Testimony of Howard Dean, M.D.
Governor, State of Vermont
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Hearing
On Multi-Pollutant Legislation (S.556)
November 15, 2001
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee for this opportunity to share my thoughts regarding multi-pollutant
legislation. I would like to applaud
members of Congress, especially the Chairman and Ranking Member, for their
leadership in tackling this issue of great importance for public health, the
environment, and the economy of Vermont, other states in the Northeast and
elsewhere. This is a good bill, and I
appreciate the opportunity to speak about why the goals to be achieved through
the bill are so important.
While we have made great strides reducing air
pollution since Congress enacted the Clean Air Act of 1970, much remains to be
done. Power plants remain one of the
largest sources of air pollution in the country. Electric utilities account for
approximately one-third of all man-made emissions of mercury and particulate
matter in our nation, one-third of all emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon
dioxide, and nearly three-quarters of all U.S. emissions of sulfur dioxide.
As a doctor, I am particularly concerned
about the fact that many areas of our nation still violate the health-based
1-hour standard for ozone and that many more will violate the new 8-hour ozone
standard. This is occurring at the same
time that a growing body of scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the many
and varied adverse health effects associated with exposure to fine particle air
pollution. Similarly, the long-term
consequences of a continued buildup of toxic metals in the environment also
represent a demonstrable health threat.
For example, the threat posed by mercury deposition to pregnant women
and their babies is both serious and preventable. In recognition of this threat the New
England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers have embarked on an aggressive
campaign to dramatically cut mercury emissions in our region. Our ultimate goal is the virtual elimination
of manmade mercury emissions.
Like public health, the environment also
remains at risk from air pollution.
Despite significant progress under the federal Acid Rain Program,
forests and aquatic ecosystems throughout much of the Northeast continue to
suffer damage from acid rain. Recent
findings from the Hubbard Brook Research Forest, the nation=s oldest acid rain research effort, and
parallel studies conducted by researchers in Vermont and other regions of the
United States and Canada, demonstrate that we have a great deal of work left to
do. Fifteen percent of the lakes in New
England and over 40 percent of Adirondack lakes are either chronically or
seasonally acidic. These conditions
negatively affect fish and other aquatic life.
Nearly one-quarter of Adirondack lakes surveyed in one study no longer
support fish. In Vermont, 35 lakes have
been deemed sensitive and impaired by acidification. On Camels Hump, one of Vermont=s tallest peaks and the state symbol engraved on the new Vermont state
quarter, researchers have studied the impact of acid rain for decades. Here,
the red spruce canopy has been extensively damaged, and new growth red spruce
is showing signs of acidic damage.
Power plants are also the primary cause of regional haze, which reduces
average visibility in the Northeast to only about one-third of the visual range
typical of natural conditions.
It is essential that your deliberations
result in defining Amulti-pollutant@ as a minimum of four pollutants.
Climate-altering gases such as carbon dioxide represent a significant long-term
global threat. The possible impact of
global climate change include widespread coastal flooding, immense changes in
habitat for plants and animals, an increase in weather-related natural
disasters, and, in Vermont, possible crippling impacts to our ski areas and
maple sugar industry -- potential devastating blows to our state=s economy and culture. Scientifically and politically, it is clear
that climate change is an issue that will not go away. As a nation, it is important that we both
hold the line against future emissions increases and begin to actually decrease
our contribution to the global burden of climate-changing pollutants. The New England Governors and Eastern
Canadian premiers expect to achieve reduction in greenhouse gases to 10 percent
below 1990 levels by 2020. This
bi-national regional plan adopted by the Governors and Premiers in August of
this year, further established a long-term goal of achieving reductions of 75
to 85 percent below current levels to eliminate any dangerous threat to the
climate. I have attached a copy of the
adopted plan for your consideration.
One way Vermont intends to meet its
obligations under the bi-national regional climate action plan, and at the same
time address energy issues in Vermont, is through my recently unveiled
long-term energy initiative for Vermont.
That plan promises to help Vermont meet its future electric energy needs
by developing a clean, reliable and renewable energy infrastructure. In recent
debates over national energy policy, some have questioned whether renewable
generation, conservation and small-scale power can meet future electric power
needs. Analysis of Vermont=s particular needs and opportunities shows that renewable forms of
energy, together with wise and efficient energy use do have the potential to
meet our future demand B at low cost to consumers.
Our initiative addresses issues that will be
pressing on Vermont in the coming years. Although New England does not face an
energy supply crisis right now, we have recognized for some time that
increasing electric demand in Vermont will eventually require expanding supply. At the same time, Vermont utilities serve
more than two-thirds of the state=s electric demand with power from two electric energy sources: Hydro
Quebec and the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Both of these sources of energy are non-carbon based, however,
both are time-limited and face uncertain futures. Not only are these sources of power both renewable and not carbon
based, both are provided through long-term contracts, which provide power
stability and cost certainty to consumers.
New England as a whole is addressing its
growth through the construction of large-scale natural gas-fired plants, with
advanced air pollution control systems, concentrated in the high demand areas
of southern New England. These plants are less carbon intensive than other
thermal generation plants and they will protect the region from shortages
resulting from lack of capacity B and from the kinds of consequences we saw in California. I am not convinced however that reliance on
one fuel source makes sense for a variety of reasons, not least of which are
possibilities of price spikes and supply disruptions. Consumers do not benefit from a speculative, single fuel approach
to supplying power.
In addition to these issues of supply,
Vermonters have long placed a priority on environmental quality. Thus any
solutions to Vermont=s
future power needs must take into account the large impact of electric
generation on environmental quality, both at home and nationally.
For these reasons I have made a commitment to
meet increased electric consumption in Vermont by developing three
Vermont-based alternatives to large-scale generation or purchased power. First, developing new sources of renewable
energy. Second, expanding Vermont=s already successful energy conservation
efforts. And third, fostering
small-scale, clean and efficient generation, particularly advanced technology
combined heat and power projects at Vermont businesses and institutions.
I will ask our legislature to appropriate
funds this year for renewable energy incentives. These funds represent a step
in a period of public support that is needed so the market for renewable
resources can ultimately stand on its own. Policy initiatives such as a
Renewable Portfolio Standard (a requirement that utilities include at least a
threshold amount of renewables in their supply mix) will aid in moving from a
period of subsidy to a fully functioning market that no longer requires public
subsidy.
The economic costs of our initiative may well
be less than the cost of energy purchased in the market. When environmental and
local economic benefits are taken into account, the economic analysis becomes
even more favorable. For example, individuals and businesses participating in
efficiency programs in Vermont have done so at a cost of approximately 2.6
cents per kilowatt-hour at a time when wholesale electricity supply costs about
5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. And the carbon dioxide emissions avoided by these
efficiencies equals taking 2,100 cars off the road.
Realizing this achievable vision strengthens
our state and our country through diversification of our energy resources,
significant economic benefits, and a reduction in the environmental
consequences associated with meeting our electric power needs.
Given that the Northeast is downwind from the
rest of the nation, pollutants from many of our nation=s most industrialized regions find their way
to our corner of the country.
Therefore, effective national legislation is essential to adequately
protect the health of citizens and our environment.
For all of these reasons, Vermont strongly
supports the Committee=s
efforts to draft comprehensive, meaningful legislation to reduce power sector
emissions of NOx, SO2, mercury and carbon. Only a comprehensive approach addressing all four pollutants can
give industry the investment and planning certainty it needs, while ensuring a
reliable electricity supply and promoting a smooth transition to the mix of
resources and technologies needed to sustain environmental progress and improve
public health despite continued demand growth.
Control programs for other pollutants, if
they result only in the addition of smokestack controls will not achieve the
needed reductions in CO2 emissions.
Any program that excludes carbon cannot, at this point, provide industry
with meaningful longer-term investment certainty they need, nor will it provide
impetus for the new generation of renewable and advanced technologies that are
needed in a carbon-constrained world.
I believe that setting a cap on the amount of
a pollutant that may be emitted and allowing trading of emissions between
polluters as a means of controlling power plant emissions can have
merit. Any so-called Acap and trade@ program however cannot be a Agimmick.@ It
must be meaningful. In my view a
meaningful program would provide a stringent cap, utilize market forces to
achieve reductions, be based upon an open process and an informed public,
include strong emission tracking and data reporting mechanisms, and be subject
to strict compliance oversight and significant penalties in the face of
noncompliance. To keep such a program
relevant over time it would need to contain a review and revise provision to
push the cap downward. This could be
accomplished by authorizing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adopt
rules.
I also believe it critical to include in a
multi-pollutant power plant bill some of the fundamental cornerstone provisions
of the Clean Air Act, such as requirements for the best available emission
control technology on new sources. This
particular provision carries out the adopted philosophy of Congress Awhen building new, build clean.@ This
policy has served the nation well since incorporated into the Clean Air Act of
1977 and must be upheld.
It is absolutely essential to establish an
emissions cap that requires deep reductions in the emissions of all four pollutants
from the large number of grandfathered power plants that continue to operate in
this country. These grandfathered power
plants account for more than two-thirds of the carbon dioxide, three-quarters
of the nitrogen oxides and mercury, and 80 percent of the sulfur dioxide
emitted by all fossil fuel-burning utilities in the United States today. There is no compelling reason to continue
exempting high-emitting power plants from applying proven control technology. I urge you to correct the faulty assumptions
of the 1970 Clean Air Act that these plants would be retired by now and remove
the exemptions that continue to allow these facilities to spew massive amounts
of pollutants into the atmosphere B and ultimately into the lungs of our citizens. The time has come for these facilities to
upgrade to current standards or close.
In crafting a national policy for controlling
power plant emissions, it is important that Congress remember that for every
measure of pollution reduction there is a benefit to society. This notion is embodied in the Bi-National
Toxic Strategy, which our government has entered into with Canada. This agreement states that for some
pollutants the goal must be Athe virtual elimination of the contaminant.@
Power plant emissions contribute to many of the major environmental
issues before us: mercury, fine particulate matter, global climate change,
ozone pollution and regional haze. To
address these threats to our environment and health, we must have a sound goal
and sound policy direction. Virtual
elimination is the right goal B a long-term goal B and new technologies and renewable sources of energy will provide the
solutions for achieving this goal.
I appreciate very much the work of this
Committee on this issue, I support this bill and I thank you again for this
opportunity to speak with you.