[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 94 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4314-S4334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVAL OF EPA EMISSION STANDARDS RULE--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I now move to proceed to S.J. Res.
37.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to calendar No. 430, S.J. Res. 37, a
joint resolution to disapprove a rule promulgated by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relating
to emission standards for certain steam generating units.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 19, 2012.
discharge of further consideration
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with chapter 8
of title 5, United States Code, hereby direct the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged of
further consideration of S.J. Res. 37, a resolution on
providing for congressional disapproval of a rule submitted
by the Environmental Protection Agency related to emission
standards for certain steam generating units.
John Boozman, David Vitter, John Cornyn, Jon Kyl, Pat
Roberts, James M. Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Tom Coburn,
John McCain, Mike Lee, Patrick J. Toomey, Marco Rubio,
John Thune, John Barrasso, Thad Cochran, Jim DeMint,
Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Rand Paul, Jerry Moran, Rob
Portman, Michael B. Enzi, Lisa Murkowski, Daniel Coats,
Saxby Chambliss, Roger F. Wicker, Orrin Hatch, Kay
Bailey Hutchison, Jeff Sessions, Mitch McConnell, Ron
Johnson, Mike Johanns, James E. Risch, John Hoeven,
Richard Shelby.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it has become pretty clear over the
past few months that President Obama now views his job as the
deflector-in-chief. No longer content to lay all the Nation's problems
at the feet of his predecessor, he has taken to creating controversies
out of whole cloth. Whether it is a manufactured fight over student
loan rates or the so-called war on women, the goal is as clear as you
can imagine: get reporters to focus on these things, and maybe the rest
of the country will as well; get them to focus on anything other than
the President's own failure to turn the economy around, and maybe he
can squeak by without folks noticing it. That is the plan at least and,
frankly, it could not reflect a more misguided view of the American
people. They know who has been in charge the past 3\1/2\ years, and the
fact that the President has had a tough job to do does not mean he gets
a pass on how he has handled it or on the solutions he has proposed.
Most Americans do not like either one of the President's two
signature pieces of legislation--ObamaCare or the stimulus. They are
not particularly thrilled about seeing America's credit rating
downgraded for the first time ever. They are scared to death about a
$16 trillion debt, trillion-dollar deficits, and chronic joblessness.
And many, including myself, are deeply concerned about this
administration's thuggish attempts to shut its critics right out of the
political process. These are the kinds of things Americans have been
telling us for 3 years that they are worried about, and we are not
about to be drawn into some rabbit hole so the President does not have
to talk about them. We are going to stay focused on all of these
things--not because of some political advantage but because the
American people demand it. So the President can come up with the excuse
de jour, but we are going to talk about jobs, we are going to talk
about the deficits and debt, and we will talk about the Constitution.
When it comes to jobs, let's be clear. This administration has been
engaged in a war on the private sector, and in many cases it has used
Federal agencies and a heavyhanded regulatory process to wage it
largely out of view. We got a vivid confirmation of this when an EPA
official was caught comparing the EPA's enforcement approach to the
Roman use of crucifixion. Brutalize a few offenders, he said, and the
rest will be scared into submission.
Call me naive, but I think most Americans think the government should
be working for them, not against them. I think most Americans think the
Federal Government should be working to create the conditions for
Americans to prosper, not looking for any opportunities to undercut
free enterprise. Yet that is what we see--an administration that always
seems to assume the worst of the private sector and whose policies are
aimed at undermining it. And nowhere is it more clear than at EPA.
That is why I support Senator Inhofe's ongoing efforts, including a
vote today, to push back on the EPA, which has become one of the lead
culprits in this administration's war on American jobs. Senator Inhofe
is focusing on just one regulation out of the many that are crushing
businesses across the country--the so-called Utility MACT, which would
cost American companies billions in upgrades, but for their competitors
overseas, of course, it would cost them nothing. This regulation would
expand the already massive powers given to the EPA by increasing
redtape and costing the taxpayer over $10 billion each year. In my
State of Kentucky, it threatens the jobs of over 1,400 people working
in aluminum smelter plants, as well as approximately 18,000 coal
miners, not to mention those engaged in industries that support these
jobs.
Kentucky Power, operator of the only coal-burning powerplant in my
State, recently conceded defeat in this fight after the EPA demanded
upgrades to its plants at a cost of nearly $1 billion, raising the
typical residential customer's monthly electric bill by a whopping 30
percent. At that price, it is no wonder the plant found the new
regulations completely unworkable. The EPA may have won this battle,
but the real losers are more than 170,000 homes and businesses spread
out amongst 20 eastern Kentucky counties that depend on the Kentucky
Power plant for their energy.
The proponents of the Utility MACT say it is needed to improve air
quality. What they cannot tell you is what these benefits would be or
the effect of leaving the plants in their current condition. Look, we
all support clean air, but if we waved through every regulation that
promised to improve air quality without regard for its actual impact,
we would not be able to produce anything in this country.
What we do know is that a substantial amount of the electricity we
produce in this country comes from coal, and this new regulation would
devastate the jobs that depend on this cheap, abundant resource. This
is just one battle in the administration's war on jobs, but it has a
devastating consequence for real people and real families in my State
and in many others. The administration's nonchalant attitude about
these people is appalling, but this is precisely the danger of having
unelected bureaucrats in Washington playing with the livelihoods of
Americans as if they are nothing more than just pieces on a chessboard.
The media may continue to chase whatever issue the President and his
campaign decide to fabricate from day to day, but these are the facts
behind this President's devastating economic policies, and that is why
it is a story the President would rather the media ignored. Well,
Republicans are not going to ignore it. We are going to keep talking
about the President's policies. So I commend Senator Inhofe for keeping
us focused on this particular policy that is devastating to so many
Americans.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first
15 minutes and the majority controlling the second 15 minutes.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, in our first round, we are going to
yield to
[[Page S4315]]
the Senator from Alaska Ms. Murkowski for 10 minutes and then to
Senator Manchin for 5 minutes. In the second round, we are going to be
having Senators Barrasso, Boozman, Risch, Blunt, Kyl, and Toomey.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I think most Americans would agree it
is important that we strike a proper balance between abundant and
affordable energy and responsible standards of environmental
performance. But too often in recent years, the energy-environmental
balance has been lost. Restoring a sense of equilibrium is important
for both the health of the American people and our Nation's economy.
Although we see the need for this balance every day in Alaska,
restoring it has become what I think is a national challenge. That is
why I support Senator Inhofe's resolution to disapprove the mercury and
air toxics standards or the MATS rule.
Congress has tasked the EPA with implementing laws to protect public
health. That statutory obligation absolutely requires respect. But
although the executive branch gets to make reasonable policy calls in
performing that duty, its regulatory authority is strictly bounded by
law.
Today's EPA too often seems to impose requirements that go beyond
what is authorized or needed. This overreaching stifles the energy and
natural resource production the Nation needs to restore prosperity and
technological leadership, and the sad thing is the resulting rules do
not credibly improve public health.
EPA is now proceeding with an unprecedented litany of new rules whose
benefits are murky at best but whose costs are very real and
detrimental to human welfare. The Nation can and must strike a better
balance. Even in today's divided times, a broad consensus remains.
Achieving affordable and abundant energy coupled with strong
environmental standards is the right combination.
Most would also agree that energy and environment-related public
policy decisions should be based on the facts and informed by rigorous
scientific discourse. Applying this consensus shows that the devil is
in the details. So let's look closely at the MATS rule. If this rule is
allowed to stand, it will put electric reliability at unacceptable risk
and raise electricity costs with very little, if any, appreciable
benefit to human health.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation or NERC, which is
the independent federally certified ``Electric Reliability
Organization,'' recently reported that ``environmental regulations are
shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next . . . 5
years.'' That is the statement from NERC.
The members of the relatively small and apolitical groups of
engineers who keep the lights on and administer electricity markets
tell me they are worried not only about the reliability of electric
service but about its affordability. I would like to speak to the
affordability side in just a minute.
Reasonable regulation, clearly appropriate; and EPA has the
discretion, indeed the obligation, to adopt balanced rules. But,
unfortunately, EPA's approach has been aimed more at its statutory
obligations. Through MATS and through other rules, EPA wants to
influence how investments in energy production are made. So it has
imposed a series of very stringent obligations that perhaps are not
even achievable.
For example, the Institute of Clean Air Companies, which is an
association representing emissions control technology vendors--these
are the guys who sell all of this stuff--has asked EPA to reconsider
MATS and has said:
Our member companies cannot ensure that the new final
source [mercury] standard can be achieved in practice.
These are those who would make a profit off of selling these. They
are saying they do not think that it can be achieved.
Even though I believe the United Mine Workers of America, who say
their comments ``and like-minded [ones] to EPA on the proposed MATS
rule were ignored,'' it does not have to be this way. EPA received
thousands of pages of very detailed, very thoughtful proposals, for
improving MATS.
About 150 electric generators filed their comments. Edison Electric
Institute, as just one example, filed more than 75 pages of very
precise observations for improving MATS. They suggested many very
specific changes. The States were active too. Twenty-seven States are
seeking significant changes in the proposal. There were almost 20
petitions for reconsideration pending at EPA, and they are pending now.
Thirty petitions have been filed for judicial review. Twenty-four
States have asked the courts to force EPA to do better with MATS.
I always say we need to give credit where credit is due. On the
treatment of condensable particulate matter--not many of us are focused
on condensable particulate matter--EPA has made some good changes with
regard to that, between the proposed and the final MATS rule. This
dramatically reduced the need for construction of expensive pollution
control devices known as ``bag houses.''
By itself, this one change to the proposed rule reduced the overall
cost of compliance by billions of dollars, and it relieved somewhat the
challenges of maintaining electric reliability while achieving
compliance with the rule. Adopting a more reasonable approach in this
one area did not sacrifice any appreciable benefit. So more must be
done. Congress must tell the EPA to revisit other suggestions for
similar improvements.
Why the need to keep forcing the improvements? The vast majority of
the benefits to EPA claims from MATS are the result of its counting
coincidental reductions of particulate matter below standards that EPA
has determined are sufficient to protect public health. Emissions of
mercury by American powerplants have declined over the past 20 years
without the MATS rule. EPA itself estimates the annual benefits of
mercury reduction attributable to the rule at only $500,000 to $6
million but annual costs at almost $10 billion.
Finally, EPA's actions are driving up the cost of electricity too.
PJM, which is the independent regional transmission organization that
is responsible for coordinating the movement of wholesale electricity
in all or part of 13 States, as well as in the Nation's Capital,
reported 2-year capacity price increases of 390 percent, most of which
it attributed to the cost of environmental compliance with a nearly
1,200-percent spike in northern Ohio.
PJM also plans for about $2 billion in additional transmission
investment to maintain reliability in the face of EPA's rules. Clearly,
these are significant costs that will be passed on to our consumers. I
think MATS is a major rule that needs a major reset by Congress. EPA
could then devise a new rule that is truly aimed at protecting public
health and carrying out the law rather than trying to push a particular
fuel, coal, out of the market.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her
very kind remarks. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas, Mr.
Cornyn.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor to join my
colleagues from Alaska, from Oklahoma, and others to express my
disapproval. I intend to vote in favor of the resolution of disapproval
of the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxins
standards rule, also known as Utility MACT.
Now, of course, sometimes the debate, when we talk about pollution,
when we talk about the byproducts of coal-fired powerplants, is cast in
apocalyptic-like terms that have no real bearing on reality or in terms
of the science and in terms of the economic impact of the rule or the
health benefits supposedly to be derived. I want to talk about that
just briefly.
While this rule claims to be about public safety, it is a job-
killing, ideologically driven attempt to cripple the coal industry in
the United States, an industry that employs an awful lot of people,
feeds a lot of families. This administration, unfortunately, is using
the EPA to destroy a major source of reliable, affordable, base-lode
electricity that we sorely need. The President talks about being for an
all-of-the-above energy policy. Yet his administration, through this
regulation we seek to disapprove today, is going to effectively take
one of those most
[[Page S4316]]
abundant, low-cost sources of energy off the table for the American
people.
Of course, Congress would never pass such a law in our own right, so
the administration is using a ruling from an unelected group of
bureaucrats who are not subject to political accountability. This is
another example of executive overreach, and it is bad news for
consumers and job creators alike.
Power companies have confirmed that Utility MACT standards for new
power sources are so stringent that no new coal-fired powerplant will
be built in the United States. No new coal-fired powerplant will be
built in the United States, no matter how modern and how clean the
technology will allow that powerplant to operate. So the consequences
will be that Utility MACT will damage grid reliability. It will destroy
jobs, and it will raise electricity prices--not a small matter when
many of our seniors are on fixed incomes and are going to suffer as a
result of this rule that does not do what its advocates tout it for.
The costs of Utility MACT will exceed the benefits by roughly 1,600
to 1. Some claim that does not matter, that benefits are benefits no
matter what the cost, no matter how much, how many jobs it kills, no
matter how much it raises the price of electricity on seniors in my
State who are living in very hot summers. If we have another year like
we had last year--I hope we do not. We had 100-degree temperatures more
than 70 days--and I think it was even more than that--it will threaten
the capacity of the power grid to even produce the electricity so
people can run their air conditioners. The detriment to our seniors in
terms of public health and in terms of cost, being on a fixed income,
is quite evident.
According to the EPA, more than 99 percent of the health benefits
from Utility MACT will not even come from mercury reductions but,
rather, from reductions in particulate matter that are already
regulated to safe levels under the Clean Air Act. So either the EPA
will be double-counting existing benefits or else it will be setting
new levels for other byproducts that are not justified by public health
concerns.
In short, the benefits of this regulation are dubious, but the costs
are real. They are already harming the U.S. economy with existing
powerplants being shut down and others being scrapped. The United
States currently has more than 1,400 coal-fired electricity-generating
units operating at more than 600 plants.
Together, these powerplants generate almost half of the electricity
produced in our country. Again, we are not talking about taking wind
energy off the table. We are not talking about other ways to generate
electricity. But this is one of the cheapest, most abundant sources of
energy in our country, and we are simply killing it.
So sponsors of Utility MACT repeatedly tout its health benefits. But
those are overstated. However, they understate the impact this will
have on jobs. It will kill jobs. People will lose their jobs in a tough
economy. I urge my colleagues to pull back the curtain on the EPA and
see Utility MACT for what it is, an economic disaster shrouded in false
claims about public health.
Americans deserve smart regulation based on logic and sound science.
Utility MACT is the exact opposite and deserves to be rejected.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, in the shadow of one seemingly
narrow Senate vote, that being the Inhofe resolution of disapproval of
the EPA's rule on mercury and air toxins, I rise to talk about West
Virginia, about our people, our way of life, our health, our State's
economic opportunity, and about our future.
Coal has played an enormous part in our past and can play an enormous
part in our future, but it will only happen if we face reality.
This is a critical and a very contentious time in the Mountain State.
The dialogue on coal, its impacts, and the Federal Government's role
has reached a stunningly fevered pitch. Carefully orchestrated messages
that strike fear into the hearts of West Virginians and feed
uncertainty about coal's future are the subject of millions of dollars
of paid television ads, billboards, breakroom bulletin boards, public
meetings, letters, and lobbying campaigns.
A daily onslaught declares that coal is under siege from harmful
outside sources, and that the future of the State is bleak unless we
somehow turn back the clock, ignore the present, and block the future.
West Virginians understandably worry that a way of life and the
dignity of a job is at stake. Change and uncertainty in the coal
industry is unsettling and nothing new. But it is unsettling. My fear
is that concerns are also being fueled by the narrow view of others
with divergent views and motivations, one that denies the inevitability
of change in the energy industry and unfairly--and I feel this
strongly--leaves coal miners in the dust.
The reality is those who run the coal industry today would rather
attack false enemies and deny real problems than solve problems that
would help them and the people they employ and the States in which they
work.
Instead of facing the challenges of making tough decisions, similar
to men of a different era, they are abrogating their responsibilities
to lead. Back in the 1970s, I remember a fellow from Consolidation Coal
named Bobby Brown. He got together with the United Mine Workers on his
own. We were having a lot of temporary restraining orders and strikes
at that time. They sat down, and because Bobby Brown was not a timid
man--he was the head of a company, but he was a forceful leader--they
worked out something which gave us peace in the coalfields of West
Virginia--which is something--for a long time. It was a courageous act
by a courageous nontimid man.
