will do is to
say well it is getting complicated, it is not very smooth so we
want to postpone everything, we will set everything back by a
decade.
What you do in your proposal as I read it is you eliminate
the incentive for the dirtiest areas in this country to work
day after day to figure out how to clean up their own area as
long as they can show that there is a significant contribution
of the air coming into their county from somewhere outside. And
my view is that whole non-attainment approach is really
something that is just going to give all of these areas a
chance to push off any serious effort on controlling their own
homegrown pollution.
The President's proposal eliminates protection for national
park visibility. It eliminates requirements that new sources
install the latest control technology. And it strips Governors
of Section 126 and other tools to reduce pollution that is
literally killing their constituents.
Now my--when you look at Section 126, 126 is the tool that
Governors use in order to force the EPA, you can take a
different view and that would be fine. But in our view to force
the EPA to go after these other States and polluters in other
States--and frankly once you take that away in hopes that, you
know, there will be more voluntary compliance or that your
proposals will lead to lower reductions, I don't think it works
because it takes away the initiative and the power of the
States to really act responsibly.
I am told that EPA's models show that in 2020 under the
administration's bill, 46 percent of the Nation's coal fired
power plants still will not have modern controls. Because
what--your cap and trade system frankly is one that allows a
lot of plants not to clean up their act. And my understanding
again, you can correct me if I am wrong is that EPA's
projections show that by 2020 only 14 units or about 1 percent
will have installed controls.
Let me go back, Mr. Holmstead, on mercury. You know, it is
true that, you know, numbers can be read a lot of different
ways. It is true that most mercury deposition is not local in
the United States but it is also true that 40 percent of all
the manmade emissions of mercury in this country come from coal
fired power plants. That is the low hanging fruit when it comes
to mercury. That is the low hanging fruit. And the mercury rule
doesn't do what it should.
Now you made a case, Mr. Holmstead, and I understand the
case. You are saying well, so much of this comes from other
places in the world that we can't control that; we can only
deal with a tiny percentage. And my response to that is fine,
but when has this administration ever taken leadership on an
international basis to get together with other countries to
control carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or
mercury? When has it done that? It has walked away from all of
the major opportunities to deal with international
environmental pollution.
And so, you know, again when it comes to mercury, it seems
to me you are ignoring the hot spots. You had them up there on
the map. You have got hot spots particularly in the Ohio River
Valley. They are all on the east. You know, most of them are
east of the Mississippi and, you know, I just think that when
you compare the Clean Air Act to the Mercury Rule and the way
the Mercury Rule was put together, it seems to me that we
really are making a mistake not to deal with mercury as a
hazardous air pollutant under the Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act. And it does seem to me to be what we ought to be doing.
And just a couple of other comments. That is the core--let
me just see if there is something else here, a couple of other
points. On litigation delays for CAIR, if we pass a law there
will be litigation. If you do a new regulation, there will be
litigation, it is inevitable. Somebody is going to sue over it.
It has happened in the past, it will happen again. But CAIR as
it stands today without modifying the Clean Air Act, CAIR as it
stands today, I think will probably do pretty well because as
you said, you hope it--you think it is defensible but it was--
it is based on the same legal authority upon which the
NO<INF>X</INF>, SIP Call was already established and litigated
and I don't think though the NO<INF>X</INF>, SIP Call was
stayed, you would not think that would happen now that the
Supreme Court has made a decision in that litigation.
So I just--I really believe here--and you can obviously you
can react to this, that our job here as legislators is to do no
harm. And, you know, Mr. Connaughton, talking about utility
bills. Most people's healthcare bills are a lot higher than
their utility bills and that is what we are ultimately
concerned about. We are concerned about the public health and
making sure we don't undermine one of the great achievements of
this Congress in the last 30 or 40 years, which is the Clean
Air Act.
So that is my speech. I would not have done that except I
have been listening so long, it gets all pent up. I am happy if
the Chairman will give you a little extra time to react. I
suspect I have not persuaded you.
Mr. Connaughton. Well, I have enjoyed our conversation
today and I look forward to future conversations, Congressman.
