STATEMENT
BY BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT &
PUBLIC WORKS TO CONSIDER "THE CLEAN POWER ACT (S. 556)
November
1, 2001
Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.First, I would
like to welcome Governor Dean of Vermont.It
is a pleasure to have you here, and I look forward to your testimony
I
would also like to take a moment to welcome a fellow Coloradan, and the
sole voice from the West testifying before this Committee, Mr. Dave Ouimette.Although
I am pleased to see Mr. Ouimette, I must express my disappointment that
this Committee has not sought greater representation from those west of
the Mississippi.
Perhaps,
it is fitting that Western states have a singular voice here today since
such under representation mirrors the lack of deference that this bill
gives to Western interests.
This
bill fails to acknowledge the inherent differences between air quality
in the East versus the West in several ways.First,
S. 556 would impose significant reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions
throughout the entire country.However,
data raises issue whether the West even has a NOX problem at all.
Second,
this bill ignores ongoing regional initiatives and approaches dealing with
air issues particular to the West.For
example, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is in consultation
with the EPA to develop a Western sulfur dioxide reduction program on a
reduction schedule far different from that proposed in S. 556.
Also,
this bill does not allow for flexible solutions to local air problems to
be addressed through local partnerships.A
few years ago, through legislation passed in the Colorado state legislature,
Xcel Energy entered into an agreement with the State to dramatically reduce
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in the Denver metro area.That
agreement represents an innovative partnership with industry and local
residents to craft realistic solutions based on local preferences.This
bill threatens the future of such agreements, and could undermine those
already reached.
Furthermore,
the inclusion of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in a reform bill
of the Clean Air Act necessarily assumes that carbon dioxide is a pollutant
when it clearly is not.The purpose
of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not pollution abatement but combating
green house gases.President Bush
took a strong and brave position in opposing the Kyoto Protocol.Yet,
this bill would have us circumvent our Commander-in-Chief and impose Kyoto-like
reductions.Assuming that we were
to include carbon dioxide as a pollutant and contradict our President,
what would implementing the Kyoto reductions get us?
A
new book by a European statistics professor, Bjorn Lomborg, found that
implementing the Kyoto Protocol would cost the world’s industrialized nations
$80 to $350 billion per year only to postpone warming by six years, from
2094 to 2100.Even former Clinton
officials admitted that their projected costs to implement the Kyoto Protocol,
at around $12 billion per year for the U.S. alone, were unrealistically
low.
Where
before this bill fails to account for air quality in the West, the carbon
dioxide reduction provisions fail to acknowledge that more than 80 percent
of electricity in Colorado is coal fired.Coal-burning
facilities are major sources of carbon dioxide.Therefore,
dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide disproportionately affects the West,
and imposes additional costs on ratepayers who are already forced to deal
with spikes and rolling blackouts.
If
carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; if the dramatic reductions this bill
calls for are unrealistic and costly; and if such reductions disproportionately
disadvantage one region of the country that which is so under represented
here today, then why are we addressing carbon dioxide in this bill?
To
be honest, I don’t know.I hope
that this is not an underhanded attempt to force our nation’s consumers
to choose one energy source over another.Such
action would not only be wrong, but be coming at the worst of times.
In
short, S. 556 amounts to an Eastern fix to address largely Eastern problems
being forced on the West.I look
forward to working with all of the members of this Committee to achieve
a balanced, realistic, and flexible solution to reforming the Clean Air
Act.
Thank
you Mr. Chairman, and I ask that a copy of my statement be included in
the Record.