Scare tactics are a cynical waste of time, money, and worst of all,
coal miners' hopes. Coal miners buy into all the television they hear,
are controlled by it, have large salaries. So in a sense they are stuck
where they are, happily funded but without a place to look forward to.
But sadly these days, coal operators have closed themselves off from
any other opposing voices and almost none has the courage to speak out
for change--any kind of change--even though it has been staring them in
the face for decades. They have known about it. They have ignored it.
This reminds me of the auto industry, which also resisted change for
decades. Coal operators should learn from both the mistakes and the
recent success of the automobile industry. I passionately believe coal
miners deserve better than they are getting from coal operators, and
West Virginians certainly deserve better also.
Let's start with the truth. Coal, today, faces real challenges, even
threats, and we all know what they are
First, our coal reserves are finite and many coal-fired powerplants
are aging. The cheap, easy coal seams are diminishing rapidly and
production is falling, especially in the Central Appalachian Basin in
southern West Virginia. Production is shifting to lower cost areas such
as Illinois and the Powder River Basin in the Wyoming area. The average
age of our Nation's 1,100-plus coal-fired plants is 42.5 years, with
hundreds of plants even older. These plants run less often, are less
economic, and are obviously less efficient.
Second, natural gas use is on the rise. Power companies are switching
to natural gas because of lower prices, cheaper construction costs,
lower emissions, and vast, steady supplies. Even traditional coal
companies such as CONSOL are increasingly investing in natural gas as
opposed to coal.
Third, the shift to a lower carbon economy is not going away. It is a
disservice--a terrible disservice--to coal miners and their families to
pretend it is, to tell them everything can be as it was. It can't be.
That is over. Coal companies deny that we need to do anything to
address climate change, despite the established scientific consensus
and mounting national desire--including in West Virginia--for a
cleaner, healthier environment.
Despite the barrage of ads, the EPA alone is not going to make or
break coal. Coal operators would love to think that is the case because
it is a great target, and it is much easier to criticize than to do
something. But there are many forces exerting pressure, and that agency
is just one of them.
Two years ago, I offered a time-out on EPA carbon rules, a 2-year
suspension that could have broken the logjam
[[Page S4317]]
in Congress and given us the opportunity to address carbon issues
aggressively and legislatively.
But instead of supporting this approach, coal operators went for
broke--they saw a fatter opportunity--when they demanded a complete
repeal of all EPA authority to address carbon emissions forever. They
demanded all or nothing. They turned aside a compromise and, in the
end, they got nothing.
Last year, they ran exactly the same play, demanding all or nothing
on the cross-State air pollution rule, refusing to entertain any middle
ground and denying even a hint of legitimacy for the views of the other
side and they lost again--badly.
Here we are with another all-or-nothing resolution, which is
absolutely destined to fail, and we are arguing as months, weeks, and
years go by. This foolish action wastes time and money that could have
been invested in the future of coal. Instead, with each bad vote the
coal operators get, they give away more of their leverage and lock in
their failure.
This time, the issue is whether to block an EPA rule, as has been
said--the mercury and air toxics standards--that require coal-fired
powerplants to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution.
I oppose this resolution because I care so much about West
Virginians.
Without good health--demeaned in this debate so far--it is hard to
hold down a job or live the American dream. Chronic illness is
debilitating. I have made a career in the Senate of health care. It
impacts families' income, their prosperity, and ultimately families'
happiness. The annual health benefits of the rule are enormous. EPA has
relied on thousands of studies--thousands--that establish the serious
and long-term impact of these pollutants on premature death, heart
attacks, hospitalizations, pregnant women, babies, and children. Do
West Virginians care about these kinds of things? I think they do.
Moreover, it significantly reduces the largest remaining human-caused
emission of mercury, which is a potent neurotoxin with fetal impact.
Maybe some can shrug off the advice of the American Academy of
Pediatrics and many other professional medical and scientific groups,
but I do not.
The rule has been in the works through a public process for many
years. Some businesses--including some utilities in West Virginia--have
already invested in technology and are ready to comply.
Others have not prepared because they have chosen to focus on profit
rather than upgrading or investing in these smaller, older, and less-
efficient coal-fired plants that were paid for decades ago and that
they will tell us would be retired anyway.
That is right. Every single plant slated for closure in West Virginia
was already on the chopping block from their own corporate board's
decision.
It is important to be truthful with miners. It is sort of a forgotten
art, and that is a travesty. We have to be truthful with miners that
coal plants will close because of decisions made by corporate boards
long ago, not just because of EPA regulations but because the plants
are no longer economical as utilities build low-emission natural gas
plants.
Natural gas has its challenges too, with serious questions about
water contamination and shortages and other environmental concerns. But
while coal executives pine for the past, the natural gas folks look to
the future, investing in technology to reduce their environmental
footprint, and they are working with others on ways to support the safe
development of gas. We are all going to be watching that very closely,
are we not?
It is not too late for the coal industry to step up and lead--
leadership--by embracing the realities of today and creating a
sustainable future. It has not been too late for a long time. Discard
the scare tactics. Stop denying science. Listen to what markets are
saying about greenhouse gases and other environmental concerns. Listen
to what West Virginians are saying about their water, air and health
and the cost of caring for seniors and children who are most
susceptible to pollution.
Stop and listen to West Virginians--miners and families included--who
see the bitterness of the fight we are having now and which has been
going on forever. The bitterness of the fight has taken on more
importance than any potential solutions. The point is put up block
after block, which loses time after time, but at least they have a
fight and something to scream about, all with no progress.
Those same miners care deeply about their children's health. They
care about them. They are family people. I know that. I went there in
1964 and lived among miners for 2 years, and I have now lived among
them ever since, closely and intimately. They care about what people
all over the country care about. They care about the streams and
mountains of West Virginia. They know down deep we can't keep to the
same path. They are not allowed to say so, but they know that.
Miners, their families, and their neighbors are why I went to West
Virginia. They are why I made our State my home. I have been proud to
stand shoulder to shoulder with coal miners, and we have done a lot of
good together over the years.
For more than 36 years, I have worked to protect the health and
safety of coal miners, everything from the historic Coal Act back in
1992 to my safety laws, pensions and black lung benefits--always with
miners' best interests in mind.
Despite what critics contend, I am standing with coal miners by
voting against this resolution.
I don't support this resolution of disapproval because it does
nothing to look to the future of coal. It moves us backward, not
forward. Unless this industry aggressively leans into the future, coal
miners will be the big losers.
Beyond the frenzy over this one EPA rule, we need to focus squarely
on the real task of finding a long-term future for something called
clean coal. That is possible. We have demonstrated that. That is being
done in various places in the country right now. This will address
legitimate environmental and health concerns and, of course, global
warming and all that counts.
Let me be clear. Yes, I am frustrated with much of the top levels of
the coal industry, at least in my State of West Virginia, but most of
the corporate headquarters are elsewhere. However, I am not giving up
hope for a strong clean coal future. I am not giving up. To get there,
we will need a bold partner, innovation, and major public and private
investments.
In the meantime, we should not forget that coal-fired powerplants
would provide good jobs for thousands of West Virginians. It remains
the underpinning for many of our small communities, and I will always
be focused on their future.
Instead of finger-pointing, we should commit ourselves to a smart
action plan that will help with job transition opportunities, sparking
new manufacturing and exploring the next generation of technology--not
just be dependent upon coal but a lot of things.
None of this is impossible. Solving big challenges is what we do in
West Virginia. I would much rather embrace the future boldly.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before Senator Rockefeller leaves, I
wish to take 30 seconds to say something. I believe that when the next
historians write the book about leadership, courage, and integrity in
the Senate, this speech will be featured in that book. I am so proud of
the Senator from West Virginia.
How much time remains between the two sides?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority controls 36 minutes,
the Republicans control 39 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. It is our understanding we have approximately 42 minutes
apiece and that we will go back and forth.
Mrs. BOXER. The Chair just said there is 39 minutes for the
Republicans and 36 for us.
Mr. INHOFE. I like that.
Madam President, I yield to the Senator from South Dakota for 7
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on
this issue, for yielding the time, and I appreciate everything he has
done to bring S.J. Res. 37 to the floor of the Senate.
As the father of two daughters, I want a cleaner, safer, healthier
environment for their generation and for
[[Page S4318]]
future generations. Thanks to the commonsense policies that balance
economic growth with a cleaner environment, our country has made
significant progress toward improving the quality of our air and water.
We have made progress under Republican Presidents and we have made
progress under Democratic Presidents. We have also made progress during
Democratic control and Republican control of the Senate.
But what the Obama administration is doing with this regulation, and
with many of the other policies that pertain to energy, is pursuing an
ideologically driven agenda in which the costs far outweigh the
benefits. He promised his energy plan would necessarily make
electricity costs skyrocket, and his policies are clearly delivering on
that promise.
A prime example of that flawed agenda is Utility MACT, which is the
most expensive regulation in EPA's history, with an estimated cost of
$10 billion. These are costs that will be passed on to families and
small businesses across the country at a time when we are experiencing
the worst economic recovery in over 60 years.
We all know the statistics. Unemployment has been at 8 percent now
for 40 consecutive months. Real unemployment is above 14 percent. There
are 23 million Americans who are not working today, and 5.4 million
Americans have remained out of work for over a year. Despite these
facts, President Obama continues to push regulations such as Utility
MACT that are going to make energy more expensive and, at the same
time, destroy good-paying jobs.
According to the National Economic Research Associates, Utility MACT
will cost between 180,000 and 215,000 jobs by the year 2015. When
including President Obama's other regulations on the electric power
sector, the United States stands to lose approximately 1.65 million
jobs by the year 2020. We simply cannot afford these politically driven
regulations at a time when 23 million Americans remain unemployed or
underemployed.
Low-income and middle-class families are the ones who will be hit the
hardest by the administration's actions. Families who earn less than
$50,000 already spend 21 percent of their income on energy costs
compared to 9 percent for those making more than $50,000. Now, thanks
to the EPA's regulatory actions, those costs are going to go up an
average of 6\1/2\ percent and as much as 19 percent in some areas.
Middle-class incomes have already fallen by over $4,300 these past 3
years, and now President Obama wants to further burden them with higher
energy costs.
These higher energy costs are not some far-off projection. In many
cases, these costs are already being realized. As an example, PJM,
which is a regional transmission organization which coordinates the
movement of wholesale electricity in 13 States and the District of
Columbia, in its May 2012 capacity auction reported 2-year capacity
price increases of 390 percent. PJM is reporting a nearly tenfold
increase in wholesale energy costs in northern Ohio. According to one
of their spokespersons,
Capacity prices were higher than last year's because of
retirements of existing coal-fired generation resulting
largely from environmental regulations which go into effect
in 2015.
The result could cause electricity bills across the PJM region to
increase by up to $130 and potentially much higher in places such as
northern Ohio.
In addition to electricity rates, EPA's agenda will drive up the cost
of food, transportation, fuels, and manufactured goods, as those costs
get passed on across all the sectors of the economy. The end result is
more pain for the middle class, slower economic growth, and fewer jobs.
The President likes to talk a lot about fairness, so I will ask my
colleagues: Is it fair that unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are going to
drive up utility bills by up to 19 percent? Is it fair manufacturers
are going to have to pay higher energy bills rather than hire new
workers? Is it fair that small towns across the Midwest are already
being devastated by coal plant closings on account of regulations from
the Obama administration? Is it fair that thousands of workers are
going to be laid off and lose not only their paychecks but their
employer-provided health care coverage as well?
For most South Dakotans and millions of hard-working taxpayers across
the country, I believe the answer is that the consequences of these
regulations are inherently unfair. They penalize hard-working middle-
class Americans.
In the case of Utility MACT, consumers are going to pay a heavy price
for President Obama's political agenda to restrict access to the
abundant and affordable sources of domestic energy we possess in this
country.
Most Americans believe regulations should work for consumers and not
against consumers. Unfortunately, EPA bureaucrats have drafted the
Utility MACT regulation in an inefficient and unworkable manner.
Utility MACT's new source standards are so strict they cannot possibly
be met.
According to the Institute of Clean Air Companies, the
proenvironmental trade association comprising nearly 100 suppliers of
air pollution equipment, Utility MACT makes it ``nearly impossible to
construct new coal-fired units because financing of such units requires
guarantees from equipment suppliers that all emission limits can be
met.''
There has to be a better approach. S.J. Res. 37, which would force a
rewrite of Utility MACT, is the only solution to address the rule's
problems. It is time to rewrite Utility MACT in a manner that better
balances economic growth with environmental protection.
I hope today we will have a majority of our colleagues here in the
Senate who will support S.J. Res. 37. Doing so will send a strong
message to the Obama administration that the Senate will not stand by
and watch his regulatory agenda further hurt small businesses and
middle-class families, making it more expensive and more difficult for
businesses in this country to create jobs. That is the end result of
this regulation. It is the end result of many of the energy policies
and regulations coming out of this administration. That has to stop. We
have to get Americans back to work. We have to get our economy growing
again.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Tennessee.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California,
and the Senator from Maryland especially for his courtesy.
I would agree the EPA has become a happy hunting ground for goofy
regulations. But as the late William F. Buckley once said, even a
stopped clock is right twice a day. And on this rule--this clean air
rule and the earlier interstate rule--I believe EPA is right.
The effect of upholding this rule will be to finally require that
most coal plants everywhere in America will have to install two kinds
of pollution control equipment: scrubbers and SCRs. This will basically
finish the job of capturing sulfur and nitrogen oxides, fine particles,
and the 187 toxic pollutants that were specifically identified by
Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
The Tennessee Valley Authority has already committed to install this
equipment by 2018. But TVA alone can't clean up Tennessee's air,
because dirty air blows in from other States. So let me say what
upholding this rule will do for the people of Tennessee.
First, it will hasten the day when Memphis, Chattanooga, and
Knoxville are not three of the top five worst asthma cities--which they
are today--and Nashville is not competing to be in the top 10.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks an article which appeared in the
Tennessean this week by Dr. William Lawson of Vanderbilt University,
who treats patients with respiratory diseases in Nashville.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. In the article Dr. Lawson says:
Pollution from these power plants means my patients suffer
more. Pollution increases their chances of being
hospitalized. Some of these toxic emissions even cause cancer
and can interfere with our children's neurological
development.
[[Page S4319]]
Secondly, upholding this rule means that visitors will soon not even
think of calling the Great Smoky Mountains the Great Smoggy Mountains
because it is one of the most polluted national parks in America. We
want those 9 million visitors to keep coming every year with their
dollars and their jobs.
Instead of seeing 24 miles on a bad air day from Clingman's Dome, our
highest peak, this rule should mean we will gradually move toward
seeing 100 miles from Clingman's Dome as the air cleans up and we look
through the natural blue haze.
Third, this rule should mean fewer health advisory warnings for our
streams that say ``don't eat the fish because of mercury
contamination.'' Half of the manmade mercury in the United States comes
from coal plants, and as much as 70 percent of the mercury pollution in
our local environment, such as streams and rivers, can come from nearby
coal plants.
Fourth, we have seen that had Nissan been unable to get an air
quality permit in Nashville in 1980, it would have gone to Georgia. And
if Senator Corker had not, as mayor of Chattanooga, improved the air
quality in that city in the mid 2000s, the Volkswagen site there would
be a vacant lot today.
We know every Tennessee metropolitan area is struggling to stay
within legal clean air standards and we don't want the Memphis megasite
to stay a vacant lot because dirty air blowing in from Mississippi and
Arkansas makes the Memphis air too dirty for new industry to locate
there.
We know these rules will add a few dollars to our electric bills, but
in our case, most of that is going to happen anyway because the
Tennessee Valley Authority has already agreed to put this pollution
control equipment on its coal-fired powerplants. We know we can reduce
the effect of these expenses on monthly electric bills because States
may give utilities a fourth year to comply with the rule, and the
President may, under the law, give them a fifth and sixth year. And
Senator Pryor and I intend to ask the President to give that fifth and
sixth year to reduce costs on electric bills.
