Opening Statement of Senator Bob Smith
Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public
Works
Hearing on Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of
Multi-Pollutant Legislation
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Mr.
Chairman, I know this is an issue that you and I share a deep commitment to,
and I really appreciate you calling this hearing.
A
couple of years ago, I began a process as chairman of the committee with all
stakeholders on this issue to begin trying to achieve bipartisan consensus to
reduce emissions and to provide the National with cleaner, healthier air. It was very clear to me as we held those
meetings that without bipartisan consensus, it would be very difficult to pass
legislation on the Senate floor.
I
think back to MTBE which, with your help, we passed out of this committee,
brownfields last year, the restoration of the Everglades. There were many, many differences, but we
kept the common ground on the issues where we agreed and moved the legislation
forward. We kept that bipartisan
consensus even though in some cases people on the left wanted more in or out,
and in some cases on the right, I wanted more in or out. We kept it on common ground, stayed with the approach, and were
successful. I am proud of that. Providing clean, healthy air is no different. This is a worthy goal.
It
is amazing although it may not seem obvious that with one exception, we are not
that far off. The exception is carbon
dioxide. There is a difference of
opinion on carbon dioxide, but other than that, the Democratic proposal, your
proposal, and the President's proposal, have very similar, dramatic reductions
in unhealthy emissions. I hope we don't
let our disagreement on carbon dioxide stop us from moving forward on the
common ground that we have.
Let
me make an observation. I think prior
to the election of President Bush, if somebody had said that he would come
forth with a proposal to reduce by 70 percent Nox, SO2, and mercury from our
Nation's power plants, we probably would have heard howls of disbelief. Now that that has happened, all we are
hearing are howls that it is not enough.
We
are working closely with the White House to make this effort a success. Senator Voinovich has just been tremendous
in his support as we have worked together.
Even though we have differences in my State and his State in terms of
the air problems, we have worked together.
As I have said many times in this committee, a company from New Durham,
New Hampshire, Power Span, is working with a utility in Ohio to reduce NOx,
SO2, and mercury, and they are having tremendous success. I commend you, Senator Voinovich, for your
cooperation on this with me.
We
do need to have an honest discussion, Mr. Chairman, on the Clear Skies
Initiative. I have told the President
that to me it is a starting point. It
would get us into the debate and that is why I support bringing this initiative
forward. If we do, I am optimistic that
we will be able to achieve bipartisan consensus. The Clear Skies proposal will do the job it was designed to do B reducing
emissions. I think, with all due
respect, it will do it faster and cheaper than current law. It is worth just taking a look at a brief
comparison of the President's proposal and Senator Jeffords' bill.
This
chart shows the reductions of SO2 under the Jeffords proposal and the
President's proposal. The red is Clear
Skies and the dark is the Jeffords proposal.
As you can see, when we get down to 2020, they are very close. So it is not so far apart that we can't
reach some consensus. I just want to
point out that in the end, Clear Skies calls for a 73 percent reduction and the
Jeffords bill calls for 79 percent reduction from current levels, so we are
talking about
6 percent in the year 2020.
The
second chart that I have relates to nitrogen oxide emissions. Again look at the comparison in 2020. The President's proposal reduces emissions
by 67 percent and Senator Jeffords' proposal by 70 percent from current levels. So clearly, there is enough common ground
that we could work a compromise on that one.
We
don't have any particular charts for mercury.
However, as I mentioned, with some of the new pilot projects that are
going on, there are some dramatic reductions in mercury being done by some of
the new technology. So when it comes to
the protection of public health, Clear Skies and S. 556 are close enough that
we can find the common ground we need.
Currently,
EPA estimates that 305 counties failed the new ozone standards and 140 failed
the new soot standards. Under Clear
Skies, both of these numbers dropped to 27 counties. That is a pretty big gain in healthy counties under the
President's proposal. Under Senator
Jeffords' proposal, it drops to 21.
There again, we are very, very close, by getting similar results.
If
there is a major difference between the two proposals, I think it is cost. That is something I hope we can look
at. While the reductions in emissions
are similar under Senator Jeffords' proposal, there is a greater burden on the
economy. Maybe even more important than the cost is the effect on our national
security. We have 460 years worth of
coal reserves in this country versus 65 years worth of natural gas. Let me say that again, we have 460 years of
good coal reserves and 65 years of natural gas.
Now,
look at the fuel mix under this chart.
S. 556 would cause fuel switching from coal to natural gas. You can see in the first chart where it says
coal, second is natural gas and natural gas spikes and coal goes down. So we are not keeping that diversification
that we have had in our fuel mix for sometime.
We are taking a dramatic turn in the fuel mix and using natural gas,
which is somewhat limited, instead of coal, which is much more prevalent.
I
respect your commitment, Mr. Chairman.
I have no issue here with that, but I hope we can move toward energy
independence and not increase our dependence on foreign sources which is what I
think would ultimately happen.
I
think there is one more chart on the cost and then I will wrap up here. Coal is abundant and cheap. It needs to be cleaner and we are doing a
lot to do that. If you can see here,
the green is the cost, the Clear Skies Initiative is in the middle with $6.4
billion, cleaning up the emissions that are out there and $17 billion under S.
556. So it is almost triple the cost.
I
know that Senator Jeffords' cost proposal does have carbon in the mix, to be
fair, and that is correct, but even if you take out carbon, the Jeffords
proposal is still about 55 percent more expensive.
Let
me conclude on the issue of carbon dioxide.
No bill that includes a mandatory carbon piece is going to pass the U.S.
Senate, whether we like it or not. So I
would say, Mr. Chairman, let us pass a bill that will reduce three emissions
dramatically, come to an agreement and then let the Senate work its will, if we
need an amendment or whatever. If the
Senate passes it, it passes it; if it rejects it, it rejects it. The point is we can then move to a further
discussion of CO2 later on.
During
the debate on the energy bill a couple of months ago, three times the Senate
voted against carbon limitations. It is
worth noting they were bipartisan votes; it is not going to pass. It is too important to have us get bogged
down because of this one issue where we have some dramatic disagreements. The fact is mandatory carbon caps will kill
an emissions reduction bill. I do not
want to kill an emissions reductions bill.
I do not see any reason why, if we disagree on carbon, we should
continue to inhale more mercury, more NOx and more SO2 over the next 20
years. It makes no sense to me.
If
we care about the health of our children, care about cleaner air, let us do the
right thing and go forward where we agree and fight over what we do not agree
on. Why fight over what we do not agree
on and not move forward with what we do agree on. I am the first to admit, I did not get everything I wanted in the
brownfields bill. I voted against
amendments right here in this chair that I supported because I knew if we passed
them, it would have broken the compromise and right now we are cleaning up
brownfields all over America.
I
will accept my fair share of the blame for it in the sense that we kept
brownfields locked in with Superfund, we could not get Superfund reformed for
20 years, so all the brownfields were becoming Superfund sites and nobody was
cleaning them up. We took it out, we
passed it and that is what we need to do here.
I
did not get everything with MTBE either, but I needed to get MTBE out of the
water in my State. We accomplished that
with the legislation that passed that is now part of the energy package.
Mr.
Chairman, I would ask you, let us work together to pass a bill that makes our
air cleaner and healthier and one we know can be signed into law. I think that would be bipartisan on the
three emissions I spoke of.
Thank
you.