[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE GREEN AGENDA AND THE WAR ON COAL: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE OHIO VALLEY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
STIMULUS OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 31, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-170
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-591 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chairman
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York, Vice DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Ranking
Chairwoman Minority Member
CONNIE MACK, Florida JIM COOPER, Tennessee
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 31, 2012.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Robert Hodanbosi, Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control,
Ohio EPA
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 10
Mr. Andy Thompson, Ohio State Representative
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 17
Mr. Tony Ahern, CEO of Buckeye Power, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Mr. Tom MacKall, President, East Fairfield Coal Company
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Mr. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 60
THE GREEN AGENDA AND THE WAR ON COAL: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE OHIO VALLEY
----------
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus
Oversight and Government Spending
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:00 a.m., Ohio
University Eastern Campus, Shannon Hall, 45425 National Road
W., St. Clairsville, Ohio, Hon. Jim Jordan [chairman of the
subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Jordan and Kelly.
Also present: Representatives Johnson and McKinley.
Staff present: Christopher Hixon, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Oversight; Ryan M. Hambleton, Professional Staff Member; and
Alexia Ardolina, Assistant Clerk
Mr. Jordan. The House Oversight Subcommittee will come to
order. We are pleased to be here at the Ohio State University
Eastern Campus. If we could have Dean Richard Greenlee come
forward. Come right on up.
Mr. Greenlee. I want to welcome you to our campus. We are
glad you took the opportunity to use our fine facilities, and
we hope you have a very productive meeting.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Thank you so much for your
hospitality. We will start with opening statements and get
right to our first panel. We have two panels. We look forward
to hearing testimony from everyone.
Let me again thank the Dean and the University here for
allowing us to be here this morning. I also want to thank
Congressman Bill Johnson. We are in the fine district of the
Congressman, and we appreciate him joining us today, as well as
Congressman Kelly from Pennsylvania and Congressman McKinley
from West Virginia.
It is important and helpful for the Committee to hear
firsthand about the problems facing local communities across
the United States. We have come here today to learn about the
effects of the Obama administration's war on coal and the
impact of federal regulations on families and businesses here
in southeast Ohio.
Coal is very important to communities in this area and to
the nation as a whole. According to 2010 data from the U.S.
Energy Information Administration, in Ohio, Pennsylvania and
West Virginia, there are 765 coal operations employing over
32,000 miners. As of 2011, these three states account for over
20 percent of the coal production in the United States. Not
only is coal produced in this region, but it is used here, too.
As of 2010, Ohio derived 82 percent of its electricity from
coal. In Pennsylvania this figure was 48 percent. West Virginia
relied on coal for almost 97 percent of its electricity that
year.
America needs coal to provide nearly half of its entire
electricity. Coal is used so heavily because it is cheap,
reliable and abundant. Inexpensive and dependable electricity
is crucial to manufacturing operations, which is important to a
state like Ohio that depends on manufacturing to create jobs.
However, coal in this country is under assault by this
administration.
The President has made statements to indicate his support
for ending or significantly curtailing the use of coal and
other fossil fuels as an energy source. In 2008, as a
candidate, then Senator Obama said, quote, under my plan of a
cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily
skyrocket. Coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name
it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they
would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money.
Unfortunately it appears the President is making good on
his campaign promise. The present anti-coal philosophy has
found its way into the operations of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency among other parts of the
Administration. In fact, the EPA has been the most zealous in
enacting the President's philosophy. The agency has taken
unprecedented action by overstepping its Congressionally
approved authority under the Clean Water Act to slow down new
coal permits and to attempt to veto existing permits after they
have already been approved properly by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
EPA's assault on the industry has also taken a form of
rules that will make it harder to use coal. Local examples of
this assault include the Utility MACT rule which requires
extremely expensive upgrades to coal-fired power plants and the
Greenhouse Gas New Performance Standards for electric
generation units which would essentially ban the construction
of new coal-fired electricity generation facilities. These
regulations will cost billions of dollars and will result in
massive job losses.
I want to welcome today's witnesses. Thank you all for
being here. We are looking forward to hearing your testimony on
the impact of the EPA regulations and permitting issues on the
coal industry and on job creation and economic growth here in
southeast Ohio.
We also appreciate the attendance of the witnesses
representing EPA and look forward to their testimony on the
second panel. These witnesses represent two regional
administration offices that have jurisdiction over Ohio,
Pennsylvania and West Virginia. We look forward to hearing more
from them about the role that the EPA's regional administrators
play in implementing the policies of this Administration.
Again, thank you all for coming. We will get to our witnesses
here in just a minute.
First I want to yield to the gentleman from Ohio whose
district we are in, Congressman Johnson.
We have one housekeeping matter. Can we have unanimous
consent to have Mr. Johnson sit on the committee and
participant in this hearing?
Hearing no objection, Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
Excuse me. We need that for David as well. No objection. So
recorded.
Mr. Johnson you are recognized for your opening statement.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
yielding me time and for hosting this important hearing on the
Administration's War on Coal. I would also like to thank our
witnesses for taking the time to come and testify before us
today on this important issue.
Since taking office, this President and his Administration
has led an all-out fight against the coal industry. And the
fight has been a 2-front war, one on the production side of
coal and one on the market side of the coal industry.
On the production side, we have seen the EPA slow-wall
permitting for coal mines, and in one egregious case they even
retroactively vetoed a permit that had been approved by the
Army Corps of Engineers. But the EPA isn't the only department
in the Administration attacking the ability of coal companies
to mine our natural resources. The Department of the Interior
has been trying to rewrite the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone rule
since late January 2009, just mere days after this President
took office. By some estimates this proposed rewrite of the
Stream Buffer Zone rule could cost tens of thousands of direct
and indirect jobs and cause the price of electricity to
skyrocket.
Now, since I took office in 2011, I have been fighting
tooth and nail to stop the Administration from going forward
with this new rule, and I have introduced legislation to do
exactly that.
On the market side of the equation, the EPA has
aggressively placed standards on coal-fired power plants that
are unrealistic and uneconomical for utility companies to meet.
Power plants throughout the midwest are left with the
impossible decision of shutting down or spending billions of
dollars raised through rate hikes on consumers to meet the new
standards.
Down near my home of Marietta, Ohio, a large power plant
will close in the coming months because of these new standards.
Over 150 Ohioans will lose their jobs, and families and small
businesses will be left with higher utility rates. As a
candidate, as the chairman pointed out, the President told us
what his policies toward coal and coal-fired power generation
would do when he infamously said that if a company wants to
build a coal-fired power plant, they can, but it will bankrupt
them.
This President doesn't seem to understand that for states
like Ohio, which receives over 80 percent of its power from
coal plants, the people who are hit hardest are the seniors on
fixed income, hardworking families and the small businesses
that are the job engines of our economy.
In fact, the average American family has seen a $300 per
year increase in their utility bill since this President took
office, and that is a direct impact of his crippling coal
policies. Now, you can guarantee that this number will only go
up for Ohioans if the President's war on coal is not stopped
and is not stopped soon.
I would like to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for hosting
this important hearing and shedding light on this
Administration's economically destructive coal policies, and I
look forward to hearing the important testimony from our
witnesses.
With that I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the gentleman. Now I yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kelly, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I am not too far from here, over in Pennsylvania, and
there are a lot of my friends that are in the coal business.
Most of the time when I get a chance to talk to people, I talk
about a country that has been so blessed with natural
resources. Coal is abundant. It is accessible. It is
affordable. It is has been the backbone of our nation's
electric power for so long. About half of the electricity we
have in Pennsylvania comes us from coal.
When I hear people talk about coal, they talk about coal in
a way that I do not particularly care for. I know this
Administration does have a war on coal. Do not be fooled by the
small talk and the chitchat about they do not. I am telling you
there is a war on coal. There is a war on fossil fuels. This
Administration through the EPA has made it very difficult for
my friends that are in the coal business. They are making it
for difficult for Americans who rely on touching that switch
and flipping it on and having their lights come on, able to
cool their houses in the summer, able to light lights and do an
awful a lot of things and run their industry. When you hear
this going on day after day, week after week, month after
month, it is time to stop chitchatting and tap dancing around
the issues.
Now, listen, all of us want clean air. All of us want clean
water. But you know what we also want? We want our economic
freedom. Why in the world would we put this country at risk
with the abundance of natural resources that we have, the
abundance of coal that we have. 200 years' supply right here
beneath our feet.
Other places around the world would love to have what we
have. They look at us and they scratch their heads and say,
``What is it with you folks? Why would you put yourselves
behind the 8 ball? Why would you put yourselves in a position
where you can't power yourselves?''
Now, I am glad we are having this hearing today, and I am
glad that the public is here. I hope that America is paying
attention. There are very clear decisions in the way this
country is being run. For those of you who are not watching it
closely, please, please wake up and smell the coffee. We are at
dire risk of losing the greatest country in the world because
of an onerous government that keeps its boot on the throat of
our job creators, that keeps its boot on coal and does not want
coal as part of our energy production. Make no mistake about
it. That is what they are trying to do.
So the fact that we are here today and we are able to talk
to different witnesses and talk to people who do produce this
power and produce this product that allows America to rise to
the top, I sure welcome that chance.
We also have our friends at the EPA here. I got to tell
you, gentlemen, at some point someone better take a look at
what is happening in America. We cannot legislate and regulate
and make it impossible for America to continue its great
success if we keep up with these policies.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. Thank you so much
for having this hearing.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
The gentleman reminded me that the world is better and
safer when America leads. The simple fact is you cannot lead
militarily, you cannot lead diplomatically if you don't lead
economically. You cannot lead economically if you don't have
energy. The gentleman's comments about affordable, abundant and
accessible coal is critical to being able to lead in the energy
area and, therefore, being able to lead economically and,
therefore, make the world a better place. That is really what
is at stake here.
I appreciate the gentleman's comments from Pennsylvania.
They were right on target.
I would now yield to the gentleman from West Virginia for
his opening statement.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Chairman Jordan. Thank you for
holding this hearing today to expose this war on coal being
waged by the EPA and President Obama's Administration. The coal
that is mined here in eastern Ohio and throughout West Virginia
powers America and provides good paying jobs for thousands of
families and revenue for numerous state and local governments.
But the coal industry and the coal-fired electric
generating plants are under siege, and the future is indeed in
jeopardy. Under the pretext of global warming his playful
support of radical and environmental extremists and his passion
for renewable energy models, President Obama is relentlessly
pursuing a dangerous gamble of diminishing the contribution of
coal and our country's energy portfolio.
The President himself has said, as you have heard from
other speakers, that he may not be able to prevent coal-fired
utilities from being constructed, but the taxes and regulations
that he will impose will bankrupt those that try.
How about Secretary of Energy, Secretary Chu who said coal
is his worst nightmare. The leading speaker for energy in
America has said coal is his worst nightmare. Or Vice-President
Biden who has said the present Administration is not supporting
clean coal technology. Or what about Senator Reid who
announced, ``Coal makes me sick. It is ruining our country.''
Wait. What about the assault from the EPA. The coal
industry and the electric generating plants have had to deal
with issues like delayed water permitting, unreasonable water
conductivity expectation, a mercury emission standard that is
crippling the current plants, a threat of treating coal ash as
a hazardous material, regulating minute particulate matter
designated with virtual no health benefit but costing the
consumers billions of dollars, proposing New Source Performance
Standards when there is no technology available to perform that
standard, cooling water temperature, cross-state air pollution
standards, intimidation of state and local environmental
agencies by the powerful EPA, potential roadblocks permitting
companies from exporting coal and even natural gas and oil, and
then coupled with a 41 percent reduction in the R & D spending
of the Department of Energy's money for clean coal technology.
That is backed on the fact that last year, they had 39 percent
reduction in the R & D for clean coal technology.
This form of industrial harassment has already cost
utilities across America to initiate plans reluctantly to begin
the closure of approximately 125 power generating plants across
America out of the 700. That is a result of almost 25 percent
less power that's going to go into the grid because of this war
on coal. But keep in mind the EPA's own economic model only
predicted a 2 percent reduction. How wrong they have been.
The integrity of the grid, the ability of consumers and
manufacturers to have access to low cost electricity could very
well be put to the test in the coming years unless other
electrical generation from natural gas, oil, biomass, hydro,
wind, solar become available and dependable.
President Obama is depending on the environmental side of
this equation to shore up his argument for this war on coal.
Little, if any, of the global greenhouse gas emissions can be
achieved without comparably enforced environmental standards in
China and India. Both of these countries are seizing every
opportunity to expanded their economies using coal as a primary
energy source.
More specifically, China has been constructing the
equivalent of a new powerhouse, coal-fired powerhouse every
week for the last three years. 12 years ago the United States
and China were both producing and operating on a billion tons
of coal. 12 years later, China is now at 3,000,000,000 tons,
triple in just 12 years. They tripled their dependency and use
of coal whereas in America, we are still back at 1.1 billion,
but we are exporting the majority of that.
We all want clean, affordable and dependable energy with
increases, not reductions in money for R & D. We will get
there. The ideologues and regulators in Washington need to step
back and simply say to themselves just because you can doesn't
mean you should. Regulators need to slow down, take a close
look at the economic impact of their actions. Perhaps if these
regulators and bureaucrats got out of the Washington Beltway
and came over to America's coalfields here in eastern Ohio and
throughout West Virginia and toured the technological marvels
of our country's coal-fired powerhouses and met with the
hardworking men and women in these communities, perhaps then
they wouldn't turn their backs on our nation's coal industry.
Hopefully this hearing held today in the heart of Ohio's
coal belt will demonstrate once and for all that the coal
industry and our coal-fired utilities are clearly in an all-out
confrontation with the Obama Administration and its rogue
agency, the EPA. The outcome of this struggle, this war on
coal, will demonstrate how vital our communities will be in the
future and how manufacturers and consumers will react if king
coal is overthrown. I look forward to hearing more of the
testimony.
I yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the gentleman for his opening statement
which is right on target.
Let me introduce our first panel. We have Mr. Bob
Hodanbosi, who is the Chief of the Division of Air Pollution
Control at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
We have the Honorable Andy Thompson--good to have you with
us, Representative--who represents the 93rd District in the
Ohio House of Representatives, Mr. Anthony Ahern, who is
president and CEO of the Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc.
and Buckeye Power, Inc. and Mr. Tom Mackall who is the
president of Sterling Mine Corporation.
Gentlemen, I want to thank you. You know how it works. You
have to listen to us first. Then you get to go. You get five
minutes. If you can stick to that five minutes, that would be
great. We are kind of lenient. But one thing we have to do, and
it is the practice of the oversight committee is before we hear
from you, we want to swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Jordan. Let the record show that each witness answered
in the affirmative.
Mr. Hodanbosi you are recognized for your five minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF ROBERT HODANBOSI
Mr. Hodanbosi. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this
committee with information on the effects of the U.S. EPA
requirements on the coal industry in Ohio and surrounding
states. These series of new and additional standards continue
to increase the cost of using this important domestic fuel.
My name is Robert Hodanbosi. I am chief of the Division of
Air Pollution Control at Ohio EPA. I have almost 40 years of
experience in the field of air pollution control and have seen
great improvements in air quality in the Ohio Valley and
throughout the state. Attached is an example of the dramatic
improvement in sulfur dioxide concentrations in Ohio. This
improvement came at a substantial cost to Ohio utilities and
industry. This reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions even
further will require an even greater expense to obtain a
diminishing return in improvement in air quality.
There are several regulatory initiatives under way by U.S.
EPA that have a direct adverse impact on coal or the major
users of coal. In June of 2012 U.S. EPA promulgated a more
restrictive ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide at
75 parts per million one hour average. This new standard was
promulgated without the implementation requirements for states
to follow. U.S. EPA issued draft guidance on the air dispersion
modeling methodology that should be used in attainment areas.
Over 20 state and local air agencies expressed concern to
U.S. EPA over the proposed methodology. After these concerns
were raised by state and local air agencies and others, the
U.S. EPA held a series of stakeholder meetings to receive
comments on possible revisions to the guidance. We are still
awaiting the outcome of the meetings and guidance.
The Cross State Air Pollution rule was promulgated in 2011
to regulate the amount of emission of sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide from utilities that can affect downwind states.
This rule allows for limited trading of emissions. With the
continued tightening of ambient air quality standards, U.S. EPA
will be required to go back and promulgate even more
restrictive standards. This leads to more regulatory
uncertainty and increased cost to operate coal-fired power
plants, leading to increased use of coal.
On February 16, 2012, U.S. EPA promulgated the Utility
Mercury and Air Toxic rule to reduce emissions from coal-fired
power plants. This rule establishes very stringent standards
for emissions of mercury, particulate matter and hydrochloric
acid. The federal rule allows three years to comply with the
standards. So by February 16, 2015, all units must be in
compliance. U.S. EPA recognizes that the compliance date will
be difficult to achieve for many units, and state permitting
authorities have the ability to extend the compliance deadline
by one year. Ohio EPA already initiated preliminary discussions
with Ohio utilities to outline the documentation that will be
necessary to approve the 1-year extension.
What has been the result of all these U.S. EPA rules? There
have been a series of announcements by the utility companies
that over 25 boilers at power plants in Ohio will be closed.
These closures will have a direct impact on mining and use of
coal. Although these units are older, this does not mean that
these units are no longer used.
The Columbus Dispatch reported that some industrial
consumers were required to reduce electrical consumption due to
the lack of available electricity during a recent heatwave. For
American Electric Power Company in Ohio, except for the small
Picway unit, the other plants scheduled for shutdown were in
operation. Ohio EPA remains concerned that if there are spot
shortages of electricity today, the problem will be exacerbated
when Ohio loses significant electrical generation capacity due
to the closures as a result of the U.S. EPA requirements.
U.S. EPA has proposed standards for coal-fired utility
plants in the form of New Source Performance Standards. In the
proposal U.S. EPA sets the standard for new coal plants to be
the same as efficient new gas-fired plants. This proposed
standard has not been achieved in practice by any coal-fired
plant.
Another aspect of this rule is that both the news release
and preamble state that the rule only addresses new sources;
however, U.S. EPA signed a consent decree that commits the
agency to regulate new, modified and existing sources. Once
this NSPS rule is promulgated, U.S. EPA will have no choice but
to go forward on regulating existing sources under 111(d) of
the Clean Air Act. Again, there is no cost effective controls
for CO2 from existing power plants. This particular issue will
have a huge impact on the continued operation of coal-fired
power plants in the midwest and elsewhere.
There are also additional requirements that the U.S. EPA is
proposing on facilities that use coal. U.S. EPA is moving
forward to tighten limitations on water discharges from coal-
fired power plants and to change the manner that coal residuals
are regulated.
Finally, any significant increase in electric rates will
have an adverse impact on Ohio industry. For example, the only
two manganese ferroalloy plants in the United States are
located in Marietta, Ohio and New Haven, West Virginia. These
plants are located near power plants due to the large electric
demand needed to make the product. These plants can only remain
competitive if there is reliable, inexpensive electric power.
The same issue applies to aluminum producer Ormet in
Hannibal, Ohio and other metal producers and alloy
manufacturers in Ohio. For Ohio and other states to maintain an
industrial base, there will continue to be the need for
inexpensive power.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these views on
behalf of Ohio EPA. We would be glad to work with the committee
for our recommendations on U.S. EPA requirements that are
protective of public health but do not have as great an adverse
impact on coal and coal-related industries.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Hodanbosi follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.004
Mr. Jordan. Thank you. I appreciate your fine testimony.
Representative Thompson will be recognized.
STATEMENT OF ANDY THOMPSON
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing. My name
is Andy Thompson. I am in my first term representing Ohio's
93rd House District, and I represent Guernsey, Noble and
Munroe, as well as portions of Washington and Muskingum
Counties. Before being elected to the state legislature, I
served on the Marietta City Council for three terms, getting
elected to my final term in 2009.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today
about the impacts of the Obama Administration's ill-advised
energy and environmental policies and their impacts here in
Ohio.
Today I would like to discuss, number one, the
Administration's war on coal and the impact on coal jobs, the
impact on utility jobs and the greater coal communities, what
this means for manufacturing in Ohio, and how this impacts our
growing natural gas industry.
This is coal country, and here in eastern Ohio we rely on
coal not only for electricity, but also for good-paying jobs
and a strong tax base to help provide critical services. Coal
not only provides jobs for our miners, equipment operators and
support personnel. It also provides many jobs in the
surrounding communities where coal industry employees work and
live.
For example, a study from Pennsylvania State University has
demonstrated that every direct coal mining job supports 11
other jobs in such areas as trucking, railroads and equipment
suppliers, as well as local businesses, including restaurants,
stores, and gas stations. Coal has been integral to the
wellbeing of eastern Ohio's communities for many, many years.
When coal is doing well, we do well.
But unfortunately, coal is in a tough spot right now. Many
of the environmental policies that the Obama Administration has
undertaken in recent years have caused substantial hardship in
our region, and I fear that this may only be the beginning.
Just last week, a major coal mine in my district announced
that it was laying off 29 workers in direct response to several
Obama Administration policies aimed at coal. Not too long
before that, I learned of a surface mining company in Noble
County that cannot get any new permits approved by the Corps of
Engineers and the EPA. This company has mined almost all of its
permitted property, but now is considering shutting down
operations because the government has not granted it new
permits. These are just two of the many troubling examples that
have been brought to my attention recently.
As every elected official knows, this is county fair
season, and at every fair that I have been to, people have come
up to me and expressed deep concerns about the war on coal and
what it means for communities and for eastern Ohio. These
people have spouses, brothers and uncles in the mining
business, and they are all scared for its future and for their
own future. I hear this more than any other issue. People in
eastern Ohio are deeply concerned that the war on coal is going
to ruin their livelihoods, their families, and their
communities.
When you hear about layoffs in the coal industry, you
generally think about coal miners and others who work at a
mine, and that is understandable because they are the first
ones to lose their jobs and their livelihoods when a coal mine
shuts down. But we also need to be thinking about what is going
to happen to people who work at the coal-fired facilities that
are being shut down. Those layoffs are starting to happen right
here in Ohio.
For example: AEP will shut down 5 units at the Muskingum
River in Beverly, costing 128 jobs. They will shut down one
unit at the Conesville Generating Station, eliminating 20 jobs.
AEP will shut down one unit for nine months annually at its
Picway plant near Lockbourne, costing 24 jobs. Duke will shut
down one of its generating units at its Beckford Station in New
Richmond, Ohio, impacting 120 jobs. First Energy will close
units at its Bayshore, Eastlake, Lakeshore and Ashtabula
locations, jeopardizing up to 530 jobs. GenOn will shut two
units at its Avon Lake plant, costing 80 jobs, and GenOn will
shut two units at its Niles plant, cost cutting 40 jobs.
But Ohio alone will not be the only state impacted in our
region from the war on coal. Two facilities are slated to shut
their doors on the other side of the border in Pennsylvania,
and three are going to shut down across the river in West
Virginia. When you add in the job losses in West Virginia and
Pennsylvania, we are talking about nearly 9000 direct, indirect
and induced jobs in the Ohio Valley.
Ohio is a manufacturing state, and it always has been. The
energy boom in the Midwest has provided many opportunities that
Ohioans are excited to pursue, but those opportunities are
running head on into the Obama Administration's environmental
policies.
Let me provide a key example. The largest electricity user
in Ohio is Ormet Corporation in Monroe County, which is an
aluminum producer capable of producing 270,000 tons of aluminum
per year. Ormet had employed roughly 1,100 employees with more
than 900 represented by the United Steelworkers Union, but the
company just announced that it was considering laying off 90 to
100 of them due to concerns about increasing electricity
prices. We are going to continue seeing this at other
manufacturing facilities, both large and small, all across
Ohio.
Mr. Chairman, coal is not the only industry taking the
brunt of this Administration's destructive environmental
policies. Unfortunately, despite the unprecedented boom in
natural gas production in our state, environmentalists and the
Obama Administration are starting to turn a negative eye to
natural gas.
I am sure everyone here knows about the ``Beyond Coal''
campaign run by the Sierra Club. Now, they are beginning a
``Beyond Natural Gas'' campaign, which will attempt to cast the
same negative light on the natural gas industry that it did on
the coal industry. And the Obama Administration is not far
behind.
There are many questions at the end of the day about the
Obama administration's policies toward the coal and natural gas
industries. What people really want to know is how much is this
going to cost, and the costs are substantial. I see that I am
running out of my time, so I will wrap it up here.
I want to thank you and your colleagues, Chairman Jordan,
for conducting this much needed oversight of the Obama
Administration. I very much appreciate your efforts along with
Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor and others who have
passed several bills promoting energy development and reigning
in the EPA and the Administration.
I want to acknowledge Congressman Johnson because I know he
has worked very hard on this. I just wish that the United
States Senate and the President of the United States would
follow suit.
I should also note, Mr. Chairman, that I am doing my best
here in Ohio to support those efforts. Specifically I have
sponsored two separate resolutions in the legislature urging
the President to suspend both Utility MACT and CSAPR. I also
led the passage of a resolution in the House of Representatives
that urges the President to discard proposals to increase taxes
on producers of coal, natural gas and oil and instead adopt
policies that encourage domestic production of these important
resources.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions at the
appropriate time. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.010
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Representative.
Thank you. Appreciate your work with the general assembly.
Mr. Ahern, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TONY AHERN
Mr. Ahern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other committee
members. I appreciate the opportunity to give testimony to you
today. Buckeye Power is a generation and transmission
cooperative owned by the Ohio distribution cooperatives. Ohio
cooperatives serve 10 percent of the State of Ohio. Just
upriver from where we are sitting here is the Cardinal station.
We own two of the 600 megawatt units there, Cardinal Units 2
and 3. We have spent in the last 10 years $1 billion for SCR
and scrubbers for those units.
We have made, as a result, a substantial reduction to
sulfur dioxide and NOx emissions, as this chart over here
vividly shows, a significant reduction. Cardinal now is able to
use local high sulfur coal. So jobs have been added with this
investment. That has helped the economy. Our Cardinal units are
among the cleanest in terms of conventional pollutant coal
plants in the United States. But this has come at a cost. The
average residential cooperative consumer today pays about $20
more a month to provide this result. But they are getting
something for this. There is an air quality benefit. Everybody
is happy about it. Our members are happy about it.
I wish I can end my story here, but I can't. Why can't I?
Because EPA is overly aggressively pursuing additional
regulations. Let me give you an example using the MATS, the
Mercury and Air Toxic rule.
When EPA was looking at whether they should impose MATS,
they assessed the damages, the health effects from mercury and
hazardous air pollutants, and they estimated the annual
economic value or impact on the country was $6 million a year.
They then estimated what it was going to take to reduce
emissions to what they considered an acceptable level, and that
number was $9.6 billion That is right, a $4 to $6 million
benefit at a $9.6 billion cost.
How do they connect the 2? They have done what they have
been doing for many years now, double counting. Mercury
benefits alone couldn't justify their actions, so they looked
at secondary benefits, in this case fine particulate reductions
which they already regulate under another part of the Clean Air
Act. So they are using overcompliance of fine particulate, what
is referred to as PM2.5, by taking those levels below what they
have established as an acceptable PM2.5 limit as a level they
have established as protective of human health.