We know long term this rule will secure a place in America's clean
energy future for clean coal. For example, the largest public utility,
TVA, the largest private utility, Southern Company, both plan to put
pollution control equipment on their coal plants and to make at least
one-third of their electricity from coal over the long term.
In 1990--22 years ago--Congress told the EPA to make this rule when
it passed the Clean Air Act amendments. In 2008, the Court told the EPA
to make this rule.
Over the years, I have learned that cleaner air not only means better
health, but also means better jobs for Tennesseans, and I am proud to
stand up on behalf of the people of Tennessee to uphold this clean air
rule.
Exhibit 1
[From the Tennessean, June 18, 2012]
Air Rule Will Literally Save Us
(By William Lawson, M.D.)
Power plant pollution makes people sick and can cut lives
short. That is why cleaning up coal-fired power plants is a
long overdue, lifesaving necessity that thankfully Sen. Lamar
Alexander has embraced to secure both a healthy and sound
economic future for our state.
I treat patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other lung
diseases in those whose lungs are especially vulnerable to
the power-plant emissions. But they are not the only ones at
risk. My children and yours also are highly susceptible to
the long-term repercussions of having to breathe dirty air
growing up, which science tells us can prevent lungs from
maturing properly. We desperately need Sen. Alexander and
Sen. Bob Corker to ensure they receive protection from these
toxic pollutants now, not years from now.
Protecting them is the recently adopted Power Plant Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards, as required under the Clean Air
Act. Astonishingly, a campaign is under way to block these
public-health protections. Until these standards take effect,
coal-fired power plants have no national limits on the amount
of mercury or acid gases they may pump out of their
smokestacks and into the air we breathe. These standards will
prevent 370 premature deaths every year just in Tennessee and
will provide $3 billion in annual health benefits by 2016.
TVA is already well on its way to meeting these air
standards, but some in the Senate are working to make it
easier for corporate polluters to block the rule from ever
taking effect.
Allowing the new emissions standard to move forward will
prevent 130,000 asthma attacks and 11,000 premature deaths
nationally every year. This reduction in harmful plant
emissions will also eliminate 540,000 missed work days on an
annual basis, thereby reducing health-care costs and
enhancing our overall quality of life.
Pollution from these power plants means my patients suffer
more. Pollution increases their chances of being
hospitalized. Some of these toxic emissions even cause cancer
and can interfere with our children's neurological
development. The public health benefits are just too
significant to ignore. Healthy air and good health have a
crystal-clear relationship.
Every day, I see in my patients how avoiding even just one
asthma attack, acute respiratory infection or even the
briefest hospital stay would dramatically enhance their
quality of life. A healthier future is ours to have if we
stand behind our leaders who are committed to make that
tomorrow a reality.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr.
Barrasso, for 9 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, if the Chair would please give me a
warning when 1 minute remains, I would appreciate that.
Today I rise in support of the Inhofe Utility MACT resolution. This
resolution protects communities and jobs in the West, the Midwest, and
Appalachia, and specifically jobs that depend on coal. These
communities depend on coal to heat and cool their homes at an
affordable price, to power the factories where they work, and to
generate revenue that creates additional jobs.
We are talking about affordable domestic coal that also pays for the
mortgages on the family home, the clothes and food for children, and
the medical care for grandparents. If the Utility MACT rule is allowed
to proceed, it would mandate that virtually no new coal-fired
powerplants could be built anymore in the United States, and many still
in existence would have to shut down. It is painful to think about all
of the folks who will be out of work, their bills mounting, their
families losing their homes, and their future looking bleak.
Amazingly, the EPA does not dispute these outcomes. It does not
dispute what I am saying. They know exactly what they are doing. Their
ideology is more important to them than the living and breathing people
of our coal communities.
Just ask the EPA Region 1 Administrator Curtis Spaulding, who was
visiting with a group of students in Connecticut. What he went on to
talk about was the fact that basically gas plants are the performance
standards, which means if you want to build a coal plant, you have a
big problem. He said this was a huge decision, when he was talking
about these regulations that have come out from Lisa Jackson, the head
of the EPA.
He went on to tell this group of students that in West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities that
depend on coal. And to say we think those communities should go away?
That is what he said. He said we have to do what the law and policy
suggested. He said it was painful--it was painful every step of the
way--but they did it anyway.
President Obama's heavy-handed EPA admits these communities in West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and many other States in the West, Midwest, and
Appalachia ``will just go away.''
These are chilling words. The EPA is supposed to be about protecting
people, protecting their communities, protecting their environment, and
protecting their health. With the Utility MACT rule, the EPA is doing
the opposite. They are making communities go away. They are hurting
communities--communities of families, children, seniors, gone as a
result of these regulations. How could one justify these actions?
Well, we are told there are enormous health benefits. They claim
enormous health benefits to the public by the issuance of this rule.
First of all, how do you protect something if the community is gone? So
obviously these folks in West Virginia and Pennsylvania are not the
beneficiaries of EPA protection.
Second, the medical benefits of the rule come from reductions in
particulate matter in areas of the country
[[Page S4320]]
that are currently well within healthy thresholds set by the EPA. I
will tell you, the EPA is cooking the books.
No, this rule does very little to protect the public health. In fact,
it creates a health crisis in this country because of the additional
unemployment--the unemployment this rule is going to cause in the West,
the Midwest, and in Appalachia.
To highlight the point, on Monday of this week a number of us in the
Senate who are physicians, who are doctors, sent a letter to President
Obama.
I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of this letter printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2012.
Hon. Barack Obama,
President, United States of America,
The White House.
Dear President Obama: We are writing to express our concern
that the barrage of regulations coming out of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designed to end coal in
American electricity generation will have a devastating
effect on the health of American families. Just before you
made the decision to withdraw EPA's plan to revise its ozone
standard--a plan which would have destroyed hundreds of
thousands of jobs--your former White House Chief of Staff
Bill Daley asked the question ``What are the health impacts
of unemployment?'' Today, we are requesting that you consider
your former aide's question carefully: instead of putting
forth rules that create great economic pain which will have a
terrible effect on public health, we hope that going forward,
you will work with Republicans to craft polices that achieve
both environmental protection and economic growth.
As you know, proponents of your EPA's aggressive agenda
claim that regulations that kill jobs and cause electricity
prices to skyrocket will somehow be good for the American
people. We come to this issue as medical doctors and would
like to offer our ``second opinion'': EPA's regulatory regime
will devastate communities that rely on affordable energy,
children whose parents will lose their jobs, and the poor and
elderly on fixed incomes that do not have the funds to pay
for higher energy costs. The result for public health will be
disastrous in ways not seen since the Great Depression.
One of the centerpieces of your administration's efforts to
stop American coal development is the Utility MACT rule--a
rule that has such severe standards it will cause as much as
20 percent of the existing coal-fired power plant fleet to
retire. Combined with numerous other actions by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Interior Department,
and Army Corps of Engineers targeting surface coal mining
operations, these rules constitute an aggressive regulatory
assault on American coal producers, which will hit areas of
the heartland--the Midwest, Appalachia, and the Intermountain
West--the hardest. The end result will be joblessness across
regions of the country whose livelihoods depend on coal
development. Joblessness will lead to severe health impacts
for communities in these regions.
With regard to the health benefits that EPA claims for
Utility MACT, EPA's own analysis shows us that over 99
percent of the benefits from the rule come from reducing fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), not air toxics. But
EPA also states that ``[over 90 percent] of the
PM2.5-related benefits associated with [Utility
MACT] occur below the level of the [NAAQS].''
Not only are PM emissions distinct from mercury and other
toxics, but they are also subject to other regulatory
regimes. For example, Section 108 of the Clean Air Act
directs the EPA to set PM emission levels that are
``requisite to protect the public health''. Thus, EPA is
either double-counting the PM benefits already being
delivered by existing regulatory regimes, or setting
standards beyond those required to protect public health.
EPA estimates that the cost of the rule will be around $11
billion annually, but that it will yield no more than $6
million in benefits from reducing mercury and other air
toxics. So by the agency's own calculations, Utility MACT
completely fails the cost/benefit test.
When looking at this analysis, the only conclusion is that
Utility MACT, as well as the many other EPA rules that cost
billions but yield few benefits are not about public health.
They are about ending coal development and the good paying
jobs it provides.
We are not the only members in the medical field that are
concerned about the effects of a jobless economy on the
health and well being of Americans. Dr. Harvey Brenner of
Johns Hopkins University testified on June 15th, 2011 before
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explaining
that unemployment is a risk factor for elevated illness and
mortality rates. In addition, the National Center for Health
Statistics has found that children in poor families are four
times as likely to be in bad health as wealthier families.
Economists have also studied this issue. A May 13th, 2012
Op-Ed in the New York Times by economists Dean Baker and
Kevin Hasset entitled ``The Human Disaster of Unemployment''
found that children of unemployed parents make 9 percent less
than children of employed parents. The same article cites
research by economists Daniel Sullivan and Till von Wachter
who found that unemployed men face a 25 percent increase in
the risk of dying from cancer.
These are just a few examples of the numerous reports
warning of a looming public health crisis due to
unemployment. A more thorough evaluation of this problem can
be found in a recently released report entitled, ``Red Tape
Making Americans Sick--A New Report on the Health Impacts of
High Unemployment'' which we are including here for your
review.
The EPA should immediately stop pushing expensive
regulations that put Americans out of work and into the
doctor's office. We respectfully ask that your agencies
adequately examine the negative health implications of
unemployment into the cost/benefit analysis of the numerous
regulations that are stifling job growth, before making
health benefit claims to Congress and the public.
We ask that instead of exacerbating unemployment and
harming public health that you work with us in our efforts to
implement policies that achieve true health benefits without
destroying jobs, and indeed American coal development, in the
process.
Sincerely,
John Barrasso.
Rand Paul.
Tom Coburn.
John Boozman.
Mr. BARRASSO. In this letter, we expressed our concerns about the
impending health crisis the unemployment caused by the EPA's policies
is having on families, children, pregnant mothers, and on the elderly.
The letter reads in part:
We are writing to express our concern that the barrage of
regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) designed to end coal in American electricity generation
will have a devastating effect on the health of American
families. Just before you made the decision to withdraw EPA's
plan to revise its ozone standard--a plan which would have
destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs--your former White
House Chief of Staff Bill Daley asked the question ``What are
the health impacts of unemployment?'' Today, we are
requesting that you consider your former aide's question
carefully: instead of putting forth rules that create great
economic pain which will have a terrible effect on public
health, we hope that going forward, you will work with
Republicans to craft policies that achieve both environmental
protection and economic growth.
And that is the key--``and economic growth''--not economic
destruction.
The letter goes on:
As you know, proponents of your EPA's aggressive agenda
claim that regulations that kill jobs and cause electricity
prices to skyrocket will somehow be good for the American
people. We come to this issue as medical doctors and would
like to offer our ``second opinion'': EPA's regulatory regime
will devastate communities that rely on affordable energy,
children whose parents will lose their jobs, and the poor and
elderly on fixed incomes that do not have the funds to pay
for higher energy costs. The result for public health will be
disastrous in ways not seen since the Great Depression.
Later on in the letter we talk about the latest research on the
health impacts of unemployment. A doctor from Johns Hopkins who
testified last year before the Senate Environment and Public Health
Committee explained that unemployment is a risk factor--a risk factor--
for elevated illness and mortality rates. In addition, the National
Center for Health Statistics has found that children in poor families
are four times as likely to be in bad health as other families.
Economists have also studied this issue. On May 13, 2012, in the New
York Times, is ``The Human Disaster Of Unemployment.'' That is what
this EPA regulation is going to do today, cause additional human
disaster for people out of work.
We included for the President a copy of a report I have written
called ``Red Tape Making Americans Sick--A New Report on the Health
Impacts of High Unemployment.'' Studies show EPA rules cost Americans
their jobs and their health. This report contains the latest research
from medical professionals from Johns Hopkins, from Yale, and others
that show that unemployment causes serious health impacts.
Unemployment has been rampant in this country under this
administration, and it has been due in many ways to the mountains of
job-crushing redtape from the EPA and other agencies. The EPA's Utility
MACT rule will only make things worse for hard-hit areas in the West,
Midwest, and Appalachia.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since 2008 Montana has
lost 3,200 manufacturing jobs, Missouri 41,000, Ohio 100,000, Michigan
67,000 jobs
[[Page S4321]]
lost, Pennsylvania 80,000, and West Virginia 7,000. Each one of these
people who lost their job will be subjected to greater risks of cancer,
heart attack, stroke, depression. There is a higher incidence, as we
know, of spousal abuse, substance abuse in these families. As
demonstrated by the latest research, their children will suffer, too,
as medical costs pile up, as electricity bills to heat and cool their
homes skyrocket, and the cost of everyday living continues to go up.
The Utility MACT will only expose thousands more to these risks.
The EPA should immediately stop pushing expensive regulations that
put Americans out of work and into their doctor's office. Instead of
exacerbating unemployment and harming public health, this
administration and this EPA need to work with Republicans--work
together in our efforts to implement policies that achieve true health
benefits without destroying jobs and, indeed, American affordable
energy in the process.
We need to keep American energy and make American energy as clean as
we can, as fast as we can, while still keeping good-paying jobs and
keeping energy prices affordable. This is a recipe for a healthier,
economically stronger country.
I urge a ``yes'' vote for the Inhofe Utility MACT amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield myself 1 minute, and I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following--an
editorial written by the very type of companies my friend Senator
Barrasso mentioned who have said they are just fine with the EPA's new
air quality regulations. Do you know why? Half of the coal-fired
utilities have already made these adjustments. They are clean. And if
it is up to Senator Barrasso, the other dirty plants will keep on
spewing forth the most toxic and dangerous pollutants.
The other is a new poll taken in March of this year which shows that
78 percent of likely voters have asked us to get out of the way and let
the EPA do its job in controlling industrial and power-sector mercury
and toxic air pollution.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
(From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 8, 2010]
We're OK With the EPA's New Air-Quality Regulations
Your editorial ``The EPA Permitorium'' (Nov. 22)
mischaracterized the EPA's air-quality regulations. These are
required under the Clean Air Act, which a bipartisan Congress
and a Republican president amended in 1990, and many are in
response to court orders requiring the EPA to fix regulations
that courts ruled invalid.
The electric sector has known that these rules were coming.
Many companies, including ours, have already invested in
modern air-pollution control technologies and cleaner and
more efficient power plants. For over a decade, companies
have recognized that the industry would need to install
controls to comply with the act's air toxicity requirements,
and the technology exists to cost efficiently control such
emissions, including mercury and acid gases. The EPA is now
under a court deadline to finalize that rule before the end
of 2011 because of the previous delays.
To suggest that plants are retiring because of the EPA's
regulations fails to recognize that lower power prices and
depressed demand are the primary retirement drivers. The
units retiring are generally small, old nd inefficient. These
retirements are long overdue.
Contrary to the claims that the EPA's agenda will have
negative economic consequences, our companies' experience
complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that
regulations can yield important economic benefits, including
job creation, while maintaining reliability.
The time to make greater use of existing modern units and
to further modernize our nation's generating fleet is now.
Our companies are committed to ensuring the EPA develops and
implements the regulations consistent with the act's
requirements.
Peter Darbee, chairman, president and CEO, PG&E Corp.;
Jack Fusco, president and CEO, Calpine Corp.; Lewis
Hay, chairman and CEO, NextEra Energy, Inc.; Ralph
Izzo, chairman, president and CEO, Public Service
Enterprise Group Inc.; Thomas King, president, National
Grid USA; John Rowe, chairman and CEO, Exelon Corp.;
Mayo Shattuck, chairman, president and CEO,
Constellation Energy Group; Larry Weis, general
manager, Austin Energy.
____
(From the American Lung Association, Mar. 21, 2012]
New Poll Shows the Public Wants EPA To Do More To Reduce Air Pollution
Voters Support Setting Stronger Carbon Pollution Standards to Protect
Public Health
Washington, DC.--As big polluters and their allies in
Congress continue attacks on the Clean Air Act, the American
Lung Association released a new bipartisan survey examining
public views of the Clean Air Act and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to update and enforce
lifesaving clean air standards, including carbon and mercury
emissions from power plants.