Let me take it in reverse order. First of all, thank you
for your ringing endorsement of President Bush's Clean Air
Interstate Rule and if you like the Clean Air Interstate Rule,
then you should love Clear Skies because it does it better and
it does it more effectively and it would be immediate. We don't
have to wait for the States to go through their processes of
adopting it and we don't have to wait for the States to design
State implementation plans around which they can incorporate
it.
And when it comes to litigation, we know two things. Nearly
every provision of the Clean Air Act and its implementing
regulations has been litigated except for two. One of them was
the Acid Rain Trading Program upon which the Clean Air, Clear
Skies legislation is modeled. That is the one that did not get
litigated. That is the one that was implemented with nearly 100
percent effectiveness. So that is a great signal. The other one
by the way was the Diesel Rule, the Non-Road Diesel Rule which
we negotiated in a very constructive negotiation between the
effected industries and the environmental community.
So President Bush has a very strong track record of making
enormous progress when we put our shoulders to it like we did
on ``brownfields'' with the Congress. And this is an
opportunity. You said Congress' position is to do no harm. We
believe the President's position and Congress' position should
be to lead.
And it has been 15 years since we have taken a look at the
Clean Air Act and we are looking at one element in trying to
expand the best tool available to us. That is all we are trying
to do here. We are not looking at the entire Clean Air Act. We
are not looking--we are looking at taking the best tool and
making the most of it rather than a lot of the muddling through
to, you know, to--and having thousands of lawyers and
consultants and Government officials slogging through to an
outcome that we all share and yet we know we could get much
easier, you know, by going on a level field around the mountain
rather than trying to go up over the top and to the other side.
Mr. Allen. Just one quick question. Then why eliminate 126?
Mr. Connaughton. Well actually, it is not being eliminated.
Mr. Allen. Or weakened.
Mr. Connaughton. Section 126 is just like the New Source
Review provision. We are granting through Clear Skies
Legislation, we are granting the 126 petitions up front. Rather
than wait for the 4 year process of an EPA petition and then
its subsequent implementation, Congress, through an act of
legislation, effectively is telling the States we grant your
transition--your transport petitions. We are going to grant it
right now and you don't have to wait for EPA to act.
The same is true of New Source Review and you and I
discussed this. Right now we have lawsuits against a few dozen
facilities, a few dozen power plants. If I could tell anybody
here that tomorrow I could guarantee that we have settled all
the lawsuits and EPA wins, I think everybody would be for that.
Well, not only do we settle all the lawsuits and EPA wins as to
those several dozen power plants, but we settle the future
lawsuits and EPA wins with respect to 1,300 power plants. So
this is the actual, the judicial relief that the Federal
Government has been seeking and the States have been seeking.
This legislation would provide it without having to then
further bother the courts and that is why it is perfectly
appropriate to replace the NSR litigation with an NSR solution
which is what Clear Skies is about.
Mr. Hall. We are way over our time. I ask unanimous consent
for these two gentlemen to have dinner together sometime. All
right. The Chair recognizes--thank you, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. The Chair recognizes Dr. Burgess from the State
of Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate you giving the panel an opportunity to
answer that last series of questions. I will try not to take 5
minutes to ask my question but Administrator Holmstead,
speaking of lawsuits, earlier this month the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Texas Council on Environmental
Quality, several of our local Governments and environmental
groups in the Dallas, Fort Worth area reached an agreement on a
lawsuit filed by the environmental groups over the 1-hour ozone
standard that expires in June.
And in fact, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to ask
unanimous consent that the EPA's press release about the
consent decree, as well as, a copy of the consent decree be
entered into the record.
Mr. Hall. Without objection, they are admitted.
[The information referred to follows:]
[News Release--May 5, 2005]
Parties Reach Agreements on Dallas/Fort Worth Air Quality Planning
Government agencies, local officials and citizen groups have
reached a series of agreements regarding plans to achieve health-based
air quality standards in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to take steps to
settle a lawsuit over the expiring 1-hour ozone standard. EPA, the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and local governments
have voluntarily committed to additional steps for ensuring progress in
meeting the new 8-hour ozone standard.