This has got to stop, this double counting. The MATS rule,
we are going to be able to meet the MATS rule we think. We are
going to be close perhaps, but we think we have done enough. We
don't think we should have to incur more cost. Our biggest
concern about the MATS rule is the monitoring requirements. We
strongly believe and EPA has provided testimony that have said
they think the combination of SCR and scrubbers on eastern coal
takes care of the mercury level.
So we are not concerned about whether our mercury level is
going to be on an absolute basis low enough. We believe it is.
Our problem is going to be proving it through testing because
mercury is so dilute in concentration. The standards they want
to apply are 1.2 pounds per trillion BTUs. You typically think
about an issue in pounds per million. This is pounds per
trillion. So we are very concerned about the mercury emissions.
Let me echo what other speakers have already said today
about the greenhouse gas rule. Our nation is foreclosing coal
with this action. History has shown it is dangerous to think we
can predict over the long-term what energy sources are going to
be economical and reliable. In the past our federal government
has banned the use of natural gas for electric generation.
Nuclear power, it has its up and downs. Therefore, the prudent
course of action is to not put all of our eggs in one basket.
We need to retain coal for reliable generation.
As Mr. Hodanbosi has already said, one of the biggest
problems we have with the greenhouse gas rule is they then will
apply it to existing units, and they think this should be
corrected.
So on behalf of Buckeye Power and our cooperative
consumers, I thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for
allowing me to testify.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Ahern follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.015
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Ahern. We appreciate your work
and the organization's work. You have been extremely helpful
over the years when we have dealt with cap-and-trade issue and
other things. We appreciate that.
Mr. Mackall will be recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM MACKALL
Mr. Mackall. Chairman Jordan and members of the
subcommittee, good morning.
My name is Tom Mackall, and I am President of East
Fairfield Coal Company. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you once again.
East Fairfield Coal Company has operations in both Ohio and
Pennsylvania, and we employ over 160 hardworking Americans. We
mine underground for clay, coal and limestone. We are a small
business, and I am proud to say that my father worked for the
company when it was started in 1934. I have been with the
company for over 40 years, and my son works there today.
In 2008, then Senator Obama stated in a press interview
that under his preferred policy of cap-and-trade, anyone who
wanted to build a new coal-fired power plant would go bankrupt
in the process. He stated that under his cap-and-trade plan,
electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket. He left out the
fact that it would put thousands of people out of work.
The Obama Administration has systematically waged a war on
coal, attacking the industry on multiple fronts, and to date
they have been very successful. What I would like to address
today are the details of the war on coal, specifically On
Permitting, they continue to raise new obstacles. Through the
use of administrative guidance, the Administration has
effectively implemented a policy where isolated, non-navigable
waters would receive the full protections of the Clean Water
Act.
On Mining, their goal is to throw up as many regulatory
hurdles as possible. MSHA's Mine Dust Regulation provides yet
another example of the Administration's war on coal and its
attempts to limit coal mining. Essentially MSHA is proposing a
standard for respirable dust that cannot be met. On burning
coal, they seem intent on punishing any utility that dares to
burn coal.
Perhaps the most expansive and most visible attack on the
coal industry over the last few years has been the
Administration's efforts to drastically curtail the percentage
of our electricity that is generated from coal. Electricity
prices are going to go up and the electric grid will be
stretched even farther posing serious challenges for
reliability.
Last but not least is the issue for me for coal flyash. The
flyash residue from coal combustion is used as a cement
substitute in our cement block plant. The prospect of a
hazardous material designation puts this type of use in
jeopardy. On top of it all, I fully expect the second Obama
term would focus on cap-and-trade while the President is
following through on his promise to enact cap-and-trade by
regulation. His allies in the Senate haven't given up on
legislation. I expect them to try and move climate legislation
in the next year.
I would like to say this about CO2. One of my customers
operates large industrial size greenhouses in Michigan and
Canada. In order to promote quicker growth, they operate large
CO2 generators which raise the concentration of CO2 in the
greenhouses from 340 parts per million, which is the ambient,
to over a thousand parts per million. All this CO2 is absorbed
by the plants. I don't believe CO2 is really an issue in the
natural world.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to briefly mention that the
Administration is not the only player on the war on coal. Well-
funded environmental groups have done everything in their power
to kill coal in America. For example, one of America's largest
environmental groups teamed up with one of America's largest
natural gas producers on the so-called Beyond Coal Campaign. In
fact, it was recently discovered that the natural gas company
donated $26,000,000 to the environmental group in a joint
effort to destroy the coal industry. This reliance was not to
be, however, as the same environmental group just announced a
new campaign entitled Beyond Natural Gas.
Mr. Chairman, the war on coal is real and is doing
tremendous damage to our industry. The Obama Administration and
its environmental allies are doing everything they can to stop
coal from being permitted, to make it uneconomical to mine, and
stop utilities from burning it. They discourage the use of the
byproducts for beneficial uses. This is a highly coordinated
aggressive effort to literally destroy the industry by
attacking coal at every point of its life cycle.
The Obama Administration's war on coal is a tragedy for the
coal industry and the thousands of Americans that our industry
employs who rely on us to provide affordable electricity.
On behalf of myself, East Fairfield Coal Company and many
thousands of people in our region who rely on coal for their
livelihoods, thank you for supporting and conducting vigorous
oversight of the Obama Administration and its war on coal. I
have to remind you, though, that if definitive action is not
taken to reverse the above-referenced policies, this industry
is going to be in deep, deep trouble.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering your questions at the appropriate time.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Mackall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.024
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Mackall. You mentioned some of
the environmental groups who also are fighting this attacking
coal, but in the end, it is the Administration. The buck stops
with them. They make the rules. They implement the law. They
pass the policies.
I want to go to you, Mr. Hodanbosi. You have an
undergraduate degree from Cleveland State University in
chemical engineering?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Jordan. You have a Master's degree in chemical
engineering as well?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Jordan. I believe you said have you worked in this
field for 40 years, almost 40?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Almost 40.
Mr. Jordan. 39 years. And all of that at the Ohio EPA?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. So I am looking at your resume, biographical
information. You started in 1973?
Mr. Hodanbosi. That is correct.
Mr. Jordan. So you have worked for Republicans and
Democrats; you worked for all kind of folks?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. You have interacted with the federal EPA for
all those 39 years?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. When you think about it, that is Nixon. That is
Ford. That is Carter. That is Reagan. That is Bush. That is
Clinton. That is Bush. And now Obama. That is a lot of
experience working both side of the aisle.
In that time, in that 39 plus years of working with all
those administrations and the various governors, both
Republican and Democrat, have you ever seen an administration
who has this much animosity towards coal?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Mr. Chairman, overall this current
Administration has promulgated more rules that directly affect
coal than any time in the history of the Clean Air Act and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Jordan. Unprecedented action we have seen in the three
and a half years of this Administration and the 39 years of
experience you have had with both Republican and Democratic
administrations, you have never seen it like this?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Yes, that is correct is correct.
Mr. Jordan. I am just curious. I don't know the answer to
this.
Have you ever testified before in that 39 years of
experience? Have you ever participated in hearings like this?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Yes, I have. In the U.S. Senate I testified
once.
Mr. Jordan. Who was president at that time when you
testified?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Boy, actually I do not know who was
president. It had to do with air permitting. That was the
issue.
Mr. Jordan. So 39 years of your service, this is the first
time you have testified and talked about the nature of the
rules being promulgated and enforced by the Administration?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. You would agree with the title of today's
hearing to talk about the Green Agenda and the War on Coal? Do
you think that is an accurate title? Do you think there is
actually a war on coal we are seeing from the Obama
Administration? I know these guys would, but I am curious what
you would say.
Mr. Hodanbosi. I didn't use that term, war on coal.
Mr. Jordan. We did. I am asking if you agree with it.
Mr. Hodanbosi. That is more I am going to say a term that
was used in a political sense. I don't try to go down that
line, but you can look at the rules that have been promulgated,
what the effect is both in terms of direct coal mines or the
uses.
Mr. Jordan. I am forgetting my Ohio history. Who was
governor in 1973?
Mr. Hodanbosi. It was Gilligan.
Mr. Jordan. So when you first were hired at the Ohio EPA,
it was a Democratic Administration that you were hired in
under, is that right?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Right. That was Governor Gilligan.
Mr. Jordan. I am running low on time. I want to get to our
three other members who are more the experts on the coal
industry.
The blackout that we have been hearing about in India, I
have not heard the cause of it. I am just curious your thoughts
on that and if something like that could happen in the United
States if we continue this effort to make it difficult to use
coal to meet our electric and energy needs. I will start with
you. Then we will go down to the line.
Mr. Hodanbosi. Just quickly, I read about the blackout in
India yesterday, but instead of it having gotten better, I
heard on the radio today it has gotten worse. Instead of
300,000,000 people without power, it is now up to 600,000,000
people without power.
Can it happen in this country? Well, I think we have
experienced some blackouts in 2008, maybe it was a little
earlier, in Ohio and in the east coast. So it has happened
here, and it is certainly something to be concerned with.
Again, part of my testimony, I submitted the article from
the Columbus Dispatch that talks about the units that were
going to be shut down during the last heatwave. They are in
use. So where is that power going to come from? How are we
going to replace it to keep the electricity going?
Mr. Jordan. Let me quickly talk to the other three
witnesses.
I think I know the answer to this. The title of today's
hearing is Green Agenda and War on Coal. Would you agree that
is an accurate description of what is going on, Representative?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do think it is kind of
unprecedented because administrations in the past at the
federal level would have had a mutual interest seemingly in
having inexpensive energy. Energy independence has been a goal
for this country since the beginning of time. President Carter
started the energy department with the stated goal to try to
have energy independence, and it seems as though this
Administration is driving us in the opposite direction.
We are going to be more and more dependent on other sources
of energy, more expensive sources of energy and probably from
hostile countries. I think that is a problem. Clearly there is
a war on coal, and we are feeling the effects of it already.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Ahern, you deal with electric cooperatives
all over the state. Would you agree with the title of today's
hearing, War on Coal?
Mr. Ahern. I think probably the greenhouse gas rule that
the EPA has proposed for new units is probably the signature
that declares war on coal because it is a standard that the
demonstrated technology is not available in order to meet that
standard.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Mackall.
Mr. Mackall. I obviously agree very much, and I would point
out that Ohio's success in the past has been our coal-fired
electricity providing economical power for industry. With the
proposals they have now, what industry are we going to have
left in Ohio? It is an attack on the economy, not just on coal.
Mr. Jordan. Remember the title. We said the Green Agenda
and the War on Coal. It is both. There is a war on coal. You
have all made that clear. We have a gentleman who has 40 years
of experience with the Ohio EPA who understands how different
this Administration is from previous administrations. But it is
also the green agenda. Mr. McKinley brought up Secretary Chu of
the Department of Energy, the loan guarantee program at the
Department of Energy. They took $16 billion of taxpayer money
and gave it to 26 companies. 22 of those companies that got the
money--this is Solyndra, this is Beacon Power, this is Abound
Solar, three companies that went bankrupt, gave them your
money--22 of those 26 companies had a credit rating of BB-.
Mr. Mackall, you are in business. You know what that means.
That means it was junk. No one would invest in it. But it was
okay to give them your money. This is to add insult to injury.
Not only are they at war on coal, but they are also saying oh,
by the way, the tax money you do send to us, we are going to
take it and give it to your competitors.
Meanwhile, three of them have gone bankrupt and 22 of the
26 companies that got your money would have never got any money
in the private sector because they weren't a good risk.
That is what is going on with this Administration. So when
Mr. Hodanbosi says he has never seen it like he has with this
Administration, it is true. We got all the facts to point it
out. So we want to thank you all for being here. I went over
time.
The gentleman from Ohio will get extra time. Mr. Johnson,
you are recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hodanbosi, in your background and with your experience,
do you think that the EPA has an agenda that it is trying to
effectuate by the promulgating of regulations that specifically
impact the coal industry?
Mr. Hodanbosi. I think it is pretty clear that all the
rules that are coming out are overall specifically designed to
certainly restrict the use of coal.
Mr. Johnson. You know the Vice-President came through Ohio
not too long ago touting a resurgence in manufacturing at the
same time that the Administration has begun an all-out attack
on the very energy sources to fuel any kind of resurgence in
manufacturing.
How do we fuel a resurgence in manufacturing if the EPA and
the Administration persists with this attempt to shut down the
coal industry? Where is the power going to come from to fuel
manufacturing plants?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Well, that remains a concern of not just
Ohio EPA, but the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio on the
rules that were promulgated. Both agencies filed comments to
that extent. In order for us to have a strong industrial base,
we need to have inexpensive electric power. That is just the
bottom line. And if the costs go up too much, we will lose some
of our heavy manufacturing to companies that move overseas
where the power is cheaper.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mackall, uncertainty is one of the big issues that
businesses talk to us about these days and the uncertainty
around the regulatory process and the EPA's actions.
How has uncertainty created by the EPA and the Clean Water
Act permitting process harmed your ability to expand your
business and create jobs?
Mr. Mackall. Across the coalfields today, the uncertainty,
especially with the election ahead of us and so on, most
companies that I know of, maybe all companies I know of have
stopped considering making further purchases of mining
equipment because what are we going to do if Obama goes another
four years? I feel my company will have a very difficult time
continuing in the coal business.
I am not going to buy any new equipment. It is starting to
really stop the economy. I think that is another reason why we
see the slow growth across the metric today. There is so much
uncertainty with their economic policies.
Mr. Johnson. Well, if you knew about the uncertainty, the
red tape and the costs of EPA regulations in acquiring permits,
would you still have gone into the coal mining business?
