Many have embraced the multi-emissions strategy . Of course the devil will be in the details and changing the Clean Air Act in any way is a challenging task. But if we are to ever see successful legislation, it must be an inclusive process. We proved last year with Everglades, and this year with Brownfields, that only through a cooperative, bipartisan approach can we get anything done. If we work together, there is no reason we cannot be successful in achieving a clean environment in concert with a strong economy and energy security.
The Question before us today is the consequence of emissions from our nation's fleet of power generators. As long as we have been producing electricity, we have been creating air pollution. But today, we generate a great deal more power per pound of pollution than ever before. But we can do better, and everyone in this room knows that.
We are not currently taking full advantage of the most modern, most efficient power generation available to us. Clearly our most effective zero-emissions power source is nuclear. But even in the field of fossil fuel-based generation we are not making full use of the technologies that allow for more power with less pollution.
We have so many opportunities with new technologies and innovative means to satisfy our energy needs and meet our environmental goals. Technologies that produce energy and make us good environmental stewards.
We still rely on power plants from the 1950's and 60's. Ironically, the biggest obstacle to utilizing these clean technologies is the Clean Air Act. The Status quo for power plants under the Clean Air Act is a regulatory maze that is neither effective nor efficient plus a combative regulatory relationship that does little to increase environmental protection and does too much to increase litigation, delay, and uncertainty. The current mandates actually discourage innovation. The fight over New Source Review (NSR) is stifling investments that would existing plants more clean and efficient.
The uncertainty over the vast array of rules has essentially stopped all Wall Street investment in newer and cleaner coal technologies. Even if you could get financing, siting such a facility under current law is almost inconceivable. We need to change this. We need to fix the Clean Air Act. However, we must also proceed carefully.
Coal is a part of our past and will be a part of our future. I know that many would like to end coal combustion in this country. I would caution them that is not only politically unachievable, but also it is unwise. More than half of this nation's electricity is derived from coal.
I have steadfastly maintained and advocated that we can get more power with less pollution. But not for one minute would I entertain the notion that we can do it, and meet the nation's energy needs, without coal. Nor can we achieve the desired results overnight.
This map indicates that coal use is spread evenly throughout the country. Every region of the nation could face economic consequences if we are irresponsible and too aggressive on our time-frames for reduction, or unrealistic about the levels of reduction.
The Chairman's bill is an important contribution to the debate on the future of the Clean Air Act. But it is not a complete package in my view. While the Jeffords bill addresses the notion of using a cap and trade system, it overlooks the need for regulatory certainty. If we are to unleash the innovative forces of the American market in the quest of better performance, then we must encourage investment. Investment will not come if the uncertainty is too high. The scores of regulatory hurdles in the Clean Air Act make investments in new, clean technology - especially for coal - highly speculative.
We simply cannot afford to turn our backs on coal - it is neither practical or in our national interest to do so. But the fact remains that coal is one of our dirtiest fuels. If we are to make significant gains in air quality and have efficient, affordable power we absolutely must encourage investment in clean and efficient coal combustion.
We will hear a great deal about the concerns raised by air pollution from the power that we all use. These are concerns that I take seriously and must be addressed. We can address them by calling for a specific limit on the level of emissions we will allow. At that point, the federal government should take a giant step back and let American ingenuity take over.
While it is the role of the government to set environmental thresholds, it shouldn't mandate how to get there. I don't think that any of us, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum, believe that the federal government is more innovative, efficient, or technically competent than the private sector. Instead of stifling, even punishing innovation, as is current practice, I want to provide incentives to be innovative, not only reach the cap, but to do better. This is about using the free-market process to reduce emissions. If we allow the flexibility for innovation, then technology that has already proven itself effective can find its way into the mainstream.
Finally, on Monday the Wall Street Journal weighed in on the question of using a market-based system for emissions reduction. I would ask that a copy of this editorial be included in the record along with my statement.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.