The bipartisan survey, conducted by Democratic Research
polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Republican
firm Perception Insight, finds that nearly three-quarters of
likely voters (73 percent) nationwide support the view that
it is possible to protect public health through stronger air
quality standards while achieving a healthy economy, over the
notion that we must choose between public health or a strong
economy. This overwhelming support includes 78 percent of
independents, 60 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of
conservatives, as well as significant support in Maine,
Pennsylvania and Ohio.
The Obama Administration will soon release updated clean
air standards for carbon pollution emitted by power plants,
and a substantial majority of voters support the EPA
implementing these standards, even after hearing opposing
arguments that stricter standards will damage the economic
recovery. Initially, 72 percent of voters nationwide support
the new protections on carbon emissions from power plants,
including overwhelming majorities of both Democrats and
Independents and a majority of Republicans.
After listening to a balanced debate with message both for
and against setting new carbon standards, support still
remained robust with a near 2-to-1 margin (63 percent in
favor and 33 percent opposed). Support remained especially
robust in Maine and Pennsylvania (64 percent in each state).
The majority of Ohio voters (52 percent) also favored new
carbon standards, which is notable since the poll was
conducted during a period of heavy media attention concerning
statewide electricity rate increases and potential power
plant shutdowns.
``This bipartisan poll affirms that clean air protections
have broad support across the political spectrum,'' said
Peter Iwanowicz, Assistant Vice President, National Policy
and Advocacy with the American Lung Association. ``Big
polluters and their allies in Congress cannot ignore the
facts; more air pollution means more childhood asthma
attacks, more illness and more people dying prematurely. It's
time polluters and their Congressional allies drop their
attempts to weaken, block or delay clean air protections and
listen to the public who overwhelmingly wants the EPA to do
more to protect the air we breathe.''
Voters also voiced strong support for stricter standards to
control industrial and power sector mercury and toxic air
pollution. When asked about setting stricter limits on the
amount of mercury that power plants and other facilities
emit, 78 percent of likely voters were in favor of the EPA
updating these standards.
Strong support was also seen for stricter standards on
industrial boilers. Initially, 69 percent of voters supported
the EPA implementing stricter standards on boiler emissions.
After hearing messaging from both sides of the issue, voters
continued to support these standards by nearly a 20-point
margin (56 percent favor, 37 percent oppose).
Key poll findings include: nearly three quarters (73
percent) of voters, say that we do not have to choose between
air quality and a strong economy--we can achieve both; a 2-
to-1 majority (60 to 31 percent) believe that strengthening
safeguards against pollution will create, rather than
destroy, jobs by encouraging innovation; about two-thirds of
voters (66 percent) favor EPA updating air pollution
standards by setting stricter limits; 72 percent of voters
support new standards for carbon pollution from power plants
and support is strong (63 percent) after hearing arguments
from both sides of the issue; 60 percent of voters support
stricter standards for gasoline and limits on the amount of
tailpipe emissions from cars and SUVs (particular strong
given all the recent attention to high gasoline prices).
Despite more than a year's worth of continued attacks on
clean air protections from big corporate polluters and their
allies in Congress, voters across the political spectrum view
the Clean Air Act very positively; with a 2-to-1 favorable to
unfavorable ratio. At the same time, feelings toward Congress
continue to drop, especially among Democrats and
independents. Just 18 percent of voters nationally give
Congress a favorable rating, while 56 percent rate Congress
unfavorable. The unfavorable rating of Congress is up 9
percent since the American Lung Association's last survey
released in June 2011.
``The survey clearly indicates that voters reject the
notion that we have to choose between strong safeguards
against air pollution and economic growth,'' said Andrew
Bauman, Vice President at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
``In fact, voters overwhelmingly believe that stronger
safeguards against air pollution will create jobs in
America.''
[[Page S4322]]
``The poll does show there is broad support across partisan
lines for new carbon regulations on power plants,'' said Marc
DelSignore, President of Perception Insight. ``However, there
is a significant difference in the views regarding the impact
regulations may have on the economy, with Republicans
expressing higher concern for possible job loss and rising
energy prices than Democrats or independents.''
This resolution of disapproval goes against 78 percent of the
American people. They are no fools. I heard a second opinion? I have
got a third opinion, and my third opinion is that if you look at this
poll, you understand that the American people get it. They know the
technology exists, and they know these improvements can be made. They
know there are jobs created when best-available control technology is
put in, and they are opposed to this kind of resolution that would roll
back the clock and continue our people breathing in toxins.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I won't yield because Senator Cardin is waiting. I yield
to Senator Cardin 6 minutes, and then I will yield to the Senator on
his time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first I want to thank Senator Boxer for
her extraordinary leadership on these issues.
I invite my friend from Wyoming to come to Glen Burnie, MD, and see
the 12,000 megawatt Brandon Shores powerplant which it is not only
operating, but it is in full compliance with Maryland's healthy air law
that is very similar to the proposed regulations we are debating today.
That powerplant didn't close. It made the investments so that we have a
clean energy source and in the process created 2,000 jobs in
modernizing that powerplant.
That is why we have many companies that support the regulation,
because they know it is going to mean more jobs--including Ceres and
American Boiler Manufacturers Association, as well as companies such as
WL Gore.
I want to thank Senator Rockefeller for his extraordinary statement.
I was on the floor listening to him speaking on behalf of the people of
West Virginia. They are interested in a clean economy, good health, and
jobs.
I want to thank Senator Alexander for speaking up for the people of
Tennessee, because he understands the importance of sensible air
quality standards.
I want to speak on behalf of the people of Maryland, on behalf of the
families I have the honor of representing in the Senate.
This is the week that summer camps start. Some parents are going to
have to make a decision, when we have a day that is rated as a code
orange or a code red because of air quality issues concerning ground-
level ozone, as to whether they are going to send their child to camp
that day if that child has a respiratory issue, an asthma issue, as to
whether that child should be outdoors during that day when we have
these air quality warnings. If the parent decides to keep the child at
home, they have lost that day of camp and the cost of that day of camp.
They have lost a day of work, because somebody is going to have to stay
at home with the child. If they send the child to camp and they have an
episode, they may be one of the over 12,000 children who will end up in
emergency rooms as a result of dirty air that could be cleaned up by
the passage and enactment of these regulations.
The chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee can tell
us chapter and verse about the number of premature deaths and those
with chronic bronchitis. These toxins that are going into our air cause
cancers and neurological developmental and reproductive problems. It is
particularly dangerous for children. And the source? Powerplants that
have not put in the investment for clean air.
This is doable. It has been done in Maryland and in many powerplants
around the Nation. In fact, my State--concerned about our children,
concerned about our health--passed the Maryland Healthy Air Act, and
the mercury standards in that legislation are very similar to what
these regulations would require. Maryland has reduced its mercury and
its SOX and NOX emissions from the 22-percent
level, 90 percent mercury, 80 percent sulfur dioxide, and 70 percent
NOX. And it helped our economy, as I have already pointed
out, in the Brandon Shores work that was done.
But here is the challenge we have in Maryland. Maryland's experience
shows that an aggressive timeline is not only achievable but it is also
desirable. Powerplants are capable of meeting aggressive timelines, and
the benefits are unparalleled. Air pollution control protects public
health and saves billions of dollars associated with medical costs. The
Environmental Protection Agency is required to do a study of cost
benefit: How much cost for how much benefit? For every $1 of compliance
cost, we save $3 to $9 for our economy. That is a great investment. We
like those types of investments.
The Maryland experience also shows that we need a national standard
to effectively address air pollution. Maryland has done what is right,
but our children are still at risk. Why? Because air pollution knows no
State boundary. We are downwind. We have done what is right, but our
children are still at risk. That is why we need these standards. We
showed that you can do it in a cost-effective way, creating jobs for
our community. You can have a clean environment, you can have a growing
economy. In fact, you can't do it without it. And that is what these
regulations are about.
As Senator Alexander said, we have been waiting 20 years for these
regulations. In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act. In 2008, our
courts said we can't delay it any longer.
It is our responsibility to protect the public health. It is our
responsibility to do what is right. I urge my colleagues to reject this
resolution that would deny us the opportunity of protecting our public
health.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I heard the Senator from California talk
about 78 percent of the people in this country want to reduce mercury.
I am part of that 78 percent. The problem is this bill does not address
that. By their own numbers, the EPA said the cost is around $10
billion. Of that, less than $6 million would be addressing mercury. The
rest of that is in particulate matter, something already recognized
under the Clean Air Act.
I yield to the junior Senator from West Virginia for 6 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the
congressional resolution of disapproval that Senator Inhofe has filed
under the Congressional Review Act to stop the EPA from implementing
one of the most expensive rules in recent memory. I thank my colleague,
Senator Inhofe, for introducing this important resolution to send a
message to the EPA.
I would like to say a few words about the little State of West
Virginia that does the heavy lifting that helps this entire Nation. We
mine the coal, we make the steel, we have done just about everything we
possibly can. We probably have more people serving in the military,
percentage-wise, than any other State. We have given our all for this
great country, and we will continue to do the heavy lifting. But what
we have to do is make sure the EPA, make sure this government is
working with us, not against us. The Government's role is to be a
partner, not an adversary but an ally. We are asking the government to
work with businesses, not against them. Their actions will put
thousands of hard-working Americans out of a job in the worst economy
in generations.
Do not raise electricity rates on the consumers who can barely afford
their monthly bills today as it is. It is mostly our seniors and people
struggling with their families trying to make a living. The economic
reality is that the environment and economy have to work hand in hand.
It has to be in balance.
From the day I arrived at the Senate, I have been determined to stop
the EPA's job-killing agenda, and this resolution of disapproval takes
an important step to rein in this out-of-control agency. In the State
of West Virginia, like most States, we do our rules and regulations
through a legislative process. People have to vote. We do not give
bureaucratic agencies the right to set policy. The people have given us
that responsibility and right as elected
[[Page S4323]]
leaders to set the policy. That is what we are asking. We have this
agency stepping way beyond its boundaries, further than our Founding
Fathers ever intended, that is putting an absolute burden on the backs
of every American.
Along with a handful of other rules on the verge of being implemented
or already in place, the Utility MACT rule would cost the economy over
$275 billion over the next 25 years, according to the Electric Power
Research Institute. The Utility MACT could cost 1.3 million jobs over
the next two decades, according to the National Economic Research
Association.
On the issue of Utility MACT, I have heard from thousands of West
Virginians in the past several weeks. In fact, just yesterday I had 45
of my constituents from Boone County, WV, get on a bus, 756 miles,
drive all day to get here to be able to speak to some of us, and drive
last night to go back home. That is how committed and dedicated most of
them are. They had either worked in the mines or were working in some
aspect of mining.
People think mining is just coal mining and coal mining only. It is
not. The energy business is basically--if people work in a battery
factory or a machine shop, if they work in any type of ancillary jobs,
the ripple effect to their economy is unbelievable. If they work in a
powerplant--these people were scared to death because all they hear
every day is they are going to lose their jobs because the government
is going to shut them down and work against them.
About three-fourths of the miners in that room had already been laid
off. They are fighting for their jobs. They brought their families and
children with them. They wanted to make sure we could put the faces of
real people on what is happening.
Our coal miners are the salt of the Earth. They work so hard to
provide energy for our country and provide for their families. They do
not want a handout. All they want is a work permit. That is all they
have asked for. Now is not the time to pull the rug out from under them
and make them worry about how they will pay their bills and feed their
family.
I believe this country needs to strike a balance, and I have said
that before. Our lives are about balance. Every day people get up in
the morning they look for a balance in their lives. They look for a
balance in how they can run their business, how they can make a living.
That is what we need to find in this body today. The EPA has truly gone
too far.
We have heard so many different testimonies about that. That is why I
will be casting my vote in favor of this resolution by Senator Inhofe
to disapprove of the new rules, and I urge all my colleagues to do the
same. I truly believe energy is an issue where we can bring thoughtful
members of both parties together to work out solutions.
Let me point out an important example. In the time I served, I
learned that many of my colleagues know of West Virginia only as a coal
State. They have no idea what we do and how we do it. This past weekend
I wanted to make sure they understood that not only do we do coal, we
do wind, we do hydro, we do natural gas with the Marcellus shale--
a tremendous find--we do biomass, we do everything we can, and we think
every State should be held accountable and responsible to try to be
energy independent and do it in the most environmentally friendly way.
This weekend I invited leaders of the Energy Committee, Senators
Wyden and Murkowski, a Democrat and a Republican, to spend a weekend
with me to tour our State to see how West Virginia's all-in policy for
energy works. One of them will likely be the next chair of Energy and
Natural Resources, but I assure you both of them will work as a team
trying to find policy that works for this country. You will hear both
of them say one size doesn't fit all. We need everything. We need a
comprehensive energy plan for this country--which brings me to our
recent visit to West Virginia.
They saw how we are using an ``all-of-the-above'' approach. In the
eastern part of our State we stopped at Mount Storm. They saw a 265-
megawatt wind farm. They saw a 1,600-megawatt coal-fired plant with the
most modern technology that cleans the air up to 95 percent. They saw
it all. When the wind is not blowing, basically they saw there was no
power generated--especially in the hot summer or the cold winter.
Basically what we are saying is we are doing everything we possibly
can. We will continue. In short, we saw a little bit of everything that
can be done if we work together. I think it should be a bipartisan
effort to find a solution. We cannot keep fighting each other, and
agencies cannot keep controlling what we are not legislating. If it has
not been legislated, it should not be put into law until we are able to
evaluate it.
I appreciate what is being done today, the bipartisan effort we are
talking about. We have our differences, but we can come together.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think when the Senator talks about
balance, he ought to recognize that one-half of the coal-fired
utilities have already made these adjustments, they have reported to
us, with very little impact to electricity rates.
I yield 5 minutes to Senator Sanders.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me begin by saying I suspect that I
have the strongest lifetime proworker voting record in the Senate. I
want to create jobs, not cut jobs. What Senator Boxer and Senator
Cardin and others are talking about is creating meaningful, good-paying
jobs as we retrofit coal-burning plants so they do not poison the
children of Vermont and other States around the country.
So to Senator Inhofe and others, I say respectfully: Stop poisoning
our children. Let them grow up in a healthy way.
The Clean Air Act is set to cut mercury pollution by 90 percent using
technology that is available right now. That would be good news since
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say mercury can cause
children to have ``brain damage, mental retardation, blindness,
seizures, and the inability to speak.''
We get exposed to mercury simply by eating fish contaminated with it,
and we have seen fish advisories in 48 out of the 50 States in this
country. Wouldn't it be nice if the men and women and the kids who go
fishing could actually eat the fish they catch rather than worry about
being made sick by those fish?
Powerplants are responsible for one-third of the mercury deposits in
the United States, but Senator Inhofe's resolution would let them keep
right on polluting. His resolution would also eliminate protections
against cancer-causing pollutants such as arsenic, as well as toxic
soot that causes asthma attacks. Leading medical organizations,
including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Lung
Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Nurses
Association have said ``Senator Inhofe's resolution would leave
millions of Americans permanently at risk from toxic air pollution from
powerplants that directly threaten pulmonary, cardiovascular and
neurological health and development.''
That is not Bernie Sanders saying that; it is the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Lung Association, the American Heart
Association, and the American Nurses Association.
We are talking about preventing thousands and thousands of premature
deaths. We are talking about preventing heart attacks. We are talking
about what is a very serious problem in my State, and that is asthma.
Maybe Senator Inhofe would like to join me in the State of Vermont--I
go to a lot of schools and I very often ask the kids and ask the school
nurses how many kids are suffering with asthma, and many hands go up.
Thank you very much. We do not want to see more asthma in Vermont or in
other States that are downwind.
We hear a lot from some of our Republican friends about jobs. The
truth is if we are aggressive in cleaning up these coal-powered plants,
we can create, and we have already seen created, many good, decent-
paying jobs. In fact, if we invest--if the utility industries will
invest in pollution controls, we can create almost 300,000 jobs a year
for the next 5 years--meaningful, good-
[[Page S4324]]
paying jobs making sure that our air is cleaner and that our people do
not get sick.