Mr. Mackall. I have to answer that by going back to my coal
miners. They are wonderful people. I suppose I would have
retired a long time ago if it wasn't for them. There is a lot
of great, intelligent, hardworking young coal miners who need
jobs, and they will never find jobs like this again. Really the
only reason I continue is for them.
Mr. Johnson. As a coal operator, what would you say to a
company or an individual that is trying to invest in new coal
mining operations today? Based on what you know and the impacts
that the EPA and their regulations or the Administration is
having on the coal industry, would you invest in new coal
mining operations today?
Mr. Mackall. Not in the United States of America. We don't
mine anything in the United States of America today. In fact,
that is one of the points that they made with Solyndra, is that
China controls all over our earth. So they are going to control
many of the manufacturing anyway. I guess today we need to
invest in coal mines in India and China. They are going to lead
the world's economy if we continue with Obama's policies.
Mr. Johnson. I appreciate your responding to those
questions.
Representative Thompson, first of all, I appreciate you
being here, and I enjoy working with you. We cover a lot of the
same territory in our respective districts, and I know that you
are a passionate advocate for the coal industry as well.
Can you give us a sense of how coal production affects the
economy, your specific area that you represent?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate working
with you very closely as well. As you well know, a lot of
communities depend upon the revenues generated by these utility
plants that are burning coal. Several school systems in our
districts right now are very, very concerned about the shutdown
of these utility plants and what it is going to mean to their
revenue sources. We have so many people who are working in the
mining business, particularly Noble, Washington. Monroe County
is huge. So these are real individuals. These are real
communities. These are real people. They count on coal for that
certainty.
We talked about uncertainty. There is a tremendous palpable
sense of dread right now. As I discussed in my testimony, as we
go around to county fairs, and I know you are experiencing this
as well, people just say please stand up for coal. Please do
something. Please see what you can do to stop what is going on
in Washington with these regulatory agencies. Because everybody
has got a family story. My uncle was in coal. My granddad owned
a coal company.
That future may not exist for people going forward just
because of the uncertainty, because of this deliberate attempt
to eliminate this energy source. We are not going to have that
baseload power we need. We need that baseload power to make
Ohio's economy go. Ohio can't be open for business if we're
shutting down coal.
Mr. Johnson. We talk about the effect on the consumer and
on business. Let us look at it from a different perspective.
The state requires revenue to function as well, to conduct its
business. As a state representative, one of your legislative
responsibilities is to help draft the budget for the State of
Ohio.
If coal production in the state continues to suffer more,
what would be the effect on state revenues and on the budget?
What would have to be done to counter the effects of the
diminished revenues?
Mr. Thompson. It is a huge impact. I don't have a specific
figure for you, Congressman, but I think, again, it is a
reliable source. We count on the jobs that it generates. We
count on the jobs that it facilitates when we have inexpensive
energy in the State of Ohio. You eliminate that component of
coal--obviously we are excited about some of the shale things
that are going on right now, but you also need the competition
between the 2. You need that vibrant market that keeps rates
down, keeps them cost effective.
So there is additional uncertainty for our budget obviously
if we are shutting down those plants because of the income tax
it generates, the sales tax it generates. There is so much
investment. We talked about those 11 additional jobs that each
coal job relates to and creates and supports. So we need that.
We need that basic undergirding of the economy or else Ohio is
going to be in desperate straits.
It was a struggle this year to try to solve an $8 billion
budget hole. It is going to get a lot tougher if we don't have
coal as an inexpensive energy source in Ohio because it impacts
throughout the entire community.
Mr. Johnson. Because it is actually a trickle down effect.
It is not just the income taxes that the coal operators provide
and the coal mining operations themselves provide, but it is
also the manufacturing companies that are dependent upon energy
that will shut down as a result of not having affordable
energy. It is a really big impact.
Mr. Thompson. It is heavy equipment manufacturers. They
count on coal. Trucking companies, people that provide
equipment, clothing, housing, everything else. It is vitally
important. The sense of uncertainty in eastern Ohio is really
strong right now, and I understand that. It is heartbreaking to
hear about people who are being laid off.
We talked about Monroe County. As well Ormet is a critical
component there. Beyond Ormet there is not a lot going on there
that is positive economically, and we want to see them continue
and be strengthened.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me for one
more question.
Mr. Jordan. Sure.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Ahern, if regulations prevent or seriously
limit a co-op from burning coal, how would the underserved in
rural areas like we represent here along the Ohio River, how
will they receive their electricity?
Mr. Ahern. Well, it probably will be from other sources
that are likely to be more expensive.
Mr. Johnson. You are talking about people that are already
struggling day to day, unemployment in many places, some double
digits, and yet they are going to have to pay higher utility
rates to power their homes. It is even going to have a further
crippling effect on those businesses that operate in those
rural areas because as their cost to provide power to their
business and manufacturing operations increase, they are going
to have to probably lose people, not hire people.
Mr. Ahern. Chairman Jordan and Representative Johnson, I
think right now natural gas is relatively inexpensive. It is
helping to hold down electricity prices, but once people turn
away from coal, the only reasonable place you can turn to for
baseload generation is natural gas. Natural gas prices are
going to rise significantly. It is going to raise electricity
prices for Ohio and many other areas of the country. They are
going to see significant price increases.
As Mr. Hodanbosi already mentioned, we are going to lose
some generating capacity. With today's very low natural gas
prices, nobody will build anything today. You won't be building
a combustion turbine at today's low wholesale power prices. So
we are going to wind the spring and do nothing, and then when
that spring lets go, we are not going to have enough
electricity, and it is going to drive up the price, and people
are going to feel it and businesses are going to feel it.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. In your questioning,
you brought out the jobs that are associated with the coal
industry and the positive impact that has on communities and
the school districts.
I would like to recognize Mr. Murray is with us, of Murray
Energy. Of course, they employ a lot of folks and have a lot of
positive impact on the countless number of communities across
this state and across the country. So we appreciate him being
with us today.
With that, I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you all for being here. I walked in with
one of the gentlemen that is in the industry. We take for
granted this idea that you flip the switch and the lights come
on, hit the switch at night and the air conditioning comes on,
or in the winter, you just turn up the thermostat a little bit
and the house gets warm and the lights get lit.
The fragility though of this grid and the inability to keep
it at a level, a baseload, any of you please explain that. I
think hearings like this are great because the general public
doesn't understand how fragile this is. We start talking about
brownouts and blackouts. The fact we haven't had any absolutely
amazes me right now.
The startup, you can't just start them back up again. Once
these plants shut down, you don't start them back up again that
easily. Am I right or wrong on that, Mr. Ahern?
Mr. Ahern. Chairman Jordan and Representative Kelly, you
are right. The grid is not a real stable system in terms of it
doesn't tolerate upsets very well. A great example of that is
August of 2003 when there was a disruption due to problems in
northern Ohio, and we ended up with a blackout that blacked out
55 million people that went from Ohio to Michigan, around the
north side of Lake Erie, across upstate New York and down to
New York City. So the grid, it is not self-correcting in that
way. You have got to maintain the voltage. You have got to
maintain the frequency to keep it stable.
Mr. Kelly. So the importance of the grid, we all agree how
critical it is. We put $16 billion in green energy. How much of
an investment have we made in the grid? See, I never hear that.
I always about renewables and the way we are going to go for
renewables. That seems to be the push that this Administration
has.
Mr. Ahern. Chairman Jordan and Representative Kelly, one of
the things that I think is not really appreciated broadly is
that the only reason the grid is there is because it is being
maintained. The idea that we have an antiquated infrastructure,
I reject that idea. It is cared for. It is taken care of. Sure,
we have seen deficiencies.
You have got FERC. You have got NERC. You have got state
commissions. You have got the individual utilities themselves.
You have got regional transmission organizations. For Ohio you
have got PJM. There is a tremendous amount of focus going on to
maintain the grid.
One of the things that the green agenda is doing that is
going to present challenges to the grid is that the two major
sources of power that they seem to strongly advocate are wind
and solar and they are intermittent resources. They can come up
quickly, but more importantly, they can come down quickly.
Clouds can shield a solar field. The wind can die off rather
quickly. Those dramatic changes, the rest of the grid has to
really hustle to keep the voltage and the current in line.
Otherwise, the system will go unstable as the blackout of 2003
shows, the blackout of 1965 and other regional blackouts that
have occurred.
Mr. Kelly. We rely on sun that may not shine and wind that
may not blow. Then we turn our back on all the other stuff we
know, which is right beneath the surface. That is really
amazing to me, that an Administration that many people will say
these are the smartest guys--I don't know. When you run a
business 1.7 trillion in the red every year, I don't know that
I would go to any of those guys for business advice.
One of the things I do want to point out, and I think you
would all agree, while we face a global market that is out
there for us all, we may never ever get to a point where we can
compete on an hourly wage, but we can compete when our energy
costs are lower than every other place in the world. So while
you have wages that allow us to have a sustainable life form
and a way of life we like, we can offset it by low energy
costs, can we not? That is part of the formula of what drives
the cost of a product either up or down.
I look at this and I say if we are ever going to fair
fight, shame on us. With what we have at our disposal, we put
our men and women in a situation where they can't absolutely
blow everybody else away, what are we thinking about. This is
not the type of a country that I know of, ruin its greatness.
We have it. It is here. It is affordable. It is abundant. It is
accessible. Why in the world would we ever, ever turn our back
on what we know and how we can offset the rising cost of wages
that our people need and put ourselves in jeopardy. It makes no
sense.
Mr. Mackall, I know that your company is doing a great job.
Mr. Murry's company is doing a great job. Why is there this war
on coal? Why?
Mr. Mackall. I have no understanding. It makes no sense to
me. It is all over a phony CO2 issue, which I mentioned in my
speech that my greenhouse customer totally, to me, disproves
the science. I don't understand.
I do know that all these plants they want to close right
now, including two that I supply, two GenOn plants, they are
slated to close, but they are running right now, or our grid
wouldn't be functioning right now. There is no other source of
electricity. Every available source of electricity is running
right now to keep the electricity grid working. Without them,
they would be dead.
Mr. Kelly. It is baffling, is it not? Representative, I
mean, I think there is some confusion sometimes. We think that
the government is somehow just this benevolent monarch that
showers on the people all these gifts. But the reality of it is
every single penny that the government uses comes out of a
hardworking American taxpayer's pocket. Unfortunately, only
half of us are paying taxes anymore.
Please explain, because I think these types of hearings
allow the community to understand. Every single penny that Ohio
needs, where does it come from?
Mr. Thompson. Chairman Jordan and Representative Kelly, it
comes from people who are actually working. I think the way
that Ohio goes to work is Ohio has reasonable priced energy.
That energy is supplied to the manufacturers. The manufacturers
put people to work. They put people to work in mining coal.
They put people to work in transporting it, shipping it and
delivering it.
The green agenda, I think, which concerns me the most, it
is almost an article of faith, it is an alternative to
religion, to the one that we understand, and it is a religion
where they disdain fossil fuels. They consider fossil fuels to
be the enemy of our health and our safety and our way of life.
If you look at California's energy policy, you will see
what America is going to look like shortly. It is a mess. They
disdain energy sources that we know are reliable. They are
increasingly trying to rely on wind and solar which cannot be
effectively stored, cannot be transmitted very well. So it just
makes this economy much more problematic, increases the
uncertainty.
We have 200 years of proven reserves of coal. Why aren't we
doing everything possible to invest in that? If we need to make
it cleaner, let us invest in clean coal technology. We have the
ability to do that. As we do that, again, we get all the
benefits that we are seeking.
We have got reliable reserves. We know we can produce it
cost effectively. That goes right into the economy, and it
makes Ohio viable because it is an advantage for Ohio, not just
for the nation. Right here in Ohio we have very inexpensive
energy sources that can power the manufacturing sector comeback
we would all like to see.
Mr. Kelly. I know Pennsylvania is doing the same thing. I
think all of us sit back, and it is one of these things where
you scratch your head and kind of raise your shoulders and you
just keep asking why. I do not know. After watching the current
Administration, when they were running for office, they
absolutely have kept their word to the American people, and
they have certainly kept their word to coal.
For the life of me, I just keep asking why. Nobody can ever
answer that to me. Why do you want to do this? I guess the
answer for all of us is because they can.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the gentleman for his good questioning. I
want to ask one thing real quickly before we go on to
Congressman McKinley.
Mr. Ahern, when you and Congressman Kelly were dialoguing,
you mentioned that you think the grid is maintained, but I want
to make sure I heard accurately. You said with the focus you
are seeing from this Administration on wind and solar, you
think the likelihood of blackouts and the likelihood to
maintain that quality grid is somewhat jeopardized, is that
accurate?
Mr. Ahern. Mr. Chairman, it is close. I would say it this
way more specifically, it is going to be a great challenge. To
put more intermittent resources onto the grid and maintain the
reliability, it is a bigger challenge. I am not saying it is
impossible.
Mr. Jordan. So the conclusion is that the potential for
blackouts, in fact, is greater with this unreliability of wind
and solar being added to the mix?
Mr. Ahern. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is a great
possibility, yes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Ahern, you mentioned in your remarks
about flyash. For those people who are not aware, it is an
unavoidable byproduct of burning coal.
Mr. Ahern. Yes.
Mr. McKinley. If you burn coal, you get an ash. The EPA
since 2009 has been contemplating and developing and perfecting
a piece of legislation, a new rule and reg. that would
potentially classify flyash as a hazardous material.
We know that flyash is used in concrete. It is used in
brick and block. We know it is used in drywall. We know it is
used in bowling balls. It is used in ceramic tile. It is used
in a variety of beneficial recyclable uses.
What are you doing at Cardinal? What are you doing with the
flyash there?
Mr. Ahern. Chairman Jordan and Representative McKinley,
most of the flyash at Cardinal, we store it on site long term.
