OPENING STATEMENT
I commend the Chairman on
holding this hearing to hear testimony on compliance options for electric power
generators to meet new limits on carbon and mercury emissions contained in S. 556.
When drafting S. 556, I am afraid that the full committee Chairman has not come
close to fully considering all the issues associated with his proposal. If such
legislation is to ever be enacted into law, the compromise, unlike S. 556, must
contemplate and balance our nation's existing environmental achievements and
energy supply and security. I have four concerns with this legislation:
1.
S. 556 ignores regional differences
I
believe S. 556 to be inequitable to require an across the board reduction in
pollutants when states, such as Oklahoma, currently emit well below the
national averages. Oklahoma's environmental profile mirrors that of many
western states. Oklahoma does not have Mercury problems. In fact, according to
EPA, Oklahoma mercury emissions from coal fired utility boilers are 1.8% of the
nationwide total. Therefore, before we are asked to reduce our emissions even
further, other states in the Midwest and North East should be expected to get
their emission levels down to the levels cleaner states --like Oklahoma --are
today. It is ridiculous to impose percentage reductions on us --at enormous
marginal expense to Oklahomans -- before those regions who have significant air
problems do their part.
2.
S. 556 is horrible energy policy
By
limiting fuel options for power generation, increasing the cost of electricity
to Americans, and stopping the construction of new generating facilities, S.
556 is the very antithesis of sound national energy policy. This bill would
undo everything that proponents of a national energy policy have been fighting
for.
3.
S. 556 is also antithesis of economic stimulus
S.
556 would make the price and availability of energy an economic national
crisis. In Oklahoma, S. 556 would significantly change the source of energy
away from affordable coal to more expensive options --in addition to causing
power plant closures. Oklahoma depends upon coal for 61.2 per cent of our
power. This is because of coal's much lower fuel cost versus natural gas, and
coal is a clean source of energy.
The
result is Oklahoma utility rates are 19 percent less that the national average
power rate. Our utility rates are much lower than states that depend heavily
upon more expensive natural gas (e.g. New York, New Jersey, California) and oil/renewables
for generation. S. 556 would ensure that our rates would go through the roof.
Higher energy prices affect everyone. However, when the price of energy rises
that means the less fortunate in our society must make a decision between
keeping the heat and lights on or paying for other essential needs.
4.
Where is the New Source Review Reform?
Additionally,
S. 556 adds even more regulations to an already over-complex regulatory scheme,
which includes things such as New Source Review. As many of you know, I have
been saying for quite a while now that, unless reformed, EPA's NSR policies
will continue to interfere with our nation's ability to meet our energy and
fuel supply needs. S. 556 will just magnify this problem.
As
a Senator and grandfather, I want to ensure the cleanest environment for our
Nation. The real challenge with dealing with this issue isn't getting just
environmental protection or just affordable energy. The real challenge is
getting both. S. 556 does not even come close to getting us both. With that
being said, I reiterate my pledge to work with this Committee to develop
legislation on this matter of enormous importance.