Let's talk about job creation and cleaning up our environment. This
is not just theory. I am the chairman of the Clean Jobs Subcommittee.
We heard from Constellation Energy, which installed pollution controls
at their 1280-megawatt coal plant in Maryland that cut mercury
emissions by 90 percent. This $885 million investment created at its
peak 1,385 jobs onsite at the plant for boilermakers, steamfitters,
pipefitters, operating engineers, ironworkers, electricians,
carpenters, teamsters, laborers--just the kind of jobs we want to
create. The American people know we have to rebuild our infrastructure.
We can create jobs doing that. This is one of the areas where we can
create decent-paying jobs and help keep our kids from getting sick.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. SANDERS. I urge very strongly a ``no'' vote against the Inhofe
resolution.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Risch.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to urge
an affirmative vote for Senator Inhofe's resolution. With all due
respect to my friend from Vermont, this is not a job-creating bill.
Virtually everyone who has looked at that has said this will kill jobs;
this will move jobs overseas. Everyone who has looked at this has said
it will increase the cost of energy for the American taxpayer.
It does two things: It kills jobs and it increases the cost of
energy. Why would anyone vote for this? This is absolute foolishness.
Today, Americans are concerned about jobs--they are really concerned
about jobs. Everywhere I go, people ask me about jobs. They ask me
about the economy.
Today, we, as Senators, have the opportunity to do something about
that. The failure of this resolution and the implementation of the rule
the EPA has put in front of us is going to kill jobs and is going to
increase the cost of energy in America. It is going to do precisely
what so many Senators come to the floor and whine about; that is, run
jobs overseas.
If you are a job creator, if you are someone thinking of investing,
if you are someone who wants to move the American economy forward, you
look at every single aspect of it. When you see something like this--
and it is not just this, it is this and a parade of never-ending rules
and regulations that kill jobs and increase the costs for the job
creators--these are things that clearly urge job creators to create
jobs in a place other than America. That is just flat wrong.
That is not what I am here today to talk about primarily. What I am
here today to talk about is the way we are going about it. The Founding
Fathers did a good job when they set up our government. Indeed, out of
the thousands of governments that have been created over the years,
most of which have failed, only one has had the success our Founding
Fathers had. They created a government out of fear of government. They
didn't create a government that said: How can we do this? How can we do
that? They were interested in keeping government away from them,
keeping government away from their jobs, from their businesses, and
from their investments. That is what they wanted to do, and it worked
for about 200 years. For about 200 years the Federal Government left
the American people and the job creators alone.
Today, over the last 3\1/2\ decades or so, the Federal Government has
stuck its nose into every single aspect of our lives, and here we go
again. What we have here is the Federal Government using its power and
its regulatory process to get its nose into places where it should not
be. This is the job of Congress. It is not the job of the bureaucracy
to pass these kinds of laws. This isn't a rule or a regulation as the
Founding Fathers anticipated these sorts of things. The Founding
Fathers set this up with three branches of government to fight with
each other so they would leave the American people alone. They said the
job of creating laws, the job of creating regulations, the job of
creating rules was the job of the Congress.
Somewhere along the line, we have lost our way. Last year the
Congress passed about 2,000 pages of legislation, and that included the
spending bills. Last year the bureaucracy passed about 70,000 pages of
rules and regulations that have the same force and effect as law.
The Congress has lost the ability to pass the laws that govern
conduct in the United States. People will argue, yes, but Congress
won't do it; Congress won't act. That is precisely the point. We were
elected by the American people to act or not act as is appropriate.
When we don't act, when we don't do something, it is just as important
as when we do something. Indeed, I would argue many times more
important. Well, what it has come to today is 2,000 pages versus 70,000
pages.
In Idaho we had the same problem for a lot of years. In Idaho it was
the same way. The bureaucracy could pass a rule or regulation that had
the force and effect of law.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. RISCH. We have changed that and gotten it to where the
legislature has full control. This has to change. Congress has to take
back its ability to handle the law as it is imposed and the burden that
is imposed on the American people.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Senator
Carper.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. While our friend from Idaho is trying to leave the Senate
floor, I want to say that the Congress did act. Harry Truman said the
only thing that is new in the world is the history we never learned or
forgot. The Congress did act with a Republican President, a guy named
George Herbert Walker Bush. It was passed overwhelmingly in the House
and in the Senate and supported, as I recall, by those of us here on
the Senate floor today.
I will go over a little history here. In 1990, the Clean Air Act
said: Look, there are problems with toxic air emissions. We are not
sure where they are coming from, but let's spend a little bit of time
and have the EPA figure it out. They spent 10 years trying to figure it
out. In the last year of the Clinton administration, the conclusion was
reached that a lot of the toxic air emissions such as mercury, arsenic,
heavy metals, acid gases, come from utilities. A lot comes from
utilities.
In 2001, the brandnew Bush administration said: Well, let's go to
work and figure out what to do about it. Five years later in 2005, the
Bush administration said: Here is a rule to deal not with the 70 toxic
emissions but with one, mercury. Just one. Immediately lawsuits were
filed, and in 2008 the Federal courts said: What about the other 70
toxins? They didn't do anything about the other 70 toxins. What they
did with mercury was a cap-and-trade system which doesn't work for
mercury. The courts remanded it to the EPA and said: Let's try that
again.
Senator Alexander has been heroic on these issues. And while I have
worked literally for years to try to make sure the Congress provided
some leadership--we do see toxic air emissions from sulfur dioxide and
nitrous oxide as well--there is not an appetite with the utilities to
actually support legislation.
We finally gave it a great try in 2010. My friend Senator Inhofe was
part of the effort to get legislation enacted. Finally, I think the
utilities said we would rather take our chances on an election and see
what the election yields and see if we have to deal with the EPA. Well,
we had an election and now the courts are saying: EPA, you have to
rule. You have to provide leadership, and the EPA has done that. It is
not as if they are jamming it down anybody's throat.
Senator Alexander and I offered legislation that said by 2015 there
has to be a 90-percent reduction in mercury. What the EPA has said is
by 2015, there has to be a 90-percent reduction plus they need to
address a bunch of other toxic emissions. The EPA said the States can
give an automatic 1-year extension. If utilities have problems with
getting this done by 2016, they can apply for another 2-year extension.
This started in 1990. It is 2012. When we play out the string, it could
be as late as 2018 to comply.
[[Page S4325]]
In the meantime, States including Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, and a bunch of us on the east coast, are downwind of all
the States that put up the pollution in the air. We have to breathe it.
Look, the technology exists to fix this problem. Fifty percent of the
utilities have already applied the technology. It works. It is broadly
deployed. Most utilities have the money to pay for this. If they don't,
they have the ability to raise capital.
There are tens of thousands of workers who wish to do this work. The
idea that we have to choose between a stronger economy and a cleaner
environment is a false choice. It has always been a false choice, and
it is a false choice here today.
I am a native of West Virginia. After my dad finished high school, he
was a coal miner for a short time, so I have relatives back in West
Virginia. I care a lot about the State and the people who live there. I
want to make sure we do whatever is fair to them. I want to thank Jay
Rockefeller for stepping up for West Virginia and being a hero here
today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the Senator
from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I thank the Senator for this time. I rise
in support of this resolution. We have only been able to use the
Congressional Review Act successfully one time, and I think that means
at some point we need to look at the Congressional Review Act because
these regulations often don't meet the commonsense standard, and this
is one of them. However, it appears to meet the standards that the
President would want his regulators to meet.
In fact, in January of 2008, the President--while running for
President--said that coal-fired plants would go bankrupt. He said later
in the campaign that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket
under his plan to tax greenhouse gas emissions through what was then
the cap-and-trade system. The House passed that system in 2009.
Missouri utilities all went together, including the rural electric
cooperatives, the for-profit utilities, and the municipal utilities and
paid for a study in our State, which is in the top six States of
dependence on coal. That study indicated that the average utility bill
would go up 82 percent in the first 10 years and double shortly after
that. You don't have to be a genius to get your utility bill out and
multiply it by two. If it is your utility bill at home, it may be a
utility bill you cannot pay. If it is your utility bill at work, it may
mean that your job is no longer there because the utility bill went up.
That House-passed bill would have had that result in our State. There
are five States that are more dependent on coal than we are for
utilities.
The Senate then rejected the cap-and-trade bill, and thank goodness
it did. But when it did, the President said there are other ways of
``skinning the cat.'' He said there are other ways besides just an
``all-of-the-above'' energy policy. His administration has bypassed the
Congress, bypassed the will of the American people, and they are
clearly trying to do by regulation what I believe the Congress would
now never do. Once the American people figured out that cap-and-trade
and policies such as this would have this devastating impact on their
utility bill--about 50 percent of all of the utilities from the middle
of Pennsylvania to the western edge of Wyoming are coal-generated
utilities. Once people figured that out and the impact it had on their
ability to have a job and their ability to do what they need to do at
their house, they didn't want to do it.
With this rule the EPA has finalized a regulation that would require
power companies to reduce emissions in a period that is unrealistically
short. A 3-year timeframe means that many power-generated facilities
don't reduce emissions, they close the plant. What this stands for is
an assault on coal and coal-based utilities. The Administrator of the
EPA, Lisa Jackson, said recently that the current challenges for the
coal industry are ``entirely economic.'' That is what she said,
``entirely economic.'' I don't know how anyone who is paying attention
to the EPA, to regulations, or to the price of coal, could say that the
problems are entirely economic. They are not economic at all. We have
more recoverable coal than anybody in the world. We now think we have
more recoverable natural gas than anybody in the world.
By 2016, under the current EPA rules that are out there, plus this
one, our utilities in our State would go up as much as 23 percent for
the average Missourian, and more than that for some people in parts of
our State. That is a 23-percent increase on your utility bill by 2016.
The estimates are that by 2020, we will lose 76,000 jobs because of
that increase in utility rates. Where are those jobs going to go? They
are not going to go to California or Massachusetts or somebody who has
bills higher than ours today. They are going to go to places that care
a lot less about what comes out of the smokestack than we do.
Last year in States where coal generated at least 60 percent of the
electricity, consumers paid 30 percent less in energy prices than
States that used less coal for their electricity. And in our State, as
I said, 82 percent of our electricity comes from coal.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BLUNT. I urge my colleagues to vote for the issue before us that
says we don't want to have this rule. We want to do the right thing,
not the wrong thing.
I thank the Senator for this time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate will vote today on whether to
proceed to a congressional resolution of disapproval that I strongly
oppose. This resolution would repeal the Environmental Protection
Agency's mercury and air toxics standards rule and undo the great
strides the Agency has taken to safeguard the public's health and
welfare and our quality of life in this great land.
The EPA's mercury and air toxics standards represent a true
breakthrough in environmental policy. This rule offers clear benefits
to every American, and it is especially important to Vermonters, who
disproportionally suffer from the devastating effects of mercury and
other toxic air pollutants. Although my home State has no major sources
of mercury, Vermonters have been besieged by this insidious poison,
which drifts across our borders from other States.
The EPA estimates that each year, toxic air pollutants cause up to
11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 cases of
childhood asthma, among other illnesses. Mercury, a truly unwelcome
addition to our daily lives, has had catastrophic effects on the health
and well-being of all Americans, as well as a ruinous impact on our
Nation's pristine natural environment. There is no known safe level of
exposure to mercury it is harmful to humans in even the smallest
amounts. Tragically, mercury's most devastating effect is on those
victims least able to protect themselves: unborn and newborn children.
Mercury has been shown to cause developmental disabilities and brain
damage, resulting in lowered IQ's and learning problems, such as
attention deficit disorder. Sadly, these affects are permanent and
irreversible. They lead to a lifetime of trips to the emergency room,
costly medical interventions, personal and family heartbreak, and lost
potential.
The American people want their air and water to be cleaner and
healthier and most certainly free of toxic pollutants. Vermonters and
Americans want this for all of us. Safe water and safe air to breathe
should be a valued legacy of our lives in this blessed Nation. We also
know that protecting the weakest and most vulnerable members of our
society is among Congress's most solemn duties. This resolution of
disapproval undermines that goal. Why should one more child struggle to
breathe and gasp for air when such suffering is preventable? Why should
one more parent die a premature death? Congress should not meddle in
this vitally important issue literally, for many, an issue of life or
death or chronic illness. If the EPA's mercury and air toxics standards
are repealed, the simple reality is that it will be somebody's loved
one who pays the price, and the price they pay may be irreversible.
[[Page S4326]]
During the Bush administration, I offered my own Congressional Review
Act joint resolution of disapproval, known as the Leahy-Collins
resolution, to contest an EPA mercury rule that was far too weak and
failed to protect the American people. It is hard to believe that now,
almost 7 years later, this issue is still unresolved and we are
fighting to save an EPA rule that is fair, just, science-based, and
reasonable. A sound environmental policy that protects our citizens
from the hazards of mercury and air toxics is long overdue.
In addition to the numerous health benefits that removing these
toxics would mean for our citizens, both young and old, the EPA's
mercury and air toxics standards would protect America's precious
waterways, making them accessible to the sport fishermen of today and
for countless generations to come. Today, large game fish from every
body of water in Vermont, including our State's greatest lake, Lake
Champlain, are so heavily contaminated with out-of-State mercury that
people must be warned against eating them. In fact, all 50 States have
issued fish consumption advisories, warning citizens to limit how often
they eat certain types of fish because they are contaminated with
mercury. Let me repeat that. Because of mercury contamination, every
State of our great Nation today warns its citizens to limit how often
they should consume certain kinds of fish. We can change that. We
should change that. We must change that. Environmental standards can
and have made tremendous differences in our lifetimes in virtually
eliminating such toxics as the fumes from the burning of leaded
gasoline, which only recently was ubiquitous on our streets and around
our homes. We must do the same to begin ridding poisonous mercury from
our air and water.
Without these standards, powerplants will continue to spew tons of
mercury and other toxic air pollutants into the air. Without these
standards, this preventable, slow-motion tragedy will continue to
unfold despite the fact that the pollution control technology mandated
by this rule is already widely available, affordable, and in use in
many coal-fired powerplants throughout the Nation. Thirty-three percent
of older powerplants have already installed lifesaving technology which
allows them to comply with the EPA's emission limits, and a full 60
percent already comply with the EPA's mercury limit. This resolution of
disapproval would be especially ill-advised because it would unjustly
punish companies that have taken steps to do the right thing, while
rewarding those that have shirked their responsibilities, endangered
countless lives, and imperiled the environment.
As another great benefit to the American people, industry-wide
adoption of innovative pollution control technology would stimulate
investment in the economy, job creation and greater productivity. The
updated standards will create thousands of long-term jobs for American
workers. These workers will be hired to build, install, and,
ultimately, operate the machinery that will reduce health-threatening
emissions. The EPA estimates that implementing this rule will mean jobs
for tens of thousands of hard-working Americans, including 46,000
construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs. When added onto the
health benefits, these standards will have an annual estimated benefit
of $37 to $90 billion dollars. Green jobs are not just good for the
environment in which we live, work, and breathe, they are good for the
economy and good for America.
I hope that when Senators consider this resolution of disapproval,
they remember that its passage would prevent the EPA from issuing any
standards in the future that were substantially similar to the current
mercury and air toxics standards. As a result, Americans would continue
to be put at risk from the debilitating and sometimes deadly effects of
air pollution pumped into America's air by energy companies and other
sources. Regrettably, this threat to human health and the environment
would continue indefinitely because the resolution of disapproval would
strip the EPA of essential tools to address these hazards.
The value of these tools is as incalculable as the value of human
life and the health of our families. Make no mistake about it:
Investing in the new technology mandated by the EPA's mercury and air
toxics standards will save countless lives and will improve the quality
of the environment of our communities for years to come. We owe it to
ourselves and we owe it to future generations of Americans to make this
investment now.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, our country's economy and competitiveness
in global markets depends on access to affordable energy resources,
including electricity that powers our manufacturing plants and keeps
businesses operating throughout the Nation. Additionally, affordable
electricity is vital to the health, safety, productivity, and quality
of life of American families, as well as keeping their budgets in
check.