``I am pleased that we and the local citizens groups were able to
reach an agreement that moves us toward our goal of cleaner, healthier
air for residents of the Dallas/Fort Worth area,'' EPA Regional
Administrator Richard E. Greene said. ``The commitments made in a
series of agreements by many members of the Dallas/Fort Worth community
will help us take faster steps toward achieving healthier air quality
under the new standard.''
Four citizen groups (Blue Skies Alliance, Downwinders at Risk,
Public Citizen's Texas Office and the Sierra Club) sued the EPA,
alleging that insufficient action had taken place to approve and
implement the State Implementation Plan for meeting the old 1-hour
standard for ozone, due to expire next month. A number of organizations
intervened in the litigation supporting EPA, including the TCEQ, Collin
County, Tarrant County and some industry representatives.
``This settlement marks a new era of action to improve Dallas/Fort
Worth's air quality as quickly as possible. For the first time since
the Clean Air Act was passed, we think we have an outline of a plan
that can finally deliver clean air for Dallas/Fort Worth residents to
breathe,'' said Wendi Hammond, Director of Blue Skies Alliance. ``And
we believe that if all the parties continue to cooperate as they have
during these negotiations, we'll arrive at that goal sooner than we
would have without this agreement.''
In a consent decree, EPA agreed to a schedule to complete action on
a number of 1-hour ozone standard planning requirements including a
program for cleaner engines and traffic congestion prevention measures.
Significantly, parties went beyond the lawsuit and made voluntary
commitments focused on making progress to achieve the new 8-hour
standard. EPA also agreed to evaluate the most significant toxic air
pollutants for additional monitoring.
TCEQ agreed to a cement industry study to evaluate the potential
availability of new air pollution control technologies for cement kilns
in the Dallas/Fort Worth 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
``We are pleased that all of the parties involved agreed to move
forward to take positive steps towards improving air quality in the
Dallas/Fort Worth area immediately,'' TCEQ Commissioner R.B. ``Ralph''
Marquez said. ``We remain committed to evaluating all reasonable
pollution control measures to move us closer to our goal of cleaner
air.''
Local officials agreed to implement local pollution control
measures earlier than required by state and federal regulations.
``Clean air has been my goal for some time,'' Collin County Judge
Ron Harris said. ``These measures will help us bring relief faster to
children and families suffering from the effects of poor air quality.''
Tarrant County Judge Tom Vandergriff said, ``Besides making us
healthier, clean air will make our area more attractive to businesses
and spur economic development. It's a problem we created together and
one we must solve together.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.013
Mr. Burgess. Administrator Holmstead, to quote the EPA's
press release, the EPA ``The EPA agreed to a schedule to
complete action on a number of 1-hour ozone standard planning
requirements including a program for cleaner engines and
traffic congestion prevention measures.'' Additionally, the
release states that ``Parties went beyond the lawsuit and made
voluntary commitments focused on making progress to achieve the
new 8-hour standard. The Environmental Protection Agency also
agreed to evaluate the most significant toxic air pollutants
for additional monitoring.'' According to the press release,
local officials also agreed to implement local pollution
control measures earlier than required by State and Federal
regulations. And the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
agreed to a cement industry study to evaluate the potential
availability of new air pollution control technologies for
cement kilns in the 8-hour ozone non-attainment area.
I know I am beginning to sound like Mr. Allen, but my
question is this. Is the legal agreement legally binding, and
if so, how would it change in air quality law like the changes
that would be made under the President's proposed Clear Skies
Initiative impact this agreement?
My personal opinion is that this is such a watershed
agreement back home that we cannot allow it to move backward,
so I would be interested in your answer.
Mr. Holmstead. We are equally enthusiastic about that
agreement. It really is a great achievement by a lot of people
working together in the local area. And as you have asked it,
it is a legally binding agreement. I am quite sure there is
nothing in the President's bill that would have any impact on
that. But let me do this if I can. Let me see if we can get you
a letter to that effect. And the other thing I think I can say
on behalf of the administration is if anybody thinks there is
something in there, I mean, that is one of the great things
about legislation, we just make that is not the case because we
would not want to do anything to undercut all the good work
that has been done in that area.
Mr. Burgess. So, Mr. Chairman, can we accept his expounded
answer in writing for the record?
Mr. Hall. I see no objection. If there are no objections to
it. Who is here to object?