Although we do sell some of the flyash, there are certain
products--for example, you mentioned bowling balls. There is a
certain part of the flyash that is very small, spherical hollow
particles that are great for making plastics of improved
quality and things like that.
One of the other things that is not flyash directly, but it
is indicative of the effort we go to, our scrubbers, the sulfur
dioxide gets converted to gypsum, calcium sulfate. That can be
used for drywall. Over half of the gypsum we produce at the
Cardinal station is put on a barge, and taken downriver to a
drywall plant and made into drywall. So we have looked for
avenues.
Much of the bottom ash has a different character than the
flyash. It is a great aggregate for concrete.
Mr. McKinley. But, if this becomes hazardous material?
Don't you think consumers--I know that there are studies that
say across America, there are 316,000 jobs involved in the
recycling of coal ash and gypsum. All of those would be in
jeopardy, wouldn't it, if the EPA has its way with the coal ash
rule?
Mr. Ahern. Mr. Chairman and Representative McKinley, it
would be a huge problem if flyash was declared hazardous
because of just the laws that would apply to the ways you have
to protect workers, clothe them, ventilators, things like that,
what we would have to do to our handling systems and things
like that.
Mr. McKinley. Have you been able to project at all what the
cost to the consumer could be? Because that would be passed
along through the Public Service Commission, that cost. Do we
have a sense of what that could be to the consumers if they
persist in making this a hazardous material?
Mr. Ahern. Chairman Jordan and Representative McKinley, we
do not have a good cost estimate of what the impact would be.
Mr. McKinley. Let me move on. There was the other comment,
I think it was Mr. Mackall, about the new performance
standards, New Source Performance Standards. Did you not make
that statement in your remarks about that?
Mr. Mackall. Yes.
Mr. McKinley. Again I think more people across America need
to understand what that is all about. The mercury standard was
to go back to the old plants to bring them into compliance. But
under this new performance standard, this is for all the
potentially new coal-fired generating plants. This would be
their rule. That would put them in a bind. The real crux, as I
understand, is coming down to the carbon capture and
sequestration or carbon capturing utilization processes that
could be available.
I think you mentioned and others have said that technology,
as we know, is currently not available and may not be available
for 10 years or more. Yet the EPA is promulgating this rule. We
have a hearing. We just put a bill in last week. I am honored.
I know that Representative Johnson is on that bill with me and
others in Congress. We are going to try get that rule held back
until there is technology commercially available.
In other words, they can set it up, but until it is
commercially viable, that rule can't be enforced. We think that
is a realistic response to this effort. We just got word
yesterday that the leadership is going to have a hearing on
that in September. For those of you that have an interest in
that legislation, watch in Washington for September when we
have the opportunity to be able to understand more how the EPA
has gotten ahead of the curve here and not using science, but
using ideaology as their driving force.
Again, I thank you all for being here today. I hope to see
you again in September. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the gentleman. Now we will go quickly a
second round. We will start with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Hodanbosi, I want to turn a little bit to
the issue of the effects of these regulations on the supply of
electricity. You have heard a little bit talk about
reliability.
From a reliability standpoint, how do you think Ohio coal-
fired power plants will be able to comply with Utility MACT and
provide electricity during peak hours, such as in a heatwave
like we have had here in Ohio recently?
Mr. Hodanbosi. I guess the issue is not so much the plants
that are operating and can comply. Mr. Ahern talked about the
Cardinal plant and the expense, that he believes his plant can
comply. So we will have some facilities that will be able to
comply.
The issue is all of the facilities that are closing and are
not going to be in operation. Where are we going to get the
capacity from to make up when we need the electricity?
Mr. Johnson. Let us turn to that issue. How many
electricity generating units have already been prematurely
retired as a result of Utility MACT and do you have any idea
how many are projected?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Well, there 25 specific boilers that are
shutting down as a result of the Utility MACT and other EPA
requirements that have been announced. That is over 5000
megawatts of capacity that will be gone in the next three
years.
Mr. Johnson. I know that you sit in a regulatory agency, so
I don't know how many businesses you talk to, but do you have
any sense of the direct effects of increased electricity costs
as a result of EPA's regulations? Are companies laying off
workers and shutting down businesses?
Mr. Hodanbosi. Well, there certainly is a direct impact
when electricity rates go up. The example of Representative
Thompson of Ormet that is just down the river, the aluminum
producer, that they have laid off some workers, and if the
price of electricity continues to go up, that will be the
course there. That is a huge employer in Ohio.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Ahern, will regulations like the Utility
MACT increase the cost of electricity that you provide to your
customers, and what implications does this have? We have dealt
with this a little bit, but I want to give you a chance to
expound on it.
What implications does this have for economic growth and
job creation in rural areas like your company serves?
Mr. Ahern. Mr. Chairman and Representative Johnson, it is
unclear to us exactly how the Utility MACT might expose us to
additional costs. We are hoping that it doesn't, but as I
mentioned previously, one of the big uncertainties is the
monitoring requirements. Mercury is just so dilute in
concentration. It is extremely difficult to measure. And what
sort of testing requirements will they have, what sort of
testing frequencies. Tests particularly with very dilute
concentrations, sometimes you can actually be performing well,
but the tests will raise doubt. So you could be required to
spend a lot of money on testing, a lot of money on monitoring
equipment.
Overall, it is difficult to say exactly how it is going to
impact us, but as I described, the accomplishments that we have
had so far have added up to a billion dollars of capital costs
and $20 a month for the average consumer. We don't think it is
appropriate to add any more costs on top of that because our
customers have already paid for significant improvement in air
quality.
Mr. Johnson. Rural cooperatives like yours, do you have
reliability concerns about the Utility MACT compliance,
particularly during peak hours?
Mr. Ahern. Mr. Chairman and Representative Johnson, any
time you do anything to the old, it can affect the whole
electric system. Everybody that is connected to it is
potentially impacted. Even though our plants may be fine, may
be well controlled, may meet the standards, if others around us
retire, if there reliability problems because a lot of
generation is taken out, we will be impacted, and probably the
most direct and costly way is the possibility of blackouts.
Mr. Johnson. If the co-op wants to build a new coal-fired
power plant, will it be able to given the New Source
Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions?
Mr. Ahern. Mr. Chairman and Representative Johnson, I don't
see with the proposed greenhouse gas standard how anyone could
take on the task of building a new coal plant.
Mr. Johnson. Representative Thompson, let us come back to
you. We talked a little bit before about the effect of reduced
coal production on state revenues. What about local government
revenues? I know you and I talk to a lot of local government
folks that are struggling to fund their sewer upgrades, their
water upgrades, also a part of the regulatory process that is
being mandated on them, and yet they don't have the funds to be
able to do that.
What effect on local governments would diminished revenues
as a result of lower production and use of coal have?
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Johnson, I
think, again, in more of a micro way, they count on all the
local jobs, the people that are paying income tax. They count
on the services that are used locally by these coal companies
and the utility companies. Again, their base revenue sources
are very much dependent on these companies.
We talk about local government. We talk about schools that
are going to be suffering, school districts. In many cases, the
utilities are partners with local charities and things. There
is so much. It radiates through so much of that local economy.
It is obviously very tough for local governments right now
because of revenue at the state level and also at the local
level. So any variable that you introduce into that equation is
really going to harm them in a significant way.
This is something that doesn't have to happen. This is
something that is happening in Washington by design. And this
war on coal and this disdain for, again, our electric utilities
and also our coal producers and the livelihoods that are
dependent upon it, it is a huge impact. You and I are
experiencing it. We hear it. The discussions and palpable fear
in local communities is on the rise.
I hope we can turn this back. I hope we can reverse this. A
lot of it is under way, and it is hard to get bureaucracies to
move in the right direction. But I appreciate what this
committee is doing to call attention to it, and I will do
everything I can in the State of Ohio to be of help.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Jordan. I now recognize Mr. Kelly for a second round.
Mr. Kelly. One of the things we talked about, Mr. Ahern,
was the grid. When I am back in western Pennsylvania and I get
a chance to visit with the folks that I represent, I talk to a
lot of the machinists.
I talked to one of my friends up in Meadville. He was
saying, hey, are you guys going to get this thing taken care
with the grid? Are you guys going to do something about this?
Because the problem I have is that I can't afford the surge. I
said, what do you mean the surge? He said, I can't turn these
machines on and then have there be a dip in the power because
then I have to go back and restart and recalibrate everything.
He said, you know the cost of doing that? I said, no, I have
absolutely no idea the cost. He said, well, I will tell you
what. It is going to put us out of business.
The reliability of the grid is also one of those things
that is absolutely critical. Mr. Ahern, when we talk about all
these different alternative uses, you look at what we have done
with coal over the years, I am talking about something that is
so consistent and so reliable and so affordable, what is the
purpose in all that? I know you talked a little bit about the
grid, keeping it up, but the reality of it is these surges also
really affect these businesses and their ability to power up
the machines.
How often do you see that? It is going to become more and
more prevalent I would think.
Mr. Ahern. Mr. Chairman and Representative Kelly, you bring
up a very good point. It is part of the evolution of
technology. There is so much greater use of electronics and
electronic controls and things like that, much more than there
were decades ago. This is the kind of equipment that is not
very tolerant of even a fraction of a second blip in the
voltage or the frequency.
So it is more and more important that the grid reliability
be maintained. I am telling you from my experience the
utilities know how to maintain grid reliability. They know what
needs to be done. It is not rocket science, but it is
fundamental. You have got to have enough grid. You have got to
have enough transmission. You have got to have enough
generators, and you have got to deal with the upsets.
As I mentioned before, the biggest challenge that I see
coming for the grid is the intermittent resources growing to be
a larger and larger percentage of the supply which is going to
introduce an environment that is not the norm that they are
used to, and there is going to be a learning curve. And during
that learning curve, there are probably going to be problems.
Mr. Kelly. But it doesn't make sense to me for us to go
away from something we already know. Maybe you can help out. My
friends in the business tell me about the secondary power
sources, how you have the backups. It is almost like one of
these big diesel trucks. When they go in and grab a cup of
coffee, they don't shut them down. They leave them running
because it is cheaper to leave them run than it is to shut them
down and start them back up again.
That is where I keep going to with this grid and the
availability, that you have this backup system in place so when
you have the dip, the other kicks in so you don't have those
surges. This is what bothers me. If we keep shutting down these
plants, these coal-powered electric producing plants, there is
a dire effect that happens in industry with this.
A guy like me that sells cars and trucks, I get it. I know
why the guys leave the diesels running. What I can't understand
is why the government wants to shut down our most reliable
source of electric generation. I don't get it. Is there
something I am not getting?
Mr. Ahern. Mr. Chairman and Representative Kelly, I think
you are getting it. It is just very important to maintain the
reliability. Now, the grid operator, which today in our region
of the country is PJM, they have the oversight of all the
transmission. They are the ones that give dispatch orders to
the generators, pick up, drop off. They always keep some
generators at part load so that they are prepared to pick up
load or to reject load.
As Mr. Hodanbosi has mentioned, when some of these coal
plants get taken out over the next few years, we are entering a
new environment. As I mentioned previously, hardly any new
generation is being built today because wholesale power prices
are so low that nobody sees an opportunity for a good
investment to be made.
And this is even more so in states that have chosen to go
to a greater use of markets. In Ohio it is one of those for the
investor and utilities, competitive markets and market
suppliers, and a lot of these marketers, they are sharp
businesspeople. They say, well, I don't want to build a new
plant today because I don't know that five years from now,
there isn't going to be overbuilding. That is another new
element that we now have that we didn't have before, which is
another urge for caution and not to go with full abandon in the
direction we are going.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Jordan and I have sat in on a number of
these hearings. One of the things I find absolutely astounding
is that we would pour $16 billion into renewables. That sends a
signal to the private investors. They don't want to put that
money in themselves until the government says, we will
underwrite it. You don't have to worry about that. Then we find
out from a lot of them as soon as they saw what was going on,
they got out of that investment so fast, when they found out
this stuff was going upside down, it wasn't going to be
subsidized by the American taxpayers. It is amazing to me that
we have turned our back on a lot of things that we have.
Again, I keep going back to this. I still keep asking
myself why. Why are we abandoning a source that has been so
reliable, provides so many jobs, provides so much revenue to
run this country, and turning our backs on it and saying we
want to try this other stuff? It just does not make any sense.
It is a waste of taxpayer money. I thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the gentleman.
We will recognize Mr. McKinley for a short round and then
get the second panel in here.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
We have spent a lot of time here today talking, and it
seems like the majority of the questions had to do with the
utility companies and what it is going to do to the consumers
and businesses. But I think we have to be equally cognizant of
the mining industry.
Mr. Mackall, I am going to focus some of my attention to
you. We know the rules, the Utility MACT, the air transport
Rules. We know all that. The New Performance Standard, we know
what it is going to do to the utility. Let us go back to the
men and women in the mines where they are going to produce the
coal. I looked at here a series of things. Bill Johnson has
worked very hard. I have seen him work the floor on the Stream
Buffer rule that is going to open up opportunities for that.
We have water permitting, the water conductivity. There are
6 bottled waters in America that if we went to a mine site and
we drank this water and poured some of it on the ground, we
would be in violation of the EPA water conductivity standards.
That just is incredible, what it is doing to our industry.
We have got the use of flyash being proposed not to allow
it to be used as a buffer on acid mine runoff. We have got the
roadblocks that the Sierra Club and others are trying to put up
about shipping coal overseas. If we can't burn it in America,
perhaps someone else can do it and put our men and women back
to work with that. I am sure there are more from your industry.
I am not in the coal industry.
But what actions of the EPA do you think have been the most
onerous? If Congress could focus on one issue when we go back
between now and the end of the year, which would be the one
that would affect the mine industry that should be reversed
first?