Generating this vital power, however, has come at a cost to our
public health and to the environment. Coal- and oil-fired powerplants
account for about half of the Nation's mercury emissions and more than
half of the country's acid gases. Powerplants also contribute about
one-quarter of our Nation's particle pollution. These emissions from
powerplants can cause damage to brain development, premature death,
asthma, heart attacks, and other health complications with the heart
and lungs.
Under the authority of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, on
December 21, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, announced
its final rule to establish technology-based emission limits for
mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired
powerplants, which are estimated to number about 1,400 units
nationwide. About half of the electric generating units affected by
this rule have already installed equipment to meet these emission
limits, and many have expended large sums to get there. The other units
that need to install pollution control equipment within the next 3 to 4
years could potentially have a competitive market advantage over the
companies that have installed the technology if we simply override the
EPA.
The emission reductions expected as a result of the rule are
projected to improve our Nation's air quality, resulting in a reduction
annually of approximately 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 nonfatal heart
attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, 5,700 hospital and emergency room
visits, 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 3.2 million restricted
activity days. The EPA estimates the value of these health benefits is
between $37 billion and $90 billion annually.
Additionally, the rule will also prevent mercury from contaminating
vital water resources. All of the Great Lakes and all of Michigan's
inland lakes have fish consumption health advisories due to mercury.
This rule should help clean up these lakes and make fish from any lake
safer to eat.
In contrast to the benefits that will be provided by this rule, the
annual cost of installing and operating the pollution control equipment
is estimated at about $10 billion annually. These costs are expected to
translate into higher electricity costs of about $3 to $4 per month,
although those costs would vary regionally.
Senator Inhofe's joint resolution of disapproval would completely
overturn this EPA rule that limits harmful pollutants from powerplants.
Additionally, under the Congressional Review Act, which is the statute
that provides the authority for Senator Inhofe to move this measure
under expedited procedures, this disapproval resolution would also
prevent the EPA from issuing any regulations that are ``substantially
the same'' as the disapproved standards. Thus, this prohibition would
effectively require Congress to pass a law creating a new authorization
before EPA would be able to do anything about this pollution.
I support congressional oversight and, in fact, believe Congress
should exercise more oversight. But this rule protects the health of
Michigan residents by requiring commercially available technology to be
installed at powerplants that currently do not have these controls in
place. The rule will result in significant air quality improvements,
protecting public health and our lakes from harmful pollution. Its
payback is significant in health and in economics.
For these reasons, I will oppose this measure.
[[Page S4327]]
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I talked about this phenomenon yesterday
on the Senate floor, and today we have even more evidence of what I was
talking about: a reckless assault on our environment given new life by
the resolution before the Senate today. We are being asked to sacrifice
the health of men, women, and children, all for the sake of the coal
industry, a move that makes people sicker, denying Americans their
right to a healthy environment to live in and raise their children.
No one who cares about the health of our citizens, the health of our
economy, and the health of our planet should support this resolution.
They should be outraged that we are even having this kind of debate.
The Congressional Review Act resolution before us would eliminate the
Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards, or
MATS, for powerplants. Let's be clear what that means. It means the EPA
would be prevented from adopting meaningful replacement standards to
protect Americans from mercury and some 80 other toxic air pollutants
that cause cancer and other health hazards. Let me repeat. These
pollutants are known to cause cancer and other health hazards.
The science is unequivocal and has been for years mercury is a known
neurotoxin that can have a devastating effect on the brain and nervous
system of a developing child, reducing IQ and impairing the ability to
learn.
We know the effects of mercury, and we know its source. Coal and oil-
based powerplants constitute the largest manmade source of mercury
emissions in the United States--they are responsible for half of the
mercury emissions in America. They also emit more than 75 percent of
the acid gas emissions and 25 percent of toxic metals lead, arsenic,
chromium, nickel. We are talking about some really toxic pollution that
is known or suspected to cause cancer and cardiovascular disease,
damage to the eyes, skin, and lungs. It can even kill.
Under EPA's MATS, utilities will be regulated for mercury and these
other toxics for the first time in our Nation's history. These
standards are more than a decade overdue, so it is way past time to end
the free ride the polluters have been enjoying. Now, I understand my
colleagues are peddling the message that the EPA is waging a ``war on
coal.'' But they are just trying to distract us from the facts, and the
fact is the EPA is simply doing its job and following the law. It is no
more complicated than that. There is no conspiracy and no secret
agenda. Their job is to protect Americans, and that is exactly what
they are doing.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate emissions of mercury
and other hazardous air pollutants. The EPA employs a process that
requires the use of ``maximum achievable control technology.'' In other
words, the standards are feasible, they are based on what industry
leaders are already doing. EPA estimates more than half of coal-fired
units have equipment installed that can help meet the standards.
Roughly 55 percent of our electricity is from nuclear, natural gas, and
renewable energy sources, and they are not subject to the rule's
provisions. And for those that need more time to comply, EPA allows
them up to 4 years. It is beyond reasonable.
And this is hardly a ``war on coal.''
MATS will reduce mercury emissions from powerplants by more than 90
percent, acid gases by 88 percent, and reduce emissions of more than 80
air toxics. It will also significantly reduce particulate matter, or
PM, emissions that can trigger asthma attacks and damage the lungs. In
fact, the combined health benefits are staggering. Beginning in 2016,
EPA estimates that the standard would prevent each year 11,000
premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, 5,700
hospital and ER visits, and 540,000 missed work and school days.
Let me bring these numbers a little closer to home. EPA estimates
MATS would prevent 130 premature deaths each year and up to $1.1
billion in health benefits in 2016.
In total, annual estimated benefits are $37 to $90 billion compared
to compliance costs of $9.6 billion. That is an amazing return on
investment--for every dollar spent, we will realize $3 to $6 in health
benefits.
As a member of the Senate, it is my responsibility to make sure that
the children of Massachusetts begin life with a fair shot, and it is my
duty to protect the most susceptible, including the 128,000 kids and
531,000 adults with asthma in my home State. To put this issue in
focus, one of my constituents, the mother of an asthmatic girl, has
said: ``Any person who would say that EPA should be eliminated or its
ability to regulate reduced should have to sit in the emergency room
holding the hand of a child who can't breathe.''
Some Senators argue that the EPA standard is a job killer. Not true.
The fact is it will create 46,000 short-term construction jobs and
8,000 long-term jobs in the utility sector to help build, install, and
then operate emissions control equipment.
Some Senators say the rule requires too much, too fast. Not true.
Look, the rule has been more than a decade in the making. Any shrewd
businessperson would see the writing on the wall and develop their
business plan accordingly. And many utility companies already have
acted accordingly.
Some Senators say it costs too much to comply and will shut down
powerplants, that these rules combined with others will threaten the
reliability of the energy grid and dramatically increasing energy costs
for consumers. Not true. Numerous reports from EPA, DOE, and CRS state
otherwise. According to CRS, ``almost all of the capacity reductions
(from the rule) will occur in areas that have substantial reserve
margins. . . The final rule includes provisions aimed at providing
additional time for compliance if it is needed to install pollution
controls or add new capacity to ensure reliability in specific areas.
As a result, it is unlikely that electric reliability will be harmed by
the rule.''
And in terms of the rule's actual impact on the economy, it is likely
to be extremely limited. The retail price of electricity is on average
estimated to increase about 3 percent, mainly due to the increase in
demand for natural gas. This seems a small price to pay for the massive
health and economic benefits I have already highlighted.
We should understand that if we pass this CRA today, we are not
guaranteed a do-over. The CRA explicitly prevents EPA from developing a
rule to regulate mercury and air toxics from powerplants that is
``substantially the same'' as the invalidated rule. Translation: It
would be nearly impossible for EPA to develop another rule to regulate
these pollutants. Industry would have you believe otherwise so that you
can vote to pass the CRA with a clear conscience. It is a disingenuous
effort, and I sincerely hope that my colleagues will see through it.
Mr. President, it is tragic that polluters want to deny a right as
basic as clean, healthy air. And it is tragic that anyone, especially a
member of the Senate, would refuse to protect even children and the
unborn from poisons. I urge the Senate to turn back this political
assault on our environment and support standards that will do so much
good for so many Americans. Anything else would be turning our backs on
the people we are here to serve.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to
Senator Inhofe's resolution of disapproval concerning the Environmental
Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics rule. If passed, this
resolution would have a devastating impact on our decades-long effort
to clean up the air Americans breathe, and it would betray the
responsible utility managers who have already taken steps to reduce the
mercury and air toxics entering our atmosphere.
As I approach the end of my Senate career, I have spent some time
reflecting on my past votes and the legacy I hope to leave behind. The
debate before us today brings me back to my very first years in the
Senate and an effort that has continued throughout my entire time here.
In 1990, I was part of the group of members of the Senate EPW
Committee and the administration of President George H.W. Bush who
negotiated and passed the Clean Air Act Amendments. At the time, the
need for this legislation was painfully clear--acid rain was eating
paint off of cars, and thick, visible smog blanketed too many of our
cities. Some wanted Congress to turn a blind eye, but we did not. We
acted, and we acted together.
During those many weeks, we met daily to reach a bipartisan agreement
[[Page S4328]]
that would put our country on the path to cleaner air. It was the
leadership of majority leader George Mitchell and President Bush's
representatives, including Boyden Gray, that led us to a grand bargain.
Because all of the parties negotiated in good faith toward a common
goal, the Clean Air Act Amendments were adopted in an October 1990 vote
by an 89-to-10 margin. Think about that: 89 votes in favor of one of
the most significant environmental law changes in our history. I regret
that such a broad bipartisan agreement in support of our environment
will not be repeated this week.
Now, in the final year of my Senate career, we are debating a
resolution that seeks to undo one of the provisions that we worked so
hard to pass as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments in my first term
in office--a requirement that EPA issue standards to reduce emissions
of air toxics from stationary sources. That was 22 years ago, but it
was only February of this year that EPA finally published the rule that
would implement these standards. Administrator Lisa Jackson and
Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, who served so ably as
Connecticut's commissioner of the Department of Environmental
Protection, have brought us a rule that will finally put in place the
mercury and air toxics restrictions we have been waiting for.
This resolution would roll back that rule, the first-ever national
limits on powerplant emissions of air toxics, including mercury.
Without this rule, powerplant operators can continue pumping dozens of
tons of mercury and hundreds of thousands of tons of other toxic air
pollutants into our air each year.
Many of my colleagues have spoken to the extensive health and
environmental rationale behind the mercury and air toxics rule, so I
will just highlight a few of the most startling statistics. One in
twelve American women of childbearing age has mercury blood levels that
would put their fetuses at risk for impaired development. These
developmental impairments are a human tragedy, denying children their
full intellectual and psychological potential.
With respect to the environment, just look at Connecticut. We are
blessed by natural beauty--rolling hills, beautiful beaches, vast
forests, and flowing streams and rivers. Unfortunately, every single
body of water--every lake, stream, river, and pond--in the State of
Connecticut has a mercury advisory in place. Where do we think this
came from? It was not here before the advent of polluting powerplants
spewing mercury into the air. We are blessed by plentiful fresh water,
but that gift has been tainted by the mercury that has been spewed into
the air over generations. Even in Long Island Sound, one of America's
greatest estuaries, we are faced with a restriction on which seafood we
can eat. One of the best fish in the sound--the bluefish--is off limits
to us because of mercury. Is this the legacy we want to leave our
children?
Of course, this debate should not be about which fish we can or
cannot eat, it should be about following through on a promise we made
to the American people in 1990, by a margin of 89 to 10, that we would
move forward on efforts to reduce air toxics being emitted by
powerplants. If we pass this resolution, we would break that promise.
Some of my colleagues may claim that the mercury rule is an attack on
coal. To them I would say: This is nothing of the sort. This rule would
actually save money and save lives. It would save between $37 billion
and $90 billion a year in health benefits while creating 54,000 jobs.
It would prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 cases of
childhood asthma attacks each year. This is a case of government
protecting its citizens with a commonsense rule to require widely
available pollution control systems be installed at our powerplants.
I want to close by once again urging my colleagues not to break our
promise we made to the American people in 1990 that the U.S. Government
would do everything in its power to ensure the American people had
clean air to breathe and to reduce dangerous pollutants in order to
give our children the chance to grow up healthy. I urge my colleagues
to vote no on this resolution.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to ask the Senate to protect
public health, not polluters, and to protect clean air over corporate
profits.
Upholding the mercury and air toxics standard means keeping toxic
mercury, arsenic, lead, and other pollutants out of our lakes and
streams and out of children's lungs. It will prevent 11,000 premature
deaths, 5,000 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks in this country
each year after its implementation.
For over 20 years polluters have fought these rules and used their
influence to create delay after delay in administration after
administration. It is time these rules were finally implemented so we
can preserve the health of the American people and our Nation's air
quality.
New Jersey has many residents who are vulnerable to poor air quality.
According to the American Lung Association, there are over 184,000
children and 587,000 adults with asthma in New Jersey. It is estimated
that these new air toxics standards will prevent up to 320 premature
deaths and create up to $2.6 billion in health benefits in New Jersey
in 2016 alone. These residents deserve better than to have their health
subordinated to the financial interests of corporate executives.
Reducing toxic emissions is welcomed by New Jersey's power providers.
The Public Service Enterprise Group, PSEG, New Jersey's oldest and
largest electric utility, operates several of the powerplants that
would be affected by the mercury and air toxic standards. Because these
regulations have been in the works for over 20 years, PSEG and other
power providers have already made investments in anticipation of their
implementation. To assert that these standards are somehow a surprise
or could not have been anticipated by electric utilities would be
grossly inaccurate.
Mercury is perhaps the most dangerous pollutant targeted by this rule
and coal-fired powerplants are responsible for half of the mercury
emissions in the United States.
Mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin, has been associated with damage to
the kidneys, liver, brain, and nervous system. It has also been shown
to cause neurological and developmental problems in children. The
American Academy of Pediatrics, in detailing the impact of mercury
exposure on human health, noted,
mercury in all of its forms is toxic to the fetus and
children, and efforts should be made to reduce exposure to
the extent possible to pregnant women and children, as well
as the general population.
Elevated levels of mercury exposure have also been shown to put
adults at increased risk of heart attacks, increased blood pressure,
and blocked arteries. Rather than cater to polluters, we must heed the
warnings of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists--medical
professionals that have dedicated their lives to preventing and
treating illness caused by mercury.
Mercury emissions also act as a pervasive contaminant throughout our
Nation's watersheds, where the pollutant accumulates in fish, other
wildlife, and ultimately, in humans. In 2003, Jeff Holmstead, the EPA
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation under George W. Bush,
stated:
Mercury, a potent toxin, can cause permanent damage to the
brain and nervous system, particularly in developing fetuses
when ingested in sufficient quantities. People are exposed to
mercury mainly through eating fish contaminated with
methylmercury.
In New Jersey, mercury has been a widespread and consistent
contaminant in freshwater fish collected throughout the State, with
unsafe concentrations of mercury being found in both urban and rural
areas. The statistics send a clear message: if we don't act now, we
risk mass contamination of our Nation's waters and food supply.
The mercury and air toxics standard will work to curb toxic emissions
produced from coal powerplants, and to ensure that future emissions
comply with set national limits. These new standards are expected to
reduce mercury emissions from coal and powerplants by 90 percent, acid
gas pollution by 88 percent, and particulate matter emissions by 30
percent.
Senator Inhofe's proposal, if enacted, would not only void all of the
health benefits produced by the air toxics standard, but also prevent
the government from issuing similar standards in the future. In effect,
this would
[[Page S4329]]
severely curtail the government's ability to address the serious
hazards posed by pollutant emissions. I believe this would be deeply
irresponsible.
These national standards are long overdue. In 1990, Congress amended
the Clean Air Act to require performance-based regulations of air
pollutants, in an effort to reduce toxic emissions produced from
industrial sources. That amendment was passed with broad bipartisan
support, approved by 89 Senators, 401 House members, and signed by a
Republican president. After two decades, national standards regulating
powerplant emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants are finally
in place. How many more children will be poisoned by mercury in their
bodies, if Congress continues to delay or eliminate safeguards ensuring
health safety?
In 1990, Congress recognized the harm posed by these pollutants and
took appropriate action. Now it is time for us to finally implement
them and protect the health of all Americans.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today as a signer of the discharge
petition for S.J. Res. 37, the Congressional Review Act resolution of
disapproval for the Environmental Protection Agency's Utility MACT
rule. I support this measure with all my heart.
I urge my colleagues and my fellow citizens who are listening to this
debate today to recognize that the EPA's Utility MACT rule is not just
about curtailing mercury emissions from powerplants. At the heart of
the Utility MACT rule is an effort to shut down our Nation's coal-mines
and coal-fired powerplants. When President Obama was a United States
Senator, he was the deciding vote on the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee to kill the Clear Skies bill which would have reduced
mercury emissions in the United States by 70 percent.
Let's be clear about why the liberals on that committee voted against
this mercury reduction measure. They did so because they wanted to hold
that issue aside and use it to help pass a nationwide climate bill, the
biggest anticoal legislation ever considered by Congress. In other
words, killing coal mining jobs and shutting down coal-fired
powerplants took priority over real and significant reductions in
mercury emissions and any health benefits that would have come with
those reductions.
The EPA's Utility MACT rule was carefully written to ensure that most
of its mercury reductions will come from the forced shutdown of coal
mines and coal-fired powerplants. It is evident that the rule is not
written to allow noncompliant powerplants to remain open.
The fact is that today's vote does not stop the EPA from regulating
mercury from coal-fired powerplants. But it would strip out the obvious
anticoal agenda that is the heart and soul of the current Utility MACT
rule. The costs of this rule outweigh the benefits by 1,600 to 1. If
ever there were an EPA rule that needed to be sent back to the drawing
board, this one is it.
Americans know what is at stake with today's resolution. If the EPA's
rule is allowed to go forward, it jeopardizes our Nation's most
affordable, abundant, and dependable domestic source of electricity. We
hear a lot from the President and his allies about the scourge of
inequality and the need for a more progressive economic system.
It is hard to take them seriously when you look at their support for
this EPA regulation. Regulations such as these are incredibly
regressive. This regulation will increase the cost of energy. That
might not mean a great deal to the folks who are financing President
Obama's reelection, but to low-and middle-income citizens, increased
energy costs hit family budgets hard.
And it will undermine jobs. Anyone who claims to care about job
creation, while at the same time supporting this regulation, has to
answer a few questions. Americans are tired of lipservice when it comes
to job creation. They are tired of having a job creation agenda taking
a back seat to the agenda of lifestyle liberals.
They want Congress and the President to be serious about creating
jobs and keeping our Nation competitive in a global economy. This
regulation not only threatens jobs at coal mines and powerplants.
Much more is at stake. We are talking about a threat to the millions
of jobs that are created when we as a nation enjoy the abundant
affordable energy that allows us, America, to compete against our
aggressive international rivals.
Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of this issue about the
success of my own State of Utah. For 2 years running, Forbes magazine
has listed Utah as the best State for business and jobs. Utah is a
grand success story, and national policymakers should look to it for
answers. Why is Utah creating jobs, while many areas of the United
States are losing them? Well, there are a number of factors, but a very
big one is that we are a very competitive State. After comparing the
cost of doing business in other States, more and more companies are
moving to Utah. A key factor in that decision is Utah's very low cost
of energy. The State ranks fourth in the Nation for low cost industrial
energy rates. I am aware of a number of instances where this has been a
deciding factor when a major business decides to relocate to Utah. In
almost every case, the States these companies are moving away from have
high industrial energy rates. And, yes, about 70 percent of Utah's
power comes from clean, efficient, coal-fired powerplants.
It is obvious that many of my colleagues on the other side of this
issue just cannot grasp this truth; but the fact of the matter is that
competiveness is critical to economic growth and job creation. It
should come as no surprise that President Obama's hundreds of anti-
energy efforts have failed to grow jobs in this country.
I urge my colleagues to look to my State of Utah as a model for
success. We need to get off the road toward the nanny State. How bad
does the European model have to get before we wake up and recognize
that we want nothing to do with that type of big government failure.
America is great because we have relied on the fundamentals of a free
people living in a free market. And underlying our vibrant and free
economy is consistently affordable energy. Affordable energy is the
lifeblood of a healthy economy and always has been. I urge my
colleagues to protect these fundamentals and send this Utility MACT
rule back to the EPA for a major rewrite.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today to urge my
colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 37, a resolution of disapproval of the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, offered by Senator Inhofe. The
Senator from Oklahoma is a powerful advocate for his point of view, but
I respectfully disagree that we do not need to control the emission of
mercury and other toxics into our air.
This vote is one in a continuous drumbeat of attacks on environmental
rules we have seen of late. It is unfortunate that some of my
colleagues are attacking clean air and water rules with such fervor,
especially in the name of economic recovery. When it comes to putting
America back on firm economic footing, we should be working towards a
comprehensive budget solution that shows the American people and the
world that Congress can still function in the face of major challenges
rather than with attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency.
Yet so often we hear vague, catch-all criticisms that upcoming EPA
rules--real or imagined--will create uncertainty in the regulated
community, impeding economic recovery. The irony is that attacks that
seek to delay or remand EPA rules only exacerbate and prolong
regulatory uncertainty.
Also, recall that Congress directed EPA in the Clean Air Act more
than 20 years ago to develop many of the rules the agency is currently
working on. That is the case with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
Many other rules are coming about as a result of court orders. So, put
simply, EPA is doing its job.
To be sure, Congress also has a job to do when it comes to oversight
of administration rules. For instance, I have been and will continue to
work with EPA to make sure EPA actions respect the realities of life in
rural and arid communities. This is especially important when it comes
to regulations impacting Colorado water users and our farmers and
ranchers.
However, wholesale assault on an agency whose mission is to protect
[[Page S4330]]
human health and the environment is neither a recipe for economic
recovery nor a path to fostering healthier communities within which our
families and neighbors live.
Let me turn specifically to the resolution of disapproval offered by
Senator Inhofe.
Many of my colleagues have described on the Senate floor the various
health benefits of the rule. I would like to associate myself with
their remarks, because the health benefits of controlling mercury
emissions are remarkable: as many as 11,000 fewer premature deaths each
year; 130,000 fewer cases of childhood asthma each year; and 4,700
fewer heart attacks each year just to name a few.
But I want to add two other aspects to the debate. One, clean air and
water are good for our economy.
In Colorado, for example, outdoor recreation and tourism make up the
second largest sector of our economy. Coloradans enjoy skiing, hiking,
hunting, angling, camping, boating and many other outdoor activities,
and many Americans come to Colorado for these experiences. Our outdoor
recreation economy contributes $10 billion a year to the State's
economy and supports over 100,000 Colorado jobs.
This isn't limited to Colorado. Nationally, the outdoor recreation
economy is worth $646 billion, supporting 6.1 million jobs.
Clean air and water are an integral part of the national outdoor
recreation system. It can not function if our children are too sick to
come outside to play or our waters are too polluted to fish.
Two, investing in our infrastructure through modern pollution
controls is how we ensure long-term economic recovery.
ADA-Environmental Solutions is a company in Highlands Ranch, CO. ADA-
Environmental Solutions is the leading producer of mercury control
equipment for utilities across the country. Part of their mission is to
``sustain the viability of coal'' through the development of
technologies that ``reduce emissions, increase efficiency and improve
the competitive position'' of their customers.
As the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards go into effect, many
utilities will upgrade their facilities with modern pollution controls.
It may surprise some of my constituents in Colorado to learn that some
of these plants have been operating without pollution controls for 40
years or more.
Those upgrades will be installed by Americans and provided by
companies like ADA-Environmental Solutions. Those upgrades represent an
investment in American jobs and a modern utility infrastructure.
In summary, clean air and water do not come at the expense of our
economy. Rather, a healthy environment and a healthy economy go hand-
in-hand.
Putting safeguards in place on the largest source of mercury
emissions in the United States is long overdue. That is why I will be
opposing S.J. Res. 37 today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in 1970, smoke stacks towered above
cities and towns spewing black clouds of toxic pollution into the air.
Sights like these outraged Americans--however, at that time there was
no legal way to force these companies to stop polluting the
environment.
In response to these atrocities, Congress did two things in 1970:
First, Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency to defend
our natural resources and force polluters to clean up their factories
and plants.
And second, Congress passed the Clean Air Act with overwhelming
bipartisan support to help ensure that all Americans could breathe
clean air, free from toxic chemicals.
In the 40 years since, Republicans and Democrats have worked together
in Congress to protect the health of America's families from the
country's biggest polluters.
But this week in the Senate, we will vote on a provision that
threatens to destroy all that progress by rolling back a critical
environmental and health regulation.
Senator Inhofe has introduced a resolution that would prevent the EPA
from enforcing the first national standard to regulate the emission of
mercury and air toxins from power plants.
Until now, there had been no Federal standards that required power
plants to limit their emission of mercury, arsenic, chromium, and acid
gases. And so their pollution went unchecked.
This led to power plants becoming the single largest source of
mercury in the United States. Power plants are currently responsible
for 50% of the mercury, 62% of the arsenic, and over 75% of the acid
gases emitted in this country every year.
These are deadly chemicals. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can
hinder brain development and the central nervous systems of children,
even while in their mother's womb.
And the heavy metals and acids emitted by power plants can cause
various cancers and respiratory, neurological, developmental, and
reproductive problems.
So the idea that we should allow power plants to continue to pump
hundreds of thousands of tons of dangerous pollution into the
environment instead of adding any of the readily available pollution
controls is completely outrageous.
The harmful, toxic chemical emissions from these plants must be
stopped and that is what the EPA's new Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards, or MATS as they are called, does.
When implemented, the new standards will reduce mercury and acid gas
emissions from power plants by almost 90%.
These reductions will save billions of dollars in public health
spending each year by avoiding thousands of cases of premature deaths,
aggravated asthma, and heart attacks.
In fact, every dollar spent to reduce pollution emission under the
MATS rule will result in $3 $9 of health benefits.
In my state of Illinois alone, the MATS rule will save $4.7 billion
and prevent an estimated 570 premature adult deaths in the next four
years.
That might be why recent polling shows that 77% of Americans support
the MATS rule and the reductions in air pollution that it will achieve.
However, Senator Inhofe wants to prevent these critical standards
from being enforced--claiming that they are too strict and that
companies have not had enough time to prepare.
But, Mr. President, this new rule didn't come out of nowhere.
Energy companies have known for more than 20 years, since the last
major changes to the Clean Air Act in 1990, that new air pollution-
control rules were coming and that the new rules would require them to
reduce their toxic emissions.
That is why many power plants have already made the changes necessary
to comply with the new rules by installing scrubbers and other air
pollution-control technologies.
However, instead of investing in these available control
technologies, some companies did little or nothing over the past
decades to improve their old, inefficient plants.
And now these same companies state that it would be impossible for
them to comply with the MAT standards without massive job losses and
blackouts across the electricity grid. The facts suggest otherwise.
According to the Environmental Policy Institute, the EPA's new
standards are expected to create approximately 8,000 jobs in the
utility industry and an additional 80,500 jobs from investments in
pollution control equipment by 2015. And the majority of these jobs
will be in the construction and labor industries.
Mike Morris is chief executive of American Electric Power, a utility
with multiple coal-fired plants. He said, ``We have to hire plumbers,
electricians, [and] painters when you retrofit a plant. Jobs are
created in the process--no question about that.''
In fact, the MATS rule is expected to add a net 117,000 jobs to the
economy overall. So to say that we can't create jobs without allowing
dangerous levels of toxic chemicals into the air we breathe is simply
wrong. And multiple Federal agencies and third parties--including the
non-partisan Congressional Research Service, the Department of Energy,
and the Bipartisan Policy Center--have stated that full implementation
of the MAT Standards will not cause any reliability concerns for the
power grid.
EPA is working closely with the Department of Energy, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, State
[[Page S4331]]
utility regulators, and the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation, to ensure there will be no issues with the electrical
grid.
So it seems that we can have clean air and keep the lights on, while
simultaneously creating thousands of new jobs.
We don't have to make the false choice between ensuring clean air and
job creation--we can do both.
The bottom line is that acid gases and heavy metals are causing
serious health problems, especially in our most vulnerable
populations--children and pregnant mothers.
The EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will require power plants to
cut their emissions of these harmful chemicals by using readily
available technology.
Many plants across the country have already proved that the standards
can be met while creating jobs and keeping the lights on and businesses
running.
So it's time for Republicans and Democrats to once again come
together to protect the health of Americans families and ensure that
everyone has access to clean air.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote `no' on the motion to proceed
to Senator Inhofe's resolution.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republicans have 3 minutes 47
seconds, and the majority has 12 minutes 45 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. I would take 6 minutes and retain the balance.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we are faced with a resolution today to
essentially repeal something that has been 20 years in the making and
is about to go into effect. It would stop the EPA, the Environmental
Protection Agency, from implementing the first-ever national mercury
and air toxics standards for powerplants.
A little bit later I will talk about what mercury does to people. Let
me assure you, it is not good. I will also talk about the other toxics
that are emitted from these dirty plants. They are not good either.
When I mention them, just the names will scare us because they are
names such as arsenic and formaldehyde--not good. They are going into
our lungs. The mercury is getting into fish. People are getting sick.
That is why this is such a dangerous moment if we were to pass this and
stop the EPA from doing this.
We know that for every $3 we invest--every $1 to $3--we are going to
get back $9 in health benefits. If we do the math and we follow the
math, it is clear this is cost-effective and critically important.
Ask a parent who has a child who is rushed to the emergency room with
asthma whether they want this done. Ask a coal-fired utility that has
made these improvements already--half of them have--and they will tell
us there has been hardly any impact on electricity prices, and they are
happy with them.
If this resolution were to pass and the policy behind it were to
pass, it means that instead of rewarding those coal-fired utilities
that are doing the right thing, we are rewarding those that haven't
done the right thing and continue to spew forth these toxins.
What is at stake? I ask rhetorically of people who may be listening
to this: Whom do we trust more, Senators and politicians or physicians
and nurses? I think we should trust these numbers from the
professionals who have looked at this issue. If this resolution were to
pass and EPA is blocked from implementing this new clean air standard,
we will see up to 11,000 additional premature deaths, 4,700 heart
attacks, 130,000 cases of childhood asthma, 6,300 cases of acute
bronchitis among children, 5,700 emergency room visits, and 540,000
days of missed work. Again, the rule provides $3 to $9 in benefits for
every $1 that is invested.
We are going to hear other arguments from the opponents of the
Environmental Protection Agency, but the people of America are smart.
They were asked just 2 months ago if they want us to interfere with the
Environmental Protection Agency as they clean up the air, clean up the
mercury, clean up the toxic soot, and 78 percent said: Stay out of it,
politicians, and let the Environmental Protection Agency do its job.
We should thank the coal companies that have already cleaned up their
act and not reward those that have delayed cleaning up their act.
Again, we will hear all kinds of horror stories. Ask the utilities
that have made these improvements. We have a list of them somewhere.
We will also hear there will be lost jobs from this rule. We know
there will be 46,000 short-term construction jobs as these plants
become clean and 8,000 long-term jobs.
Now look at the utilities that oppose the Inhofe CRA. They include
Austin Energy, Avista Corporation, Calpine Corporation, Constellation
Energy, Exelon, National Grid, NextEra Energy, NYPA, Public Service
Enterprise Group, and Seattle City Light. Some of these have coal-fired
powerplants. They say: What are we doing? Let's keep moving toward
clean energy.
I asked if we trust politicians or do we trust those who, I believe,
are unquestionably character witnesses in this debate. Let's look at
some of them that oppose what Senator Inhofe is trying to do today. The
Catholic Health Association of the United States, Evangelical
Environmental Network, Franciscan Action Network, General Baptist
Convention, General Conference of American Rabbis, National Council of
Churches, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries,
United Methodist Church, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They
oppose what my friends on the other side are leading us to today, a
repeal of clean air rules.
