STATEMENT BY
SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS,
AND CLIMATE CHANGE, COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ON THE
FEASIBILITY OF REDUCING MERCURY AND CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, PURSUANT TO S.
556
Mr. Chairman, first off, I would like to
recognize and welcome a fellow Coloradan, Dr. Michael Durham of ADA
Environmental Solutions of Littleton.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, this is the
third hearing relating to S. 556, and this time we focus on perhaps the most
controversial aspects of the bill - whether technology even exists that would
allow power producers to meet the aggressive carbon dioxide and mercury
emissions reduction schedule in S. 556.
I am deeply concerned over the process in
formulating this dramatic and sweeping legislation. This is a major change in policy that should be carefully
reviewed. We have had two hearings at
the full committee level. However,
today, we hold a hearing on the most contentious issues only at the
Subcommittee level. Second, we are
going to hold one member's meeting next week, and then the majority intends to
mark-up this bill. I am an optimist,
but I am also a realist. Do we
seriously think that given our members' strong disagreement on S. 556, that we
can reach consensus in just one meeting?
I hope that my friends supporting S. 556 come around, but I imagine that
we will need to work together a bit more.
Again, this is the third hearing on S. 556,
and this is the third hearing where I state, in no uncertain terms, my strong
opposition. This bill is a one-size
fits all approach that detrimentally affects the Western United States.
Fundamentally, the West differs from the East
in several ways, and any legislation should reflect those differences. Yet, this bill ignores them completely. Again, it is important to note that this
bill would require significant reductions in NOX where no problem exists, and
similar command and control SOX reductions on a very minor Western
problem.
Mercury is recognized as a harmful
pollutant. However, we aren't sure how
much is harmful and whether adequate technology exists to deal with it.
In December 2000, the EPA found cause for
mercury reductions, but lacked sufficient information as to the degree of
reductions. Today, the Agency is in the
process of gathering scientific data in order to develop the proposed rule, set
to be published by December 2003. The
Agency charged with Enforcing the Environment needed additional time and study
to make an educated decision based on clear science.
However, the distinguished sponsors of S. 556
somehow know the proper reduction levels with such certainty that they make it
a part of their bill.
This bill's approach to mercury reductions
mirror those taken for NOX and SOX, by completely ignoring Western
differences. Mercury emissions from
Western coal-fired plants is about 40 percent lower than the national average. Yet, S. 556 would require the same level of
reduction as if the West's mercury emissions were much higher. Such an effect can only be a result of two
things: (1) S. 556 completely ignored Western differences, or (2) S. 556
penalizes good actors in the West.
I am sure that proponents of S. 556 did not
intend to penalize the West. Therefore,
we can only assume that they ignored the critical differences of the West.
Well, I am here to tell you that the West
isn't ignoring this bill. The State of
Colorado opposes this bill, Xcel Energy opposes this bill, Colorado's municipal
and cooperatively owned utilities oppose this bill, the Western Governor's
Association oppose this bill, and I oppose this bill.
S. 556 also includes significant reductions
in carbon dioxide in order to curb global climate change. First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and
should not be treated as one. NOX, SOX,
and mercury can affect people's health within their lifetime. Global warming cannot. Carbon dioxide's inclusion in a
"multi-pollutant bill" amounts to an obstacle to doing what we all
want to do, and that is to make sure that we have clean, safe air.
Second, the Constitution's Foreign Affairs
Clause ensures that the nation speaks with one voice in international
affairs. Our Commander-in-Chief has
taken a position on the Kyoto Protocol, and is developing a strategy to deal
with global warming. I look forward to
the Administration's position on the issue.
Last, the carbon dioxide reductions called
for in this bill would disproportionately impact the West and my state of
Colorado in particular. Eighty-two
percent of Colorado's electricity comes from coal-fired plants. The incredible costs associated with S.
556's carbon dioxide reductions is tantamount to a fuel switching mandate,
placing everyone at the mercy of natural gas price swings. Whether or not fuel switching is the intent
this de facto result would hurt my state and ratepayers across the nation.
Both parties agree that energy security is a
top priority. We should not implement
uncertain policies that would effectively decrease our energy supply unless the
gains are sure.
In sum, S. 556 is a short-sighted approach
based on incomplete information that completely ignores Western differences and
even penalizes good actors.
I hope that the majority reschedules the mark-up of this bill, and takes some of the West's concerns to heart. Thank you.