Mr. Burgess. I guess just you and I.
Mr. Hall. No, we would want to be fair with them even in
their absence. Let me ask Counsel is there any objection? There
being no objection, it will be allowed.
Mr. Burgess. Very good, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me then just ask a general question to either one of
you. What is the current status--we spent a long time hearing
about mercury. I would like to hear you talk about it. What is
the current status of mercury controlled technology? What is it
about the status of this technology that you think would make a
Cap and Trade Program for reducing mercury emissions more
effective than a more traditional command and control model?
Mr. Holmstead. One of the great things we have learned
about the Cap and Trade Program is--and this is just one
example. Years ago when all the arguments were about what
technology you put on a certain plant, there would be endless
debate about whether this scrubber can get 70 percent reduction
or 72 percent reduction or 78 percent reduction. All of a
sudden when you have a Cap and Trade Program that creates an
economic incentive, we have scrubbers that are getting 95
percent reduction because there is an economic incentive for
the plants and the engineers to find the most cost effective
way to maximize things.
Today there is no commercially available mercury specific
control technology. There are other pollution controls that are
designed to reduce sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides that
accidentally reduce mercury emissions. But what we would like
to do with the cap and trade is to create an incentive for
people to optimize those controls to develop other controls.
And one of the things, one of the great features of the Cap
and Trade Program is that with so much mercury coming from
overseas, if we can be the leaders in creating incentives for
the development with the cost effective control technology,
then maybe other countries will adopt it. Right now we are the
only country in the world to require mercury controls. But
through this Cap and Trade Program, we are confident that over
time you will see the development of much better, much more
cost effective controls that we hope can then be exported to
reduce this global background that comes in from all over the
world.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I must just point out
that the Peterbilt plant in my area in Denton, Texas produces a
truck with a diesel engine that has practically zero emissions
of the year 2007.
I will yield back.
Mr. Hall. We thank you, Doctor, for yielding back and if
there are no more questions, I want to thank this panel. You
have been----
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hall. I am sorry, Mr. Shimkus. I recognize you for 1
minute and 30 seconds is gone.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to follow up on the mercury.
Mr. Hall. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Say that again. Right, is there current specific mercury
reduction technology on the shelf today for--just solely for
reducing mercury emissions?
Mr. Holmstead. The short answer is no.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
The--and so it is an offset of other technology that is
doing other things.
Mr. Holmstead. No, but there is mercury specific control
technology that people are trying to adapt for power plants.
Mr. Shimkus. Correct.
Mr. Holmstead. And they have done some short-term tests and
they have done--and we are confident that that technology will
work but right now there is not a power plant in the country
that actually has that installed on a regular basis.
Mr. Shimkus. The reason I bring this--we have talked about
the mercury, the old mercury MACT and now the new mercury rule,
can you assure those of us who have eastern coal that there
will be a single standard for the challenge when we move to
mercury of the reduction of mercury instead of a two tiered
system for the different type of coals used?
Mr. Holmstead. You probably heard my earlier answer. The
whole goal of the way we have done it in the regulation and the
way it is in the President's bill is to create a level playing
field so that no one is artificially advantaged. And we have
spent an enormous amount of time working with industry folks
and the coal industry, and the technical people at DOE and
within our office and we believe that we have struck that
balance. And I know that there still continues to be some
disagreement but the whole goal and we think the result is to
create a level playing field across all coal types.
Mr. Shimkus. Thanks.
And I will end on this. You know, I have a lot of fun with
my good friend from Maine and we debate this all the time, this
whole issue. But it did strike a nerve when he said coal is a
low hanging fruit. Coal is not the low hanging fruit. In the
last Clean Air Act, 10,000 miners in Southern Illinois lost
their jobs. Costs are escalated. So for people to say coal is
the low hanging fruit, I would challenge them to come to
Southern Illinois, come to West Virginia, go all parts around
the--on this country in which coal was the primary low cost
power producer.
Mr. Connaughton. Congressman, it is hard to understand how
a $52 billion cost which is twice as expensive as the next most
expensive program is low hanging fruit. I mean, this is--what
we are imposing through this legislation is enormously costly
but it is the most cost effective. And by doing it, we can
actually increase our use of coal and put those coal miners in
Illinois back to work.