Whom do we trust, the politicians or some of these groups that
strongly oppose this resolution--the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the American Association of Respiratory Care, the American Heart
Association, the Lung Association, the Nurses Association, the Public
Health Association, the March of Dimes, the Physicians for Social
Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 6 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, and
then I will yield and retain the balance.
Here is the chart I wished to show on utility prices. We have heard
doom and gloom. Here are the facts. There was hardly any fluctuation in
utility rates when half the coal-fired plants made these improvements.
Do not fall for scare tactics because we know upgrading a utility is
something that has to be done. It is built into the long-term plans of
these utilities.
What poisonous emissions does this clean air rule address? I talked
about it before. In the balance of my time I will go through it again,
but I am going to just name these toxins: mercury and lead, arsenic,
selenium, cadmium, chromium, benzene, formaldehyde, acid gases, and
toxic soot. All we need do is listen to what I said and we know we
don't want to breathe them in and we don't want to have fish that
contain too much mercury because it damages the nervous system in
children and harms the brains of infants. We know how dangerous it is
for pregnant women and children to eat this type of fish.
Last night, we had Senator Whitehouse here from Rhode Island, and he
was eloquent on the point. He had a picture, which was actually a
Norman Rockwell painting--it wasn't a real painting, it was a wonderful
poster. He said: Here is a perfect American scene of a grandpa taking a
grandson fishing. He said that today, in his State, they can't eat the
fish. Maybe they can once a month eat one fish, and in some of their
lakes, they can't even eat any.
This is wrong. This is pollution blowing from other places into the
Northeast. Let's defeat this resolution. It is bad for the people of
this country.
I yield the floor and retain the balance of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. The question was asked by the Senator from California:
Whom do we trust most, elected Senators or unelected bureaucrats?
I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. The question is, Is pollution getting better or worse? With
all
[[Page S4332]]
the hysteria, one would think: My goodness. Pollution is getting so
much worse. All measurements of pollution show we are doing a good job
and much better than we have ever done. Most of the emissions--the big
emissions, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide--have been going down for
decades. We are doing a good job with pollution.
This rule is about mercury. Powerplants emit this much of the
mercury, as shown on this chart. Do my colleagues know that over half
the mercury comes from natural sources? Forest fires emit more mercury
than powerplants do. We already have eight regulations at the Federal
level on mercury. We have a plethora of regulations at the State level.
The question is, Is mercury getting worse or is mercury lessening?
For the last 5 years, the amount of mercury that is being emitted has
been cut in half. If we measure mercury in the blood of women and
children, it is getting less. If we say: What is a safe level of
mercury in the blood, we are below that. If we look at populations who
eat nothing but fish, the Seychelles Islands, they have found zero
evidence that mercury is hurting any of them. When we look at mercury
emissions, they are going down.
So the question is, Are we going to have a balance in our country?
Does the other side care whether people work? We can do everything
possible to try to eliminate this last 1 percent, but the question is,
At what cost? Many are estimating 50,000 people are going to lose their
jobs. Do we care if people have a job? Yes. We want to be safe, but
there has to be a balancing act.
The question we have to ask is: Is the environment cleaner or worse
off? The environment is so much cleaner than it used to be. The rules
in place are somewhat balanced and are keeping pollution under control.
What we don't want to do is go so far over the top that we lose jobs.
This new rule is estimated to lose 50,000 jobs.
I think the American people need to have a say in this. We don't need
to give up that power to unelected bureaucrats we can't remove from
office. Let's let our representatives get involved to have more of a
balance in the regulations.
I suggest we vote in favor of this resolution.
I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I understand our time has expired. I ask unanimous
consent that Senator Kyl have 2 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, S.J. Res. 37 is very important.
If passed, this resolution would overturn one of the most costly and
unnecessary regulations ever adopted by the EPA. Unless we in Congress
act, that regulation, Utility MACT, would establish the first ever
``maximum achievable control technology''--or MACT--standards for
``hazardous air pollutant''--or HAP--emissions from powerplants.
The Clean Air Act only allows the EPA to set MACT standards for HAP
emissions if it can establish a hazard to public health that would make
such regulatory action ``appropriate and necessary.''
In December 2000, just as a new administration was set to take
office, the Clinton EPA, under great pressure from special interests,
promulgated a Utility MACT rule based on public health concerns about
mercury. The data simply do not support that regulation.
First of all, mercury does not pose health risks via inhalation, but
rather only after entering water bodies and accumulating as
methylmercury in the aquatic food chain. For humans, the primary route
of mercury exposure is through eating fish. Accordingly, the EPA itself
has acknowledged uncertainties about the extent of public health risks
that can be attributed to electric utility mercury emissions, and it
admits that ``there is no quantification of how much of the
methylmercury in fish consumed by the U.S. population is due to
electricity emissions.
We now know too that the EPA's projections for major increases in
mercury emissions from powerplants at the time were grossly inaccurate.
The agency estimated that emissions would increase from 46 tons in 1990
to 60 tons in 2010. But, in fact, they actually declined to just 29
tons in 2011--more than 50 percent below the projections--and all
without the MACT rule.
Moreover, the studies EPA relied upon about methylmercury exposure in
children and women of childbearing age have also been found to have
inflated health risks. More recent research undertaken by the CDC
indicates that Americans are not being exposed to levels of mercury
considered harmful to fetuses, children, or adults. Additionally, both
the FDA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry have
recommended regulatory levels for mercury that are significantly less
stringent than the EPA's reference dose.
With respect to nonmercury hazardous air pollutants--or HAPs--the EPA
does not set actual limits for those emissions. Instead, it uses limits
for fine particulate matter emissions in the standard as a surrogate
for a variety of HAPs under the rule. While EPA calls the benefits
associated with reducing particulate matter ``co-benefits'' of
establishing the Utility MACT regulation, it has also stated that such
reductions are not the primary objective or justification for the rule.
If that is the case, then why are more than 99 percent of the rule's
claimed health benefits due to projected reductions in particulate
matter? I am all for incidental health benefits--it is always nice to
get more bang for the buck--but that's simply not what is going on
here.
Double-counting the benefits from reducing particulate matter as a
Utility MACT benefit is, at best, misleading. Indeed, if 99 percent of
the quantified health benefits cited in the rule are not due to
reductions in HAPs, can we really call the Utility MACT rule
``appropriate and necessary?''
The EPA is trying to pull a fast one by regulating particulate
matter--a non-HAP--under the guise of concern about mercury. The agency
already regulates particulate matter emissions under the Clean Air Act,
and it has been doing so for 15 years. If it believes there are
benefits to further reducing particulate matter emissions, it already
has the power to do so; adopting S.J. Res. 37 would not prevent such
EPA action.
Once the coincidental co-benefits from reducing particulate matter--
estimated to be $33 billion to $89 billion, or $3 to $9 in health
benefits for every dollar of cost--are excluded from Utility MACT, the
EPA's own cost benefit analysis demonstrates that the health benefits
of the rule are far outweighed by its costs. The EPA estimates that
implementing the Utility MACT rule would cost $9.6 billion in 2016, and
that reductions in mercury emissions would provide just $0.5 to 6
million in health benefits in the same year. This means that, even in
the best case scenario, the cost of Utility MACT will exceed its
estimated benefits by a factor of 1,600 to 1.
Sixteen hundred to one.
The cumulative costs and consequences of this and other EPA
regulations are both real and substantial. Final and pending EPA
regulations will reduce the diversity of America's energy portfolio,
increase energy prices, eliminate jobs, and threaten electric
reliability.
With regard to our energy portfolio, we are already seeing negative
effects. Coal's share of electric power generation recently dropped to
just 34 percent, the lowest level we have seen since the 1970s. As a
result, utility companies have already announced plans to shut down
more than 25,000 megawatts of electricity rather than upgrade plants
with costly new emissions control technology. These changes in our
energy portfolio are just the tip of the iceberg. The North American
Electric Reliability Corporation--or NERC--estimates that EPA
regulations will lead to an additional retirement of 36,000 to 59,000
megawatts of electricity generation. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's Office of Electric Reliability has stated that EPA
regulations would likely shutter 81,000 megawatts.
These plant closure predictions from nonpartisan reliability
organizations are 8 times higher than EPA's estimates of just 10,000
megawatts. The closures caused by EPA regulations will not just affect
our energy mix--they will also affect grid reliability.
[[Page S4333]]
NERC has said that EPA regulations pose the No. 1 threat to grid
reliability.
But these reliability organizations are not the only ones concerned
about the EPA's effect on coal and coal power generation. Earlier this
month, Moody's changed its outlook on the coal industry to
``negative,'' largely blaming the EPA for the downgrade. As Moody's put
it in a statement:
A regulatory environment that puts coal at a disadvantage
along with low natural gas prices, have led many utilities to
increase or accelerate their scheduled coal plant
retirements.
It continued:
In addition, newly proposed carbon dioxide regulations
would effectively prohibit new coal plants by requiring new
projects to adopt technology that is not yet economically
feasible.
I have witnessed the EPA's attempts to reshape the energy industry
through regulation in my home State.
Arizona relies on coal-fired power for its base-load electricity.
Coal mining and plant operations are an important employer and economic
engine for Arizonans and, specifically, for our Indian Tribes. As just
one example, take the Navajo Generating Station--or NGS--a 2,250-
megawatt facility located on the Navajo Nation's reservation.
The NGS was constructed as part of a negotiated settlement with
environmental interests that, at the time, preferred a coal-fired
powerplant to a hydropower dam project in the Grand Canyon. It provides
more than 90 percent of the pumping power for the Central Arizona
Project, Arizona's primary water delivery system. The plant and the
coal mined to operate it play a vital role in the economies of the
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, not to mention the State as a whole.
A study prepared by Arizona State University's Seidman Institute
concluded that the NGS and its associated mine will account for over
$20 billion in gross State product--GSP--almost $680 million in
adjusted State tax revenues, and more than 3,000 jobs.
Yet, the station's future viability is now directly threatened by
Utility MACT and other pending EPA regulations. Right now, the EPA is
undertaking an NGS-specific rulemaking to determine whether additional
emissions control technologies should be installed at the station for
purely aesthetic visibility reasons, rather than actual health
concerns. That rulemaking could require the installation of emissions
controls at a cost of more than $1.1 billion.
That is just one power station--just one--$1.1 billion. And we don't
even know yet what the estimated cost of compliance with Utility MACT
might be.
Steve Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation EPA, said this
about EPA's regulatory approach:
EPA's one size fits all' approach to rulemaking fails to
acknowledge or address the specific concerns and impacts to
the Navajo Nation, as well as regional impacts. Making
matters worse, EPA's uncoordinated approach to rulemakings
impacting the same industries creates regulatory uncertainty,
increases compliance costs, and puts at substantial risk the
national and regional economies, critical jobs of Navajo
people, and the very viability of the Navajo government.
I couldn't agree more.
The consequences of a shutdown of the Navajo Generating Station would
be felt throughout the State, and even by the Federal Government.
However, a shutdown would most acutely impact Indian tribes, whose
economies and access to affordable water are highly dependent on the
NGS.
Thus, the consequences of the EPA's regulatory war on coal go far
beyond the coal industry itself. Real people in my State and across the
country will pay the price.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us
today. I am all for clean air. I don't know a single colleague who
would take the opposite view. And I can assure my friends on the other
side of the aisle that we are firmly antimercury contamination as well.
But that is not really the question here.
It is not a matter of clean air versus dirty air, or mercury
contamination versus no mercury contamination. These are false
choicest. We can have clean air and a healthy economy. We can reduce
mercury levels and reduce unemployment. But we have to be smart about
how we regulate.
Utility MACT is simply a bad regulation. It is refuted by the very
science used to justify its promulgation. Moreover, its economic
effects would be negative and far-reaching, while its estimated
benefits would be minimal and hardly worth the significant costs. And
it would make domestic energy generation more difficult at a time of
rising energy demand.
With growing unemployment, huge deficits, and anemic growth, this is
also the wrong time to be whacking our economy with one of the most
expensive and far-reaching regulations ever to come from the EPA.
We have to be smart about this, and Utility MACT is just not a smart
regulation.
I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 37 and help overturn this
misguided, job-killing rule.
Again, I will simply say at this point that adopting this resolution
is very important to prevent the implementation of a regulation which I
think has very clearly been established. It does not meet the test that
would be required for the promulgation of a public health regulation
and fails any test of cost-benefit analysis.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to think about the effect on the
industry, on the people of America, on the economy at this time, and
adopt the resolution offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I understand there is 1 minute
remaining, so let me just clarify a couple things.
First of all, several have made comments about the Clean Air Act. I
was supportive of the Clean Air Act. It has done a great job, and I
think that should be clarified.
We have had three medical doctors testify as to the health
implications on this.
I would only say this: If we are truly concerned about what is
happening, keep in mind what the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski,
said. The maximum achievable control technology is not there. So if we
vote against this amendment and they allow this rule to continue, we
are effectively killing coal in America that has accounted for almost
50 percent of our industry.
I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Am I correct that there is 4 minutes remaining on my
side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield 1 of those minutes to Senator Pryor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator from California.
Right now, when we open the paper and when we turn on the evening
news, we see these ads for clean coal. We need clean coal. We are akin
to the Saudi Arabia of coal. They say we have 400 years' worth of coal
supply in this country. We have the technology now to take 90 percent
of the mercury out and a lot of the particulates and we should do it.
This is our chance to do it.
This is a rule that has been 20 years in the making. This is not
something people dreamed up over the last couple years. This has been
20 years in the making, and Congress has mandated we do this.
I would say this in my part of the closing: We should not have to
make a false choice. We don't have to be anticoal and prohealth. We can
be both. We can do what is good for the health of the country and good
for coal; that is, have clean coal, uphold this rule, and vote against
the Inhofe resolution.
I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma said I asked:
Whom do we trust more, politicians or bureaucrats? No; that is not what
I said. I said: Whom do we trust more, politicians or groups such as
the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of
Respiratory Care, the American Heart Association, the Lung Association,
the nurses, the March of Dimes, et cetera. I believe that when it comes
to the trust of the public, these groups have one concern and that
concern is the health of our people. That is why we have to defeat this
resolution and allow the Environmental Protection Agency, after 20
years, to finally promulgate a rule that
[[Page S4334]]
will go after the worst toxins that are coming out of coal-fired
plants.
I will go through a few of these. Mercury is a heavy metal that can
damage the nervous system in children and harm the brain of infants,
causing slower mental development and lower intelligence. Why do we
want to take a stand against the children and their brain development?
Mercury can accumulate in the food chain. We know this. What happens is
people--especially pregnant women and children--can't eat fish because
of the high content of mercury.
Then there is lead. These are the things we are talking about getting
out of the air. Lead can damage the nervous system of children and harm
the brains of infants, causing slower mental development and lower
intelligence.
There is no known safe level of lead in the blood of children. This
is indisputable fact. It can harm the kidneys and cause high blood
pressure, damage reproduction, cause muscle and joint pain, nerve
disorders. Why would anyone--why would anyone stand on this floor and
say it is OK to allow these toxins to be polluting our environment?
Arsenic is a heavy metal that causes cancer, damages the nervous
system, kidneys, and liver. Powerplants account for 62 percent of all
the arsenic pollution we are fighting against. Why would anyone who
cares about the people they represent vote for this resolution and stop
the EPA from cleaning up our air?
Vote no. There is no reason to risk the health of the American people
by voting for the utility CRA resolution. If the resolution passes and
if that resolution were to become the policy of this country,
thousands--hundreds of thousands of Americans every year would be
harmed. This is not rhetoric, this is fact. Scientists have told us
this. The health groups have told us this.
I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Landrieu
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Wicker
NAYS--53
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Kirk
The motion was rejected.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if I could have the attention of the
Senate, we did very well yesterday. We have a lot to do. We have to
work on this. We have flood insurance. Both are important issues.
This is going to be a 10-minute vote. The order that has been entered
is that all the remaining votes are 10 minutes. We had a 15-minute vote
on the first one. I know there are a lot of things going on today, but
we are going to have to work around them. That is the most important
part of our job--voting. So let's work. Let's try to get out of here.
We are going to try to finish this bill tonight.
____________________