Mr. Mackall. That is a very difficult question to answer.
We talked about all the different ways we are being attacked,
and they are all important. The cumulative effect of all of
them is what is really significant. I mean, to get a permit, it
is a ridiculous tremendous maze you have to go through. I am
convinced there are a lot of the people in the bureaucracy that
don't want to give us a permit. They have embraced this war on
coal. They don't want us to have permits. They throw up even
more personal roadblocks in the middle of the process.
We have spent years trying to get permits, whether it is
Army Corps permits or mining permits. They are getting a little
better in Ohio finally. But it is the cumulative of the whole
thing.
Mr. McKinley. You got a group of individuals here today
that are focused on trying to push back on this war on coal to
get some common sense. I am one of two engineers in Congress.
So I am trying to use my background and experience. I want to
make sure I am fighting based on science. But I need to know
what your priority is. So I am trying to hear from you what
would be your top priority, first bill to get repealed?
Mr. Mackall. Our most important issue, I guess, focuses on
our customers. We have lost many, many customers over the years
that have quit burning coal. I want to make sure that our
customers continue to burn coal.
It amazes me when I see the records and I see how clean the
air is. I have never seen the air so clean. I used to be in
Pittsburgh. It was a horrible mess. Cleveland was a big mess.
Youngstown was a big mess. The air is so clean now. We have
accomplished so much. I don't want any more regulations to
impact on the customer base that is left that we can sell coal
to. We can at least deal with the other regulations as long as
we have a customer left at the end of the day. If there is no
customer, then why even fight it.
Mr. McKinley. I yield back my time.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the panel.
Let me finish with just one question here. Just to dispel this
idea that this is nonpartisan, I mean, I think it has been
clear based on what we have heard, this Administration is
different, different than previous Republican administrations,
different than previous Democratic administrations. This is
just the fact, that this Administration is, in fact, engaging
in a war on the coal industry and has this green initiative.
Mr. Mackall, I bet you employ both Republicans and
Democrats in your business, is that accurate?
Mr. Mackall. We don't ask that question.
Mr. Jordan. I won't ask you which one you are either.
Mr. Mackall. I guess we are 98 percent Republican.
Mr. Jordan. Some of the guys that work for you in your
organization, I am sure people who work in the coal mining
industry aren't all Republican; is that right?
Mr. Mackall. No, they are not.
Mr. Jordan. You make no distinction about it.
Mr. Ahern, in the cooperatives that you represent and
Buckeye Power, I am sure you have got both parties in your
organization.
Mr. Ahern. Certainly do.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Thompson, if my memory serves me right,
your district for many years represented by Democrats in the
general assembly. When you are out talking with constituents, I
bet you have had Democrats come up to you and say they are just
as concerned about what this Administration is doing to coal as
you are.
Mr. Thompson. Very much so.
Mr. Jordan. The Republicans are.
Mr. Thompson. It is not a partisan issue. We want to allow
people to continue to work, and they can't do that with this
war on coal.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Hodanbosi, we determined in the first round
of questions with you that you have been in this business for
almost 40 years, worked for, if I have got my history right,
Gilligan, Rhodes, Celeste, Voinovich, Strickland and Kasich,
all administrated both Republicans and Democrats in there. You
have worked with and interacted with what would have been
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. So you
have worked there, too. And you definitely see this
Administration as different than other administrations that you
have had the privilege and opportunity to work with.
Mr. Hodanbosi. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jordan. I want to thank all of you for being here today
and your important testimony. We appreciate what you do in
these communities and the service you provide the taxpayers of
this great state.
We will go now to our second panel.
[Recess.]
Mr. Jordan. We have the second panel with us, Mr. Shawn
Garvin, who is the administrator of Region 3 of the
Environmental Protection Agency and Mr. Bharat Mathur who is
deputy administrator of Region 5 of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
We want to thank you both for being here. You guys know how
this works. You have to stand up and be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Jordan. Let the record show that both witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Again, I know you guys have done this before, but you get
five minutes. And I think, if I understood from our staff, just
Mr. Garvin is going to make his opening statement and then be
ready for questions.
Mr. Garvin, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHAWN M. GARVIN
Mr. Garvin. Good morning, Chairman Jordan and Members of
the Subcommittee. I am Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Atlantic
Region, Region 3. I am here today to testify on behalf of EPA's
Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic Regions and am joined by my
colleague, Deputy Regional Administrator Bharat Mathur, of
EPA's Great Lakes Region, which includes Ohio.
As the Agency has indicated to your staff, we are
responsible for the implementation of regulations designed and
promulgated in EPA's headquarters offices in Washington, D.C.
in both the Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes regions respectively.
As the agency has also indicated to your staff, while questions
that relate to specific national efforts fall outside of our
responsibility, we are more than happy to refer those questions
to the appropriate EPA staff.
Let me begin by being clear, EPA does not have a ``war on
coal.'' The actions of the agency are based on sound science
and the law. I will focus my testimony on EPA's work with clean
water.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, our communities' businesses
depends on our nation's water for drinking, swimming, fishing,
farming, manufacturing, energy development, tourism and other
activities central to the American economy and quality of life.
Without protections at the state and federal level, many of
these activities would be threatened by the polluted water.
Congress recognized this in a bipartisan fashion when it passed
the Clean Air Act of 1972, which was signed by President Nixon.
While the agency works very closely and collaboratively
with the state partners, the Clean Water Act requires that EPA
oversees these authorized state programs to ensure the goals
and requirements of the Act are being met.
Relating to the permitting of certain types of coal mining
projects, the Clean Water Act designated the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers as the permitting agency for discharges of dredge and
fill materials. EPA may provide comments and information to the
Corps on specific permit applications and may request the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for civil work review certain
permit decisions.
Also, the Act authorizes EPA to prohibit, deny, restrict or
withdraw specifications of the fill disposal sites, an
authority EPA has exercised only 13 times since 1972. Our
regional office works constructively with the Corps, states and
other partners to provide input that may assist applicants in
developing environmentally sound projects in cases where
discharge of dredge or fill material into the nation's water is
being proposed.
I know the Committee has a special interest in Appalachia
surface coal mining. Our work here is informed by peer-reviewed
science documenting the environmental and public health impact
of certain unsustainable mining practices of the past. Recent
studies point to environmental impact and challenges from
surface coal mining that were largely unrecognized even 10
years ago. Between 1992 and 2002, more than 1200 miles of
Appalachia headwater streams had been impacted by Appalachian
surface coal mining practices.
EPA has documented ecologically detrimental changes to
Appalachia's ecosystems associated with impacts from surface
coal mining. Today EPA works closely with partners in the
federal government, the states and industry to ensure that
projects can move forward when designed to minimize
environmental impacts.
Let me be clear, EPA has not established a moratorium on
coal mining. EPA is not blocking or delaying National Pollution
Discharge Elimination Systems permits from being issued. In
fact, EPA has issued very few objections that would prevent
NPDES permits for mining discharges from being issued.
Of the 283 draft NPDES permits for mining discharges
received by EPA from West Virginia, for example, between July
21, 2011 and June 25, 2012, EPA issued a specific objection to
the draft permits less than 2 percent of the time. In those
cases, EPA is continuing work with the state and other
applicants to resolve issues that are the basis for EPA's
objections. In June 2012, the average time for EPA to review
for NPDES permits for mining discharges in West Virginia was 11
days. The State of Ohio has chosen to cover surface coal mines
under general permits where appropriate.
We are committed to working together with our states and
federal partners, coal companies and the public to ensure that
the decisions under the Clean Water Act are consistent with the
law and best available science. Families should not have to
choose between healthy water and a healthy economy. They
deserve and can have both.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Bharat and
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Garvin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 75591.032
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Garvin. Mr. Garvin, you said in
your testimony, if I heard it correctly, that EPA does not have
a war on coal. Do you stick by that?
Mr. Garvin. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. What about this Administration, do you think
this Administration is waging a war on coal?
Mr. Garvin. No.
Mr. Jordan. Do you think there is a bias towards other
forms of energy and a bias against coal?
Mr. Garvin. No.
Mr. Jordan. Were you sitting here in the audience with the
first panel, Mr. Garvin?
Mr. Garvin. I was.
Mr. Jordan. You heard what all four witnesses had to say?
Mr. Garvin. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Specifically Mr. Hodanbosi, you heard what he
had to say in his 40 years of experience in working for the
Ohio EPA?
Mr. Garvin. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. How many years have you worked for the EPA?
Mr. Garvin. Since 1997.
Mr. Jordan. What is that? 15?
Mr. Garvin. 15 years, a little over.
Mr. Jordan. So he has got 25 more years working. You are
saying his description of this Administration is not accurate?
Mr. Garvin. I am saying I am not qualifying what he said. I
am telling you from----
Mr. Jordan. You don't think it is a bias from an
Administration that takes $16 billion of taxpayer money and
gives it to 26 companies, 22 of which have a BB-rating from
Fitch on their credit rating and three of those 22 companies
have gone bankrupt? You don't think that is a bias against
alternative forms of energy?
Mr. Garvin. That is outside of my role and
responsibilities.
Mr. Jordan. You just answered my question a little bit ago.
I said, do you think there is a bias towards other forms of
energy and a bias against coal? You said, no. Now I am asking,
you don't think there is a bias when 26 companies get tax
dollars, 22 of them have a BB-rating and three of them have
already gone bankrupt?
Mr. Garvin. I can only respond based on what we are doing
in EPA Region 3.
Mr. Jordan. You mentioned Region 3. I know there are 10
regions. Let me play for you some of the statements made by
people in other regions who have the same job that you have but
oversee different parts of the country.
[Video played.]
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Garvin, let me take them in order. The
first, Mr. Armendariz, do you agree with his statement where he
talked about people who aren't doing what they want? He used
the term. I don't like to say the term. But do you agree with
the way he described how he was going to treat people in this
particular industry?
Mr. Garvin. I can only focus on what I do in Region 3 and
how we approach it.
Mr. Jordan. But he has the same responsibility in his
region that you have in yours. All I am asking is, do you think
he was appropriate in his comments and how he described it, or
do you think his comments were appropriate?
Mr. Garvin. I can only respond to what we focus on.
Mr. Jordan. What about the second one? You saw on the film
Ms. Hedman accepting petitions from people supporting a rule
that the first panel testified about how difficult it is for
them to do their business and create jobs?
Do you think it is appropriate for an administrator to
accept petitions from a group supporting a rule and show that
acceptance by her conduct? Do you think that is appropriate?
Mr. Garvin. The agency receives comments from all sectors
on all rules, and we treat them all the same.
Mr. Jordan. Do you typically show up at a press conference,
at a rally and applaud those people for giving you those
petitions?
Mr. Garvin. I can only talk about what I do in Region 3.
Mr. Jordan. Have you ever shown up at a pep rally and
applauded the people who bring you petitions,
environmentalists?
Mr. Garvin. I have not.
Mr. Jordan. You have not?
Mr. Garvin. I have not.
Mr. Jordan. Never?
Mr. Garvin. Never.
Mr. Jordan. What about the third clip where Mr. Spalding is
speaking at Yale University and said Lisa Jackson has put forth
a very powerful message to the country, if you want to build a
coal plant, you have got a big problem?
Mr. Garvin. I can't comment on that. I can only focus on
what we do in Region 3. We focus on----
Mr. Jordan. Lisa Jackson, was she not telling the truth
there?
Mr. Garvin. I believe the administrator can speak for
herself.
Mr. Jordan. Do you think the statement she made, if you
want to build a coal plant, you got a big problem, do you think
that is accurate?
Mr. Garvin. I am not familiar with that statement, so I
can't respond to it.
Mr. Jordan. Well, I am reading it to you. Lisa Jackson has
put forth a very powerful message. This is Curt Spalding who
has the same job in Region 1 that you have in your region. He
says, she said it plainly, if you want to build a coal plant,
you got a big problem.
Mr. Garvin. I don't know what statement he is referring to,
so I can't comment on it.
Mr. Jordan. It has to do with what the law and policy
suggested. And it is painful. It is painful every step of the
way. Do you agree with that statement or not?
Mr. Garvin. That is Mr. Spalding making a statement about
what the administrator may or may not have said. I am not
familiar with what the administrator said. So I can't comment
on that.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Mathur, is there a reason why Ms. Hedman
was not able to join us today? Do you know why you are here?
She is your boss; is that right?
Mr. Mathur. That is right.
Mr. Jordan. Why wasn't she able to join us?
Mr. Mathur. She had a longstanding engagement with senior
members of 15 federal agencies that she found it very difficult
to cancel.
Mr. Jordan. That is more important than coming to an area
of the country where jobs have been lost because of policies
from this Administration and speaking to a Congressional
hearing?
Mr. Mathur. It is not more important. It had to do with----
Mr. Jordan. No, no. By definition you said she had a
longstanding meeting. She went there and didn't come here, so
obviously to her it is more important that she is there than to
be in southeast Ohio talking about how jobs are impacted by
this Administration in three states, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
West Virginia. She felt that was more important than coming
here today and having to answer why she was at a rally
accepting petitions from people who want to make it difficult
for jobs to continue to be available in these three states.
Mr. Mathur. She was meeting, Mr. Chairman, with 15 senior
officials of 15 federal agencies about the----
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. I got that the first time.
Mr. Mathur. She was not able to cancel.
Mr. Jordan. I got you.
Mr. Mathur. She regrets not being here.
Mr. Jordan. 15 people in this Administration are more
important than four members of Congress and the thousands of
jobs at stake in southeast Ohio, West Virginia and
Pennsylvania. I got that.
Mr. Mathur. I can't speak for her beyond what I just said.
Mr. Jordan. Do you think it was appropriate for her to
stand at a rally and accept petitions and thank the people for
giving us petitions that are going to impact the very jobs we
are here talking about today?
