Disapproval of EPA Emission Standards Rule--Motion to Proceed--
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I think most Americans would agree it is important that we strike a proper balance between abundant and affordable energy and responsible standards of environmental performance. But too often in recent years, the energy-environmental balance has been lost. Restoring a sense of equilibrium is important for both the health of the American people and our Nation's economy. Although we see the need for this balance every day in Alaska, restoring it has become what I think is a national challenge. That is why I support Senator Inhofe's resolution to disapprove the mercury and air toxics standards or the MATS rule.
Congress has tasked the EPA with implementing laws to protect public health. That statutory obligation absolutely requires respect. But although the executive branch gets to make reasonable policy calls in performing that duty, its regulatory authority is strictly bounded by law.
Today's EPA too often seems to impose requirements that go beyond what is authorized or needed. This overreaching stifles the energy and natural resource production the Nation needs to restore prosperity and technological leadership, and the sad thing is the resulting rules do not credibly improve public health.
EPA is now proceeding with an unprecedented litany of new rules whose benefits are murky at best but whose costs are very real and detrimental to human welfare. The Nation can and must strike a better balance. Even in today's divided times, a broad consensus remains. Achieving affordable and abundant energy coupled with strong environmental standards is the right combination.
Most would also agree that energy and environment-related public policy decisions should be based on the facts and informed by rigorous scientific discourse. Applying this consensus shows that the devil is in the details. So let's look closely at the MATS rule. If this rule is allowed to stand, it will put electric reliability at unacceptable risk and raise electricity costs with very little, if any, appreciable benefit to human health.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation or NERC, which is the independent federally certified ``Electric Reliability Organization,'' recently reported that ``environmental regulations are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next ..... 5 years.'' That is the statement from NERC.
The members of the relatively small and apolitical groups of engineers who keep the lights on and administer electricity markets tell me they are worried not only about the reliability of electric service but about its affordability. I would like to speak to the affordability side in just a minute.
Reasonable regulation, clearly appropriate; and EPA has the discretion, indeed the obligation, to adopt balanced rules. But, unfortunately, EPA's approach has been aimed more at its statutory obligations. Through MATS and through other rules, EPA wants to influence how investments in energy production are made. So it has imposed a series of very stringent obligations that perhaps are not even achievable.
For example, the Institute of Clean Air Companies, which is an association representing emissions control technology vendors--these are the guys who sell all of this stuff--has asked EPA to reconsider MATS and has said:
Our member companies cannot ensure that the new final source [mercury] standard can be achieved in practice.
These are those who would make a profit off of selling these. They are saying they do not think that it can be achieved.
Even though I believe the United Mine Workers of America, who say their comments ``and like-minded [ones] to EPA on the proposed MATS rule were ignored,'' it does not have to be this way. EPA received thousands of pages of very detailed, very thoughtful proposals, for improving MATS.
About 150 electric generators filed their comments. Edison Electric Institute, as just one example, filed more than 75 pages of very precise observations for improving MATS. They suggested many very specific changes. The States were active too. Twenty-seven States are seeking significant changes in the proposal. There were almost 20 petitions for reconsideration pending at EPA, and they are pending now. Thirty petitions have been filed for judicial review. Twenty-four States have asked the courts to force EPA to do better with MATS.
I always say we need to give credit where credit is due. On the treatment of condensable particulate matter--not many of us are focused on condensable particulate matter--EPA has made some good changes with regard to that, between the proposed and the final MATS rule. This dramatically reduced the need for construction of expensive pollution control devices known as ``bag houses.''
By itself, this one change to the proposed rule reduced the overall cost of compliance by billions of dollars, and it relieved somewhat the challenges of maintaining electric reliability while achieving compliance with the rule. Adopting a more reasonable approach in this one area did not sacrifice any appreciable benefit. So more must be done. Congress must tell the EPA to revisit other suggestions for similar improvements.
Why the need to keep forcing the improvements? The vast majority of the benefits to EPA claims from MATS are the result of its counting coincidental reductions of particulate matter below standards that EPA has determined are sufficient to protect public health. Emissions of mercury by American powerplants have declined over the past 20 years without the MATS rule. EPA itself estimates the annual benefits of mercury reduction attributable to the rule at only $500,000 to $6 million but annual costs at almost $10 billion.
Finally, EPA's actions are driving up the cost of electricity too. PJM, which is the independent regional transmission organization that is responsible for coordinating the movement of wholesale electricity in all or part of 13 States, as well as in the Nation's Capital, reported 2-year capacity price increases of 390 percent, most of which it attributed to the cost of environmental compliance with a nearly 1,200-percent spike in northern Ohio.
PJM also plans for about $2 billion in additional transmission investment to maintain reliability in the face of EPA's rules. Clearly, these are significant costs that will be passed on to our consumers. I think MATS is a major rule that needs a major reset by Congress. EPA could then devise a new rule that is truly aimed at protecting public health and carrying out the law rather than trying to push a particular fuel, coal, out of the market.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source