Mr. Shimkus. I am with you. Keep up the great work and I
yield back, chairman.
Mr. Hall. I want to thank you for your time today, for the
time it took to prepare, for all the good work you have put
into this, and the assistance you give a good President. We are
going to probably talk about getting this bill sent back over
for the Senate to reconsider. I thank you again and really
appreciate everything. With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Response for the Record by James L. Connaughton, Chairman, Council on
Environmental Quality
ANSWER TO SUBMITTED QUESTION OF HON. RALPH M. HALL
Question 1. Recently the 1998-1999 global warming studies producing
what is nicknamed the ``hockey stick'' temperature history, which
formed the basis for international finding that late 20th century
temperatures were the warmest of the 1,000 years, have been
discredited. What impact, if any, does this have on the
Administration's position that CO<INF>2</INF> is not a pollutant and
should not be part of the Clear Skies Initiative?
Response: The ongoing debate on reconstructing climate over the
past 1000-2000 years underscores the need to invest in new knowledge on
natural climate variability, including developing and deploying
comprehensive and sustained global observations of the climate system
through programs such as the U.S.-led Global Earth Observation System
of Systems (GEOSS) international partnership. The President's 2006
Budget includes nearly $2 billion for climate change science and
another $3 billion for technology research, development, and deployment
activities. The Administration's portfolio of climate change programs
and cross-cutting initiatives focus on reducing the fundamental
scientific uncertainties associated with climate change; advancing the
development and introduction of energy-efficient, renewable, and other
low- or non-emitting technologies; and improving standards for
measuring and registering emissions reductions.
The intent of Clear Skies is to reduce the emissions of
conventional air pollutants from the power sector which have harmful
health effects when present in the ambient air at certain levels.
CO<INF>2</INF> does not fall in that category nor is it regulated by
the Clean Air Act.
The President's National Energy Plan envisions an integrated
strategy for advancing economic growth and addressing energy security,
air quality, climate change, and economic growth. Through a combination
of research and development and market incentives these policies
provide investment opportunities to advance cleaner, more efficient
technologies such as a new generation of low polluting and lower carbon
emission coal power plants. Combined with Administration policies to
transform the way we use energy by improving efficiencies in
transportation, buildings and appliances; to promote the use of nuclear
power, clean diesel, methane, renewable energy, bio-energy, and more
efficient power grids and development of hydrogen-powered vehicles we
will dramatically improve our air quality and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions without compromising our economic growth.
______
The Honorable Michael Burgess
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Burgess: This letter follows up on your question
raised during the House Energy and Commerce hearing on May 26, 2005. At
the hearing, you asked whether the recent Dallas/Fort Worth settlement
to address ozone problems in the area was legally binding, and whether
Clear Skies legislation would affect this agreement. At the hearing,
then acting Administrator Jeffrey R. Holmstead stated that we at the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strongly supported the settlement
of the litigation over the 1-hour ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for the Dallas/Fort Worth area and did not think that anything in Clear
Skies would affect this settlement. This letter memorializes his
statement.
We are of the opinion that the Clear Skies legislation would not
affect what EPA has agreed to in the settlement, which was entered on
August 8, 2005. In the consent agreement, EPA committed to taking final
action on three elements of the Texas SIP for Dallas/Fort Worth. These
elements of the SIP are: 1) the Texas Emission Reduction Plan SIP
revision; 2) the Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program SIP
revision; and 3) the Transportation Control Measures SIP revision. None
of these actions committed to in the consent agreement are affected by
Clear Skies legislation and EPA has now completed final rulemaking on
all three actions. In an action not part of the consent agreement,
EPA's Regional Office in Dallas further agreed, in a letter dated
February 18, 2005, to some activities in the Dallas/Fort Worth area
that will serve the interest of clean air for the area. These agreed-
upon activities are also independent of the outcome of expected Clear
Skies legislation.
Separately, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has
committed to the Plaintiffs that it will make a good faith effort to
submit an 8-hour attainment demonstration SIP for the Dallas/Fort Worth
nonattainment area in advance of the existing deadline of June 15,
2007, and to attain the 8-hour ozone standard in the Dallas/Fort Worth
area as expeditiously as practicable.
I hope this response adequately addresses your question. I
appreciate your interest in air quality issues, especially those for
the Dallas/Fort Worth area. If I may be of further assistance, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
William Wehrum
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
cc: Richard Green, Regional Administrator
______
The Honorable Ralph M. Hall
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510-6115
Dear Congressman Hall: Thank you for your July 1, 2005, letter in
which you request additional information regarding Clean Air Act (CAA)
related issues. I hope you find our responses helpful to you and the
Committee. If you have further questions, please contact me or your
staff may contact Lora Strine in EPA's Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-3689.
Sincerely,
John Reeder
Acting Associate Administrator,
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Questions from the Honorable Ralph M. Hall for Jeffrey Holmstead,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Question 1. There was concern when the Acid Rain Program was
initiated that fuel switching was used as a method to comply with
sulfur dioxide emissions reductions. Does EPA predict fuel-switching
happening under the Clear Skies Initiative cap and trade programs?
Please include in your response the supporting analysis for any
conclusions reached.
Answer: Under the Acid Rain Program, significant SO2 reductions
were achieved from coal-fired electric generating facilities by
switching the type of coal that is burned from higher sulfur content to
lower sulfur content varieties, but not necessarily by switching fuels
(from coal to natural gas). EPA analysis of the Clear Skies Act of 2003
projected that significant fuel switching would not occur as a result
of the Act, and instead, projected that significant amounts of
pollution controls would be installed to meet the emission reduction
requirements of Clear Skies. Coal was projected to remain an important
fuel in providing affordable and reliable electricity to consumers, and
Clear Skies was designed in part to avoid any major disruptions to the
supply of fuel for producing electricity. The conclusions are based
upon power sector modeling done in 2003 in support of Clear Skies,
which can be found on EPA's Clear Skies website and is detailed in the
Clear Skies Technical Support Package (http://www.epa.gov/air/
clearskies/econ.html ). Additional comprehensive analysis of Clear
Skies and other proposed multipollutant legislation, as well as recent
regulation, (available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/mp) supports
these findings.
Question 2. Please tell the Committee, how the mercury allowances
will work under the Clear Skies Initiative? How did EPA take into
account the various coal types utilitized? Please include in your
response the supporting analysis for any conclusions reached.
Answer: Under the Clear Skies Act of 2003, allowances would be
allocated to affected units based on the proportionate share of their
baseline heat input to total heat input of the units. For mercury, only
coal units would be affected, and the baseline heat input for each unit
is adjusted for coal type. Different types of pollution controls are
able to achieve a range of mercury reductions based upon the type of
coal that is being burned at a particular facility and other facility
characteristics. If allowances were allocated proportional to the
overall reduction required under Clear Skies, then the coal types that
are less able to get reductions would have to purchase more allowances.
Under the allocations methodology of Clear Skies, bituminous units
would be allocated a share of the mercury allowances 1.0 times their
share of the overall heat input, subbituminous units would be allocated
at 1.25 times their share, and lignite units would be allocated at 3.0
times their share. This allocation formula would partially compensate
for the different mercury removal capabilities from the various coal
types. Under Clear Skies, allocations are based on historical coal rank
and heat input data, so the allocation approach does not create
incentives to switch fuels, and fuel switching would not result in a
unit being allocated any additional allowances.
Question 3. Outlined in comments submitted on the EPA's Clean Air
Mercury Rule (CAMR), was a concern that test data EPA relied on for
Gulf Coast lignite coal may have underestimated the mercury content of
Gulf Coast lignite coal by a factor of two. Please tell the Committee
if EPA believes that the mercury content of Gulf Coast lignite coal was
underreported by the ICR data? Furthermore, what does the Agency
believe is the mercury content of Gulf Coast lignite coal? In your
response please provide the supporting analysis for any conclusions
reached and how those conclusions impact plants using Gulf Coast
lignite coal in meeting CAMR's requirements. Lastly, if the ICR data
underreported the mercury content, please provide an estimate of the
amount of increased emissions that must be reduced by plants using Gulf
Coast lignite coal in order to meet the requirements of CAMR.