Mr. Mathur. I know when she was first invited to meet with
that group, she declined. It was only when they assembled
outside our building in fairly significant numbers and were
actually noisy and demonstrations that she decided to go down.
I think she would have met with anyone who would have asked to
meet with her under those circumstances.
Mr. Jordan. Well, she wouldn't meet with us. She might with
anyone, but she won't meet with us because we asked her. We
asked her to come today. She said no, I would rather hang out
with 15 people in the Administration than talk with four
members of Congress in southeast Ohio where jobs are being
lost, plants are being closed and communities are being
devastated because of the policies of this Administration.
That is not just Jim Jordan talking. That is not the three
members of Congress talking. That is the first panel talking
that you just heard. That is one with 40 years of experience in
the EPA who was hired by a Democratic administration saying the
same thing.
Mr. Mathur. I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that I can respond
to questions regarding Region 5 procedures to your
satisfaction.
Mr. Jordan. We appreciate you being here. We do appreciate
that someone from Region 5 was able to come here even though
the administrator was not able to.
I see I am over time. I will yield now to the gentleman
from southeast Ohio, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, thanks.
I appreciate you gentlemen being here. I am actually
sitting here kind of chuckling, Mr. Garvin, because of your
arrogance and your tone of adversarialism in responding to the
questions that have been proposed to you already. You are
making the case that we are here trying to make to the American
people and the people of eastern and southeastern Ohio and West
Virginia and other places across this country that are
dependent upon coal, your bury your head in the sand responses,
``that is not my responsibility, it is not within my scope.''
Let me ask you a question. I sat with one of your superiors
not too long ago, and I asked them the question about the
impacts of the regulations coming out of your department, out
of the EPA, and its effect on industries that are critical to
national security. That individual said to me, ``Mr. Johnson,
it is not my job to be concerned about national security. It is
my job to protect the air.''
Do you subscribe to that same philosophy Mr. Garvin, that
you have no responsibility in your actions to the national
security of the United States?
Mr. Garvin. I think we all have a specific role to play.
Mr. Johnson. I asked a very specific question. I don't want
innuendo. I said, do you subscribe to the philosophy that that
director said, that it is the EPA's responsibility not to be
concerned about national security, but to be concerned about
the air?
Mr. Garvin. I have a certain role in the Administration
and----
Mr. Johnson. Are you concerned about national security?
Mr. Garvin. I think everybody is concerned about it.
Mr. Johnson. No. I asked you, are you concerned in your
role and responsibility about national security? That is a yes
or no question, Mr. Garvin.
Mr. Garvin. My role is to discharge the various statutes.
Mr. Johnson. What you are telling me is no. Again, your
arrogance and your tone of adversarialism and your waffling on
the questions is proving exactly to the American people what we
are trying to demonstrate here today, that not only does this
Administration have a war on coal, but you have a war on the
very idea of American exceptionalism and you have no concern
whatsoever for national security and other implications of your
actions. You should be ashamed, Mr. Garvin, you and everyone
else in the EPA that subscribes to that philosophy.
What is your background? What did you do before you came to
the EPA?
Mr. Garvin. I worked in local government.
Mr. Johnson. You worked in local government. In your
testimony, you talked about how EPA's decisions are based on
valid science. How much education and experience do you have in
science? Have you ever been a scientist?
Mr. Garvin. I have not.
Mr. Johnson. Have you ever worked in an industry where
science was a requirement of your job?
Mr. Garvin. I have not.
Mr. Johnson. Have you ever worked as a chemist or biologist
or any of that?
Mr. Garvin. I have not.
Mr. Johnson. Then you don't know personally, do you,
whether or not EPA's policies are based on sound science?
Mr. Garvin. I do.
Mr. Johnson. How do you know that? What are your
qualifications to tell us? What is your expert opinion?
Mr. Garvin. I have been doing this for 15 years.
Mr. Johnson. But you have no background in science, Mr.
Garvin. Tell us how you know that the EPA's policies are based
on sound science.
Mr. Garvin. Because I know the science, and I have----
Mr. Johnson. No, you don't. You just testified that you
don't know the science, Mr. Garvin, because you never worked in
a scientific field. How do you know that it is based on sound
science?
Mr. Garvin. I have been doing this in this field.
Mr. Johnson. You can testify to this Subcommittee what you
hear from the EPA officials above you in terms of sound bites
and talking points to advocate sound science when we can prove
through industry proof that it is not sound science, that it
requires compliance technologies that aren't even available.
You can testify to that, but yet you can't answer simple
questions that are directed to you by the Chairman of this
Subcommittee and the representatives here about what your roles
and responsibilities are.
Let me submit something to you. You work for the EPA. The
EPA is part of the Executive Branch of the United States, and
the first and foremost responsibility of the Executive Branch
is to ensure the national security of this nation. We do that
through ensuring that we have a vibrant economy and that we
have manufacturing and that we have energy in order to protect
ourselves. For you and your Administration and for you and your
leadership to say that you are not responsible for national
security, I want to make sure I go on record because you just
told me that is what you said.
Mr. Garvin. That is not what I said.
Mr. Johnson. That is exactly what you said, Mr. Garvin. You
said my roles and responsibilities are such-and-such. You never
answered my question directly about whether or not you were
concerned about national security.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know what we do about compelling
these witnesses to answer our questions, but I am pretty
frustrated. I will yield back.
Mr. Jordan. Let me pick up there real quick, if I could.
Mr. Garvin, what was your undergraduate degree in?
Mr. Garvin. Political science.
Mr. Jordan. Do you have a graduate degree?
Mr. Garvin. I do not.
Mr. Jordan. Have you ever worked for anyone in politics?
Mr. Garvin. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Who did you work for?
Mr. Garvin. I worked for United States Senator Joeseph
Biden, County Executive Dennis E. Greenhouse.
Mr. Jordan. Is that the same Joe Biden who is now vice-
president of the United States?
Mr. Garvin. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. You still stick by the statement that there is
no bias in this Administration towards green energy and against
coal? That is what you said.
Mr. Garvin. We don't have a bias against coal.
Mr. Jordan. Now you are changing. Do you have a bias? Pro
green energy, pro wind and solar?
Mr. Garvin. Our responsibility is focused on the
environment. So depending on how you characterize the green
agenda will depend on how I answer.
Mr. Jordan. I just want to make the last point I think Mr.
Johnson was making. You got an undergraduate degree in
political science. You worked for Joe Biden. So no background
in science other than political science. On our first panel, we
had Mr. Hodanbosi who has an undergraduate degree in chemical
engineering. He has got a Master's degree in chemical
engineering. He is a professional engineer in the State of
Ohio. He is part of the American Institute for Chemical
Engineers Air, Waste Management Association and has worked
almost 40 years for both Democrat and Republican
administrations, and his testimony was that there is certainly
a bias in this Administration towards coal. Any response?
Mr. Garvin. He is entitled to his opinion. I stand by mine.
Mr. Jordan. I would just say the facts are the facts, and
the background is the background.
With that I will yield to Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. If we could, I wanted to just look at the
footage again. Mr. Mathur, you are here because Ms. Hedman
can't be here; correct?
Mr. Mathur. That is correct.
Mr. Kelly. If we could just go back to Ms. Hedman.
[Video played.]
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Hedman could have been here. There is a
difference. She could have been here. She chose not to come. It
wasn't like she had a family emergency or anything like that.
She chose to go to another meeting; is that right?
Mr. Mathur. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that she
could not get out of the other meeting on the Great Lakes,
regarding the Great Lakes.
[Video played.]
Mr. Kelly. Were you also there that day?
Mr. Mathur. Beg your pardon?
Mr. Kelly. Were you there that day?
Mr. Mathur. I was not at the event.
Mr. Kelly. But it was a group that showed up outside your
office?
Mr. Mathur. That is correct.
Mr. Kelly. You said because there were so many of them out
there, that she felt like she ought to address them.
Mr. Mathur. That is correct.
Mr. Kelly. So if we took our miners who are losing their
jobs every day because of this war on coal--and there is a war
on coal. I wish we would stop tap dancing and call it what it
is. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a
duck. This is a duck. Okay?
Ms. Hedman, if she was so compelled to go out and meet with
these folks and hold up all these petitions--and I am sure she
went through each one to make sure they were valid. I am just
wondering. You would think Ms. Hedman would feel compelled.
Miners who were losing their jobs and there are people that own
these mines that are closing down their mines and our electric
power generation plants are closing down. If those folks showed
up, do you think she would be compelled to go down there and
thank them for showing up?
Mr. Mathur. I can't speak.
Mr. Kelly. I know you can't speak. Neither one of you can
speak for anybody. You sure as hell can't speak for the
American people, and you can't speak for these miners, and you
can't speak for these people that own these coal mines.
I want to tell you what a tough job is. A tough job is not
a tough political environment. It is an environment that makes
it so impossible for our job creators to even exist anymore.
That is what a tough environment. Don't give me this hogwash
about oh, it is so tough being in one of these agencies
enforcing all this stuff. I don't buy that for one second.
Now, Ms. Hedman couldn't be here. I love Kurt Spalding
talking. I even asked you, Mr. Garvin. I know you don't like
this. You want to build a coal plant, you got a big problem.
Moreover, we understand the decision is painful. You got to
remember if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania--he didn't
include Ohio, but Ohio is the same way--and all these places,
you have coal communities that depend on coal, and to say we
just think those communities should just go away, we can't do
that. But she had to do what the law and the policy suggested.
You know the key to that is the policy suggested. I got to
tell you we sit in these meetings. I wish you all would walk
the same places we walk in our districts and look these folks
in the eyes, and you tell them you are doing it in their best
interest, and you tell them that it is okay to shut down these
plants, it is okay to shut down their mines, it is okay to shut
down their communities, tell them the biggest problem we have
in this country is some people just don't pay their fair share.
I will tell you what they are not sharing is the pain. You
want to talk about pain. You lose your job. You lose your
ability to feed your family. You lose your ability to stay in
the hometown that you grew up in in the state that you grew up
in because of a government that has decided you are no longer
viable. For anybody to walk around this district or any other
district and say there is no loss of jobs, they are either
outright liars or they are in severe denial and they need to
see somebody else that has a degree in another field. I have
sat in front of these too many times.
I understand you don't want talk about what somebody else
said. I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat. We are
all Americans. And you can tell me that you can sit there as an
American and say that you think this is all right because you
are enforcing a policy. I would quit that job as fast as I
could. I would run away from anybody that was taking the
livelihood away from Americans. I am going to ask you a
question. You are not going to answer it. You are just not. But
we have it on tape. We know what they say. We know what other
people are saying about this community, about there is no loss
of jobs. Really? Really. Go to those homes where the dad isn't
working. Go to those homes where mom can't make the budget
anymore because dad doesn't have his job. I want you to look
them in the eye and sit before them.
I represent 705,687 people in western Pennsylvania. I don't
know if they are Republican, Democrat, Independent,
Libertarian. I don't know what they are. You know what I do
know? They are all Americans. For this Administration, to pick
out fossil fuels, specifically coal, and have a war on coal--
your boss, Mr. Garvin, is very biased towards coal. You can't
deny that. The fact you work with him or worked for him many
years, if you don't think he was biased--I don't see how you
can sit here and say, I don't think he has a bias.
I think he has a bias. I think his boss has a bias. I think
this whole Administration has a bias. That is why we're here
today. I believe America needs to understand what the bias is.
I will tell you what, Mr. Chairman. People say to me Kelly,
you seem like you are mad. I am mad. I am mad. I am not going
to sit here and watch this great country go down the drain
because of upside down thinking people and people that go out
and distort, purposely lie to the public and try to hide what
is going on because their party asked too much of them.
President Kennedy said one time, sometimes your party asks too
much. It is not about our party. It is about our people, these
folks right here. If you think you represent anything other
than the American people, you got raised by the wrong folks.
I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the gentleman. Appreciate his passion. Go
down to the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What I am detecting here is a little frustration both ways
on this. I am hearing a lot of denial as it relates to
employment. I saw in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette the other day
there was an article there about the President is probably the
most pro coal President we have had in years. I can't
comprehend that. I go back on that where they are saying that
there is no layoff, there have been no layoffs in coal. And I
ask, what world are people living in just sitting here based on
some remarks you made, I saw layoffs with Consol, Arch Coal,
Patriot, PBS Coal, Rocks Coal, Murray Coal, Murray Energy. They
are all across America. There are coal companies that are
laying off people here in Belmont County and West Virginia.
I heard you say something about science, and it caught my
attention, Mr. Garvin, because I am interested in science as an
engineer and in training science. We looked at in Washington
the TCLP ratings, Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Profile. We
have listened to the pushback of the Administration time and
time again, Lisa Jackson saying how coal is toxic. She says it
is toxic because of the mercury content. But the mercury
content in coal is .17 parts per million. There is more mercury
in a can of tuna fish at .39 parts per million.
Would you suggest that tuna fish is toxic? Should there be
an ad run about toxicity for tuna fish?
Mr. Garvin. There has been a recognition when looking at
impacts of water that consumption of tuna should be----
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Garvin, if she is trying to make flyash
and coal a hazardous material, has the Administration talked
about doing that with tuna fish?
Mr. Garvin. We are trying to find ways to deal with what is
causing the mercury in tuna fish as well as in humans and other
things that are drastic sources.
Mr. McKinley. It has been around. I have known about it. I
have known that the mercury level in tuna fish and other marine
products is high. But we don't see the attack on that. We see
something going after the jobs, something that is creating jobs
for Americans, just as some of the Congressmen have said here.
Let me go back here. Two quick points.
In a hearing we had before the Energy and Commerce
Committee, it was interesting that a representative of the EPA
was saying we need more research into clean coal technology. I
thought that was a great position. That is what we have been
saying all along. Let us keep doing that. Yet the President and
Secretary Chu, in my opening remark--perhaps you heard that--
they cut funding for clean coal technology 41 percent this time
and 39 percent last year.
Do you think people are talking to each other in
Washington? Is the EPA talking with Chu and the Department of
Energy?
Mr. Garvin. I know there is coordination between our
agencies, yes.
Mr. McKinley. Go back to that earlier remark. We are adults
here. This idea of going into denial is just really a waste of
time. We have got Secretary Chu's own remarks. He said time and
time again that coal is his worst nightmare. When he testified
before the Committee, I remember turning to him. I will say the
same thing to you. With all due respect, I think the EPA and
the DOE are the worst nightmare for the working men and women
of America in the coalfields all across America. It is not the
reverse. It is not coal. It is the actions, the overregulation
with it.
Let me conclude with one thing. I am just curious where the
EPA may be going. Maybe you can give me some insight into it.
When the EPA's own website says that indoor air quality can be
as much as 96 times more hazardous to people's health, why
aren't we paying more attention to some of those issues instead
of going after the industry that are employing men and women
all across America on the outdoors? I would think that 90
percent of our time we spend indoors. But yet the EPA and some
of the individuals come to us in Congress and our Committee and
say that the outdoor air is causing asthma, is causing
deformities in our childbirths, it is causing premature deaths,
it is causing lack of school days.
How do you differentiate that when 90 percent of your time
is spent indoors where you are not exposed to the greenhouse
gas exposure that perhaps you have on the outside? How do you
differentiate that when someone says, I have got asthma that
was caused because of coal-fired powerhouses, not because I was
breathing dust mites or aerosols or formaldehyde emission
inside my house? How do you differentiate that from the EPA's
position?
Mr. Garvin. Well, we are focusing on both indoor and
outdoor air. We do know the chemicals that cause certain issues
as well as environmental issues inside the home. We are trying
to focus on addressing all of those issues. You talked about
kind of focusing on jobs and focusing on coal. And what we have
been focusing on in Region 3 is working with our states and
working with industry. So at least from the coal mining side of
that, we can still find a way to extract the valuable energy
resource by doing it in a way that protects public health and
the environment. That is what we are working on.
Mr. McKinley. I think you are picking on an old dog,
something that has generated jobs. It was the backbone of this
America. It is one that fueled our economy in the industrial
revolution, coal. Having that science that you claim the EPA
uses, I wish you would use it to fight the right area, where
people truly do have issues. It is not the outdoor air quality.
It is that exposure to indoor air quality. We ought to take a
much harder look at that before shutting down our powerhouses
and threatening our manufacturers.
With that I yield back my time.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you gentleman.
Mr. Garvin, I want to go back where Mr. Kelly was on Mr.
Spalding's statement. Again, Mr. Spalding is a colleague of
yours representing the region just to the north of you. He is
New England.
Mr. Garvin. New England. He is two up from us.
Mr. Jordan. Your area again, give me the states in your
district.
Mr. Garvin. Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Spalding stated, this is a quote, ``Lisa
Jackson put forth a very powerful message to the country. If
you want to build a coal plant, you got a big problem.''
Spalding goes on to explain that the decision was painful
because you got to remember if you go to West Virginia,
Pennsylvania and all those places, you have coal communities
that depend on coal. And to say that we just think these
communities should go away, we can't do that. But you have to
do what the law and the policy suggested. And it is painful. It
is painful every step of the way.
Let me ask you: Do you think it is painful? I am not asking
whether you agree with Mr. Spalding necessarily, but do you
think it is painful to implement the law and policy as they are
suggested by this Administration?
Mr. Garvin. Our focus in Region 3 has been focusing on the
law and science, and as we focused on mainly the clean water,
that is really the issue of implementation. We have been
focusing on ways in which the industry can continue to extract
the resources, but do it in a way that is protective of human
health and the environment. That is what we have done in West
Virginia. That is what we have done in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Jordan. I understand that. Yes or no. Is it tough? Is
it painful? Is it difficult?
Mr. Garvin. I don't know how to qualify that. I mean, we
focus on the impacts of decisions we make. We make our
decisions based on sound science and basis of law, and it is
protecting both, focusing on both what the industry is trying
to do and we are protecting the public health of the citizens
that live in that area.
Mr. Jordan. Is your answer you don't think it is difficult
for these policies to be implemented? The impact it has, you
don't think it's difficult for ----
Mr. Garvin. I am not sure how to qualify that question.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Mathur, do you think it is difficult?
Mr. Garvin. I am not sure of the question. We do our job
and we do it to the best of our ability and we focus on all the
various impacts.
Mr. Jordan. I understand that. What I am asking, is it
difficult when you do your job on the policy that is there? Do
you think it is difficult for the folks in the field? The folks
who were on the first panel, do you think it is difficult for
them to implement your policy? I mean, your colleague Mr.
Spalding does.
Mr. Garvin. I think we all generally want to have the same
outcome which is ----
Mr. Jordan. Do you know Mr. Spalding?
Mr. Garvin. I do.
Mr. Jordan. What is his background? Does he have a
political science degree, or does he actually have a degree in
some kind of science?
Mr. Garvin. I can't answer that. I don't know.
Mr. Jordan. But you know him?
Mr. Garvin. I know him.
Mr. Jordan. Do you think he is a sharp guy?
Mr. Garvin. Yeah.
Mr. Jordan. You disagree, you don't think what he said here
is accurate?
Mr. Garvin. I can't really respond to what he said.
Mr. Jordan. I don't know why it so difficult to respond. He
is saying it is tough. You were here for the first panel. You
heard how tough they are saying it is. The people that had to
lay off, the difficulties they have had to deal with. You heard
from the state representative who represents people in this
area. It is not difficult?
Mr. Garvin. I am not sure I understand the question, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. I am just flabbergasted. Is it you don't
understand or you won't answer?
Mr. Garvin. I don't understand.
Mr. Jordan. Can you give me a yes or no? Do you think it is
difficult to implement the policies that come from this
Administration? You heard in the first panel from someone who
has 40 years experience at the Ohio EPA who says this
Administration is making it more difficult than any he has ever
dealt with, and he has dealt with several since 1973. But you
don't think it is more difficult?
Mr. Garvin. I think we are implementing the statutes that
are passed by Congress, the regulations that have been
promulgated and basing it on sound science.
Mr. Jordan. Do you think that is harder for the people who
have to live under those regulations?
Mr. Garvin. More difficult than what?
Mr. Jordan. More difficult than previously.
Mr. Garvin. I think we are basically dealing with the same
laws and the same regulations that we have dealt with.
Mr. Jordan. Now you said it. Now you said it. This is the
point. The Clean Water Act has been around for a while.
Suddenly, according to Mr. Hodanbosi and according to the
witnesses on the first panel, they say now it is more difficult
for sure them to deal with it. Mr. Hodanbosi says this
Administration is taking this to a level he has never seen
before. That is the question.
Mr. Garvin. I can't answer what he thinks is more difficult
or not difficult. We are implementing the statutes that were
passed by Congress.
Mr. Jordan. Are they just out to lunch? They don't get it?
If you are just implementing the law and the policy and if that
is the same as it has always been, then why do these four
people--do you think they are lying when they testified on the
panel?
Mr. Garvin. I can't speak for them, Congressman.
Mr. Jordan. That is what you are saying.
Mr. Garvin. That is not what I am saying. I am saying we
are implementing the laws and regulations.
Mr. Jordan. And they are saying the laws and regulations
you are implementing are much more difficult than they have
been under any previous Administration, and that is the punt of
the whole question. I am asking, do you think that is accurate?
Mr. Garvin. Again, I can't speak to that.
Mr. Jordan. Your region includes West Virginia and
Pennsylvania; is that right?
Mr. Garvin. Correct.
Mr. Jordan. Some of the folks here have people who work in
those states. Do you think part of your job is to listen to
what they say and take that back?
Mr. Garvin. Absolutely.
Mr. Jordan. And take that into account?
Mr. Garvin. Absolutely, and I have done that.
Mr. Jordan. We hope you do that. We really do.
I will yield now to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garvin, when did you work for now Vice-President Biden,
what years?
Mr. Garvin. From 1989 to 1991.
Mr. Johnson. I would like to ask you a question probably a
little bit easier because it is based on your extensive
scientific background that we talked about here. In 2007 Vice-
President Biden said that coal is more dangerous than high
fructose corn syrup.
Based on your scientific assessment of that, is that true?
Mr. Garvin. I can't respond to that.
Mr. Jordan. It is science, Mr. Garvin.
Mr. Garvin. I can't respond to that.
Mr. Johnson. You won't respond to that.
Mr. Garvin. I can't.
Mr. Johnson. I got it. You said just a few minutes ago to
the Chairman that in your region, you are implementing the
statutes that had been passed by Congress, but that is not what
one of your colleagues in Region 1 says. He says that you are
making policies based on what the law suggests, not what the
law says.
Is that what you do in your region? Do you base your
decisions in your region based on the words of the statute or
what the statutes in your interpretation suggest?
Mr. Garvin. We do it based on statute, regulations.
Mr. Johnson. So you disagree then with what the gentleman
from Region 1 said, right?
Mr. Garvin. I can only speak to what we are doing in Region
3.
Mr. Johnson. I got that, too. Mr. Garvin, do you have any
responsibility, sense of responsibility to the job creators and
the businesses and the consumers in the district that you
represent or the region that you represent? Do you have a sense
of responsibility to them?
Mr. Garvin. We take that all into consideration when we
implement the statutes and the regulations, finding ways to
work with the states and with the industries to protect human
health and the environment and continue to have a healthy----
Mr. Johnson. That is right on your mission statement;
right. You got that down pretty good.
Who do you work for, Mr. Garvin?
Mr. Garvin. I work for Lisa Jackson.
Mr. Johnson. Does it ever occur to you that you work for
the American people?
Mr. Garvin. I do.
Mr. Johnson. You do? Yet you can't tell me you have got a
responsibility to the job creators that are in your region? How
can you say you work for the American people when all you know
how to do based on your extensive scientific background and
experience is to read talking points that someone has given to
you? How can you say that you stand up, man up to that
responsibility?
Mr. Garvin. We focus on our responsibility of protecting
human health and the environment as well as the economic
impacts.
Mr. Johnson. You do consider the economic impacts?
Mr. Garvin. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. What do you say then to policies that threaten
thousands of coal-related jobs? What do you say to the families
that are associated with those kind of policies? Because now
you are contradicting yourself.
Mr. Garvin. We focus on the Clean Water Act. We focus on
the 402 permits, the NPDES permits and the 404 permits which
are the fill permits. We look to find ways to avoid, to
mitigate and to minimize, avoid, minimize and mitigate to allow
a project to move forward so it is still protecting the human
health and the environment of the people.
Mr. Johnson. Memory is a tricky thing, isn't it? When you
can't remember those talking points, it gets tough trying to
evade these questions.
Mr. Chairman, this is going nowhere. I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKinley. Let us go back to the science again, that
issue. The standards set forth by the EPA using the TCLP, very
clear about what levels of toxicity in barium, arsenic,
mercury, selenium, lead, other heavy metals. They are very
clear. But coal doesn't achieve any of those. It has always
below in all tests. Virtually every coal, whether it is from
the Powder Ridge Basin out west or the northern Appalachian
coal, it all tests below those in all that, but yet the EPA
continues to refer to coal as being toxic. It doesn't meet the
standards of toxicity. It is below the standard.
Do you think coal is toxic?
Mr. Garvin. I believe that burning coal has an
environmental impact that we are looking to----
Mr. McKinley. No. Is it toxic? Does it exceed the TCLP of
your own standard? Does it exceed the standards you set up, the
EPA set up for toxicity? Does it exceed it?
Mr. Garvin. I have to refer that back to our scientific
experts. I can give you an answer to that question.
Mr. McKinley. It just causes uncertainty what you are
saying there. You know, it doesn't reach those toxicity levels,
but yet it is commonly referred to as a toxic material. I have
already demonstrated to you that the mercury level in a can of
tuna fish--there is more mercury in a can of tuna fish than
there is in an equivalent can of flyash, but yet over here we
are trying to class it as a hazardous material and this we
serve it to our children to eat.
Maybe you remember the statement I made earlier, perhaps
you do, and that was just because you can doesn't mean you
should. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The EPA
has a tendency of continuing to swirl the uncertainty because
it can. It can create any standard that it wants. They don't
answer to us in Congress. They only answer to the President.
You know that. We can't correct it. We can offer alternatives.
We can offer legislation, but we can't get them to repeal an
EPA standard. I don't know where you are going with the EPA.
With the soot standard, the soot rule, we want to go from
15 milligrams per cubic meter down to 12. We are going to spend
billions of dollars to reduce the amount of particulate matter
in the air. Why stop at 12? Why not 10? Why not 5? Because as
soon as industry, the powerhouses or the manufacturing plants
once they achieve 12, then you say I am going to issue another
standard. Then they have to go change their technology,
different baghouses, different electrostatic precipitators,
different devices.
It is uncertainty that you keep creating at the federal
level just because you can, not because you should. They have
testified before us in Energy and Commerce. They can't justify
on the health standard to make a reduction in particulate
matter from 15 to 12. But you are allowed to do it because the
President has authorized the EPA to promulgate these rules. But
there is no basis of them.
Where are you going with this? Is there a reason that we
just do it incrementally? Why not tell industry that 20 years
from now you are going to get down to 5 micrograms per cubic
meter and they can plan for that instead of incrementally. You
keep changing the rules as we go along. What is the thought
process there with the EPA?
Mr. Garvin. As I told you in my opening statement, