STATEMENT BY BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS TO CONSIDER "THE CLEAN POWER ACT (S. 556)

November 1, 2001

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.First, I would like to welcome Governor Dean of Vermont.It is a pleasure to have you here, and I look forward to your testimony

I would also like to take a moment to welcome a fellow Coloradan, and the sole voice from the West testifying before this Committee, Mr. Dave Ouimette.Although I am pleased to see Mr. Ouimette, I must express my disappointment that this Committee has not sought greater representation from those west of the Mississippi.

Perhaps, it is fitting that Western states have a singular voice here today since such under representation mirrors the lack of deference that this bill gives to Western interests.

This bill fails to acknowledge the inherent differences between air quality in the East versus the West in several ways.First, S. 556 would impose significant reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions throughout the entire country.However, data raises issue whether the West even has a NOX problem at all.

Second, this bill ignores ongoing regional initiatives and approaches dealing with air issues particular to the West.For example, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is in consultation with the EPA to develop a Western sulfur dioxide reduction program on a reduction schedule far different from that proposed in S. 556.

Also, this bill does not allow for flexible solutions to local air problems to be addressed through local partnerships.A few years ago, through legislation passed in the Colorado state legislature, Xcel Energy entered into an agreement with the State to dramatically reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in the Denver metro area.That agreement represents an innovative partnership with industry and local residents to craft realistic solutions based on local preferences.This bill threatens the future of such agreements, and could undermine those already reached.

Furthermore, the inclusion of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in a reform bill of the Clean Air Act necessarily assumes that carbon dioxide is a pollutant when it clearly is not.The purpose of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not pollution abatement but combating green house gases.President Bush took a strong and brave position in opposing the Kyoto Protocol.Yet, this bill would have us circumvent our Commander-in-Chief and impose Kyoto-like reductions.Assuming that we were to include carbon dioxide as a pollutant and contradict our President, what would implementing the Kyoto reductions get us?

A new book by a European statistics professor, Bjorn Lomborg, found that implementing the Kyoto Protocol would cost the world’s industrialized nations $80 to $350 billion per year only to postpone warming by six years, from 2094 to 2100.Even former Clinton officials admitted that their projected costs to implement the Kyoto Protocol, at around $12 billion per year for the U.S. alone, were unrealistically low.

Where before this bill fails to account for air quality in the West, the carbon dioxide reduction provisions fail to acknowledge that more than 80 percent of electricity in Colorado is coal fired.Coal-burning facilities are major sources of carbon dioxide.Therefore, dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide disproportionately affects the West, and imposes additional costs on ratepayers who are already forced to deal with spikes and rolling blackouts.

If carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; if the dramatic reductions this bill calls for are unrealistic and costly; and if such reductions disproportionately disadvantage one region of the country that which is so under represented here today, then why are we addressing carbon dioxide in this bill?

To be honest, I don’t know.I hope that this is not an underhanded attempt to force our nation’s consumers to choose one energy source over another.Such action would not only be wrong, but be coming at the worst of times. 

In short, S. 556 amounts to an Eastern fix to address largely Eastern problems being forced on the West.I look forward to working with all of the members of this Committee to achieve a balanced, realistic, and flexible solution to reforming the Clean Air Act.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I ask that a copy of my statement be included in the Record.