Answer: We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the data
submitted during the public comment period for CAMR indicating that the
mercury content of Gulf Coast lignites may have been underreported in
the 1999 ICR effort. Further, we have no reason to doubt the revised
mercury content values reported by the commenters for Gulf Coast
lignites. However, we do not believe that units combusting Gulf Coast
lignites will be adversely impacted by the ``error'' in the ICR data
related to the mercury content of the lignite itself, because the
mercury content of the coal was not a direct factor in the analysis. In
developing the CAMR new source limits, where we did factor in the
mercury-in-coal values, we accounted for the new mercury values for
Gulf Coast lignites, such that new units burning Gulf Coast lignite
should not be disproportionately burdened by the new source standards.
In developing the allowance allocation adjustment factors for
determining State budgets, EPA balanced three factors: (1) data on
mercury capture by control configuration and coal type, (2) data on
coal characteristics impacting mercury capture, and (3) mercury
emissions by capacity. Although EPA utilized ICR data in determining
these factors, EPA believes that these adjustment factors reasonably
reflect that subbituminous and lignite coals have the lowest mercury
capture with existing technologies, represent more emissions per
capacity, and, in the case of lignite, also have a higher coal mercury
content. EPA believes that the values we have assigned to these factors
will succeed in equitably distributing allowances to the States and
Tribes on the basis of the affected industry within their borders.
Additionally, under CAMR, States have the discretion to allocate
mercury allowances to sources in any manner that they choose. The final
allocation adjustment factors are discussed in greater detail in a
technical support document entitled ``State and Indian Country
Emissions Budgets'' available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/
state_
indiancountry_emissionbudgets_oar_2002_0056_6154.pdf.
Question 4. Please tell the Committee, if the mercury content of
Gulf Coast lignite coal was underreported by the ICR data, what impact
this might have on the overall mercury reduction requirement for the
utility industry? Please provide the Committee with information on what
the chlorine levels are in Gulf Coast lignite coals, including the
impact those levels may have on the ability of plants utilizing Gulf
Coast lignite coal to reduce mercury emissions.
Answer: As noted in the response to Question 4, the mercury content
of the various coals, including Gulf Coast lignites, was not used in
the analyses to develop the Phase I and II CAMR mercury caps.
Therefore, the underreporting of the mercury content of Gulf Coast
lignites in the ICR will have no impact on the overall mercury
reduction requirement of the utility industry. It is widely known that
mercury emissions from units utilizing Gulf Coast lignites are
relatively more difficult to control than are those from other coals,
partially as a result of generally low chlorine levels. However, the
U.S. DOE is including such facilities in its mercury control technology
demonstration program; early results indicate that these units will
have options for reducing their mercury emissions but they may not be
able to reduce them as much as other units may.
Questions from the Honorable Hilda L. Solis for Jeffrey Holmstead,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Question 1. EPA's 2004 guidance on rulemaking allows discussion of
environmental justice only ``as necessary and appropriate,'' while
other executive orders must always be addressed. Why did EPA decide
that the executive order on environmental justice only has to be
discussed ``as necessary and appropriate''? When would it not be
appropriate to discuss environmental justice? If environmental issues
are not considered during a rulemaking because it is not deemed
necessary and appropriate, how does EPA determine there are no
environmental justice impacts?
Answer: EPA has consistently worked to consider and address
environmental justice issues in its rulemaking process. Since 1994, EPA
has considered and analyzed the environmental justice implications of
rules under development, but EPA does not require each rule's preamble
to discuss Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (EO 12898). EPA believes there is a distinction between the
consideration of environmental justice issues during rule development
and including in each rule preamble a section addressing EO 12898. EPA
believes that through its Action Development Process, rulewriters and
managers are provided sufficient guidance to ensure environmental
justice issues are appropriately identified, analyzed and addressed in
the rulemaking process. The absence of a specific discussion of EO
12898 in every regulatory preamble, therefore, should not be viewed as
an absence of care and consideration of environmental justice
implications.
Question 2. How many new clean air rules over the last five years
included consideration of the executive order on environmental justice
and how many did not? Please identify each rulemaking specifically. For
each, please identify the reason why consideration of environmental
justice was or was not included.
