STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
JOINT EPW-JUDICIARY HEARING
ON EPA'S NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 10:00 am, SD-106
Thank you, to both of the
chairmen, for holding this joint EPW and Judiciary Committee hearing on the New
Source Review Clean Air program. Unfortunately, for those who actually care
about clean air, and not just litigation, policies, and regulations, you will
be sorely disappointed.
So why are we hear today? I think
it may have more to do with factors other than improving air quality. For the
information of my Judiciary Committee colleagues, the Environment Committee
last month scuttled further electric utility pollution cuts in NOx, SOx, and
mercury in order to make a political point about carbon dioxide.
Today, we will spend time
discussing an obscure program that was just an afterthought in the technical
amendments of 1977. We won't even discuss the successful part of the program
which ensures that new facilities will not further harm regional air quality.
The Clean Air Act has brought
America major air quality improvements. Since peaking in 1975, electric utility
air emissions of S02 are now 5 million tons lower per year. In
response to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, utilities cut NOx 2 million tons
per year. The major NSR enforcement cases begun by the last administration in
1999 are responsible for none of these air pollution decreases.
The recent enforcement cases are
most striking in that they do not involve a single violation of an air
emissions permit. Many, especially in the environmental regulation community,
like to measure damage to the environment in terms of pollution discharge or
emissions permit violations. If that is the test, then these cases are of no
value to the environment.
Not one case alleges that a
utility exceeded its government permitted air emissions levels. These are all
construction permits we are fighting over. Most cases involve only potential
increases in emissions levels. Those plants which increased their actual
emissions were still below the levels allowed by the government in their
emissions permits.
The other point that amazes me
about this debate is how the greatest benefit of NSR reform, energy efficiency,
suddenly has no value to the environment. We spent much of the Spring in the
Senate debating the energy bill. One of the most important issues for
environmental advocates was promoting greater energy efficiency. The more
efficiently we generate and use energy, the less damage we do to the
environment.
However, advocates of the NSR
program abandon their environmental friends' energy efficiency arguments. Fuel
efficiency improvements recommended for cars, trucks and air conditioners now
shouldn't apply to electric utilities.
We will also hear charges today
that the current administration is halting enforcement suits and rolling back
environmental protections. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have a quote here from a new
administrator before she took office. One of her pledges was to, "examine
ways to simplify and streamline the New Source Review process [and] to reduce
chances of legal challenge." No, this wasn't Governor Whitman; this was
Carol Browner.
This shouldn't be surprising since
all of the rules this administration announced in June that it will finalize
were proposed under the Clinton Administration by the Carol Browner EPA. Either
the rollbacks began in 1996 under the last administration or the substance
isn't so bad after all. It's just the new messenger they don't like.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration
continues to bring more NSR cases. EPA announced just last week that it filed a
notice of violation for alleged NSR violations against two coal-fired plants in
Colorado. That is hardly taking the cop off the beat.
I urge my
colleagues who are serious about improving air quality to get back to the real
work at hand -- passing a three-pollutant bill that will bring a new generation
of air pollution cuts for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides and mercury. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on that measure.
Thank you.