Witnesses
Panel 1
The Honorable Gina McCarthy 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency

 

Panel 2
Collin O'Mara 
Secretary, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control for the State of Delaware
Bryan Shaw
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Sue Tierney 
Managing Principal, Analysis Group, Inc.
Barbara Walz
Sr. Vice President Policy and Environmental, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
David Carpenter
Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany

 

Subcommittee Members Present
Thomas Carper (D-DE), Chairman
John Barrasso (R-WY), Ranking Member
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)

 

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety held a hearing on June 30, 2011 to review the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations replacing the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). The rules are intended to give state by state limits on emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury from power plants. The new rules would affect thirty one states and the District of Columbia.

 

In his opening statement, Chairman Thomas Carper (D-DE) stated the importance of maintaining and enforcing high air quality. He described efforts at the state level to combat air pollution, yet cautioned that “air pollution knows no boundary.” While his state and many others are making efforts to decrease air pollution, he said if there is not enforcement on the regional and national level, then those efforts lose value. As an example, he pointed out that Delaware is downwind of other states that are not implementing as high of regulations on air quality. The ranking member of the full committee, James Inhofe, submitted his testimony for the record, though he was not present.

 

Contrasting the chairman, ranking member of the subcommittee Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) stated the importance of job creation for our economy.  His concern was that although clean air is important for public health, unemployment is also detrimental to the public’s health. Quoting Dr. Harvey Bronner from a testimony at a previous hearing, “the unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological studies performed since the early 1980’s.” He cited that the new regulations EPA is considering will cost consumers $184 billion in increased energy costs and will result in 1.44 million jobs lost. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said it was “nonsense” to not put in higher emission standards because of the cost for businesses. He stated “you can’t put a price on human life.” Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) expressed discontent with the “train wreck of rules and regulations coming out of EPA.” He acknowledged the importance of regulating pollutants such as mercury, yet was concerned about the negative economic impact of these regulations.

 

In her testimony, Gina McCarthy of EPA said these regulations would “dramatically improve air quality.” She acknowledged “we are not the first administration to recognize the need to clean up power plants and to issue rules to address that need.” Starting in 1989, with President George H.W. Bush’s proposal of what later became the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, power plant clean up has been a policy of the nation, she stated. During questioning, McCarthy stated EPA has done extensive research regarding the effects of the regulations and felt strongly about the benefits the regulations would bring.

 

The second panel began with a testimony by Colin O’Mara. O’Mara stated that Delaware has made significant improvements in air quality, yet “as much as ninety percent of our non-attainment problem comes from out-of-state sources and we face significant public health consequences as a result.” He urged that air pollution “is a regional challenge and as such requires a true regional solution.” Bryan Shaw stated in his testimony that “the resulting effect of increased cost of power and power shortages, such as rolling blackouts, would not only jeopardize the personal and economic health of Texas citizens, but also endanger lives.” He also expressed concerns on the results and methodology of the investigations EPA has conducted. “EPA misrepresents the risks associated with mercury emissions and ignores the negligible effects of this rule on risk reduction,” he said.

 

In her testimony, Susan Tierney supported the implementation of EPA’s two new rules, saying “this is do-able.” She stated the trade-off between reliable energy and clean air is not necessary, “the U.S. electric industry has a proven track record of doing what it takes to provide the reliable power supplies.” Barbara Walz was not in support of the new rules. In her testimony, she stated “these new compliance costs will be passed on directly to cooperative member-owners in the form of higher rates.” Additionally, she expressed concern about EPA’s data collection, arguing emission testing was done on a short notice and does not give accurate representation of the air quality. In the final testimony by David Carpenter, he stated that “air pollutants coming from power plants result in significant human morbidity and mortality…it is critical that every possible step be taken to reduce the release of these compounds as to protect human health.”

 

In response to a question from the chairman, O’Mara stated the regulations were not too tight and that companies in his state have already gone through cost-effective reductions of air pollutants. Barrasso expressed concern regarding other companies nationwide that have reported support for the new rules. He stated from a Wall Street Journal article that those companies have alternate incentives; by increasing the cost of coal production, natural gas consumption would increase and drive up prices. The companies in support of the rules produce natural gas and therefore would benefit from an increased “clearing price.”