Statement of
James M. Jeffords
Clean Air,
Climate Change and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee
Hearing on
S.485, the Clear Skies Act of 2003
May 8, 2003
It is always
important that the Committee collect information on the effects of legislation
on various sectors of the economy, including energy industries like natural
gas.
Of course,
however, this Committee’s first and foremost responsibility is to assure that
the nation’s laws are protective of public health and the environment. It is our job to set performance standards
for industry that are adequately protective and wherever possible, fuel
neutral. These standards should not be
skewed to protect any one industry, but should encourage sustainable economic
development.
The Clear Skies
proposal does not fit that criterion.
It is, as one analyst put it, “the best-case scenario for coal.” Almost a sweetheart deal. The proposal seems designed to protect 40-
or 50-year-old coal-burning power plants from any risk of having to meet modern
environmental standards or needs. That
is hardly fuel neutral and so does nothing to stimulate the development of methods
of burning coal more cleanly and efficiently.
I have grave
concerns that Clear Skies will do a much worse job than the current Clean Air
Act when fully and faithfully implemented.
Clear Skies’ caps are too weak, the deadlines are too late, and state’
authorities are too degraded.
Because of these
flaws, the bill would delay attainment in many areas, forcing millions of
people to breath unhealthy air longer than the current Act allows. That is an outcome that I’m not willing to
accept.
As I have noted in
previous hearings, quality and timely information is crucial if we’re ever
going to work out a compromise on multi-pollutant legislation that can be
supported by this Committee.
Unfortunately, such information has been hard to come by from this
Administration. I am starting to
believe that this is because they are
not interested in compromise.
Governor Whitman
promised me in February that the information flow would improve, but I’m still
waiting on answers to questions from March.
Perhaps Mr. McSlarrow can explain today why the Department of Energy has
completely failed to provide an NSR document log that it promised on September
25, 2002, would be delivered to the Committee on October 24, 2002.
In addition, at
some point very soon, the Administration will have to explain why they are not
allowing EPA to run emissions and economic modelling for the Federal Advisory
Committee working on the utility MACT rule.
Without objection,
I’d like to place in the record NESCAUM’s effort to analyze what EPA won’t.
The
Administration’s behavior on this issue makes me think that they don’t want
information in the public domain if it might show the mercury caps in Clear
Skies are above what is achievable and cost-effective with today’s technologies. This failure to deliver promised information
looks like intentional derailing of the utility MACT rule. At the right time, I hope the court
enforcing the consent decree will note the Administration’s bad faith on this.
Mercury is a
potent air toxic emitted by coal-burning power plants. Emissions must be reduced quickly and
deeply. I ask that a letter on mercury
from more than 200 state and local conservation organizations and officials be
included in the hearing record.
I would also like
to place into the record a letter from a coalition of public health and
environmental organizations stating their strong support of the current Clean
Air Act.
Finally, most
projections indicate that new electricity generation will come largely from
natural gas for mainly economic reasons.
Most of that generation will be for peaking power, and those natural gas
facilities that are new baseload will be replacing older inefficient natural
gas-fired plants and not replacing coal.
According to the
testimony of today’s witnesses and experts in the natural gas industry, there
will be plenty of natural gas to meet the projected growth in demand for
electricity.
But, if coal wants
to expand its market share beyond the current 55% it now enjoys and really
grow, then the test is simple:
Produce power that
meets the public health and environmental needs of America today and into the
future.
- 30 -