Answer: As noted above, EPA believes it appropriately addresses
environmental justice issues in its rulemakings and that a specific
preamble discussion of EO 12898 is not always necessary.
Question 3. Please detail the specific role the Office of
Environmental Justice's (OEJ) had in developing the CAIR Rule, the
Mercury Rule and both the October 27, 2003 ``Equipment Replacement
Rule'' and December 31, 2002 Final NSR ``Improvement'' Rule for NSR. If
OEJ did not have a role please explain why and provide information
explaining how the decision to not involve OEJ was made.
Answer: The Office of Air and Radiation manages environmental
justice issues in its rulemakings. OEJ develops broad policy, which the
program offices implement in their specific activities, generally
without further OEJ involvement,
Question 4. In the 420 page document for CAIR, there are only two
paragraphs which address environmental justice. These state ``The
agency expects this rule to lead to reductions in air pollution and
exposures generally. For this reason, negative impacts to these
subpopulations (minority or low-income) that appreciably exceed similar
impacts to the general population are not expected.'' The final rule
does not say that ``negative impacts'' are not expected at all. Can you
please detail the negative impacts that are expected for any and all
populations and locations which will experience negative impacts under
the CAIR rule?
Answer: The Clean Air Interstate Rule is expected to lead to
reductions in air pollution and exposures throughout the CAIR region of
the Eastern U.S. The vast majority of the population living in this
region, including the inhabitants of major cities such as New York,
Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Chicago will experience dramatic
improvements in air quality. All populations are expected to benefit
from the rule, including low-income and minority populations. For
particulate matter, in fact, ambient concentrations are predicted to
decline for every location: we do not anticipate any negative impacts
to any populations anywhere in the CAIR region. Modeling for 2015
predicts that a small region in western Michigan may experience small
increases, of less than 2 ppb, in the 2015 time period. In this
instance of small, temporary increases in ozone concentrations, no
disproportionate impacts will be experienced by localized low-income or
minority populations. Other areas in the CAIR region will experience
reductions in ozone pollution between now and 2015.
Question 5. Both the final CAIR rule and the Regulatory Impact
Analysis state that a rule like CAIR may lead to reductions in air
pollution and exposures generally. Please provide detailed information
on where these reductions are expected generally and those locations
where reductions are not expected to occur.
Answer: See answer to #4.
Question 6. Has the Office of Environmental Justice sought advice
from the OAR about the future of NEJAC? If yes, what advice was given
to them? If no, what is OAR's role in the dismantling of NEJAC?
Answer: All EPA advisory committees are required to be evaluated
annually. As one of 23 advisory committees of the Agency, the NEJAC
charter was evaluated earlier this year and extended until September
25, 2006. The Agency has committed over the next year to seek
independent advice and recommendations from the NEJAC's Executive
Committee regarding options for meaningful public involvement,
training, collaborative problem-solving and partnership building. The
decision to renew the charter of an advisory committee authorized under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act lies within the Office of the
Administrator. Such a decision is made with the advice of the offices
that manage the Committee, and other relevant program offices, which in
this case includes OAR.
Question 7. Please identify what tools does EPA will have to obtain
information from low-income and minority communities on how they are
being impacted by environmental and public health issues if NEJAC is
dismantled. What evidence does EPA have that these tools are sufficient
enough to dismantle NEJAC? Please refer this question to the
appropriate office, including the Office of the Administrator or Office
of Environmental Justice if OAR is unable to respond.
Answer: The Agency is not dismantling the NEJAC, as noted above.
Question 8. Please identify, in consultation with OEJ, any OAR
rulemakings for which OEJ requested, either formally or informally, an
opportunity to participate. Please identify any such rulemakings in
which OEJ did not participate in the rulemaking process, and/or was not
provided with an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
Answer: In 2000, OEJ requested an opportunity to participate in the
NSR and Title V rulemakings. This request was made at a staff-to-staff
level. Given time constraints and the adequacy of OAR's consideration
of environmental justice issues, OEJ's involvement was not required.
OEJ has not asked to participate in any other rulemakings. OAR
informally solicited OEJ's recommendations with respect to the Tier II
rulemaking after comments on the proposed rule were received.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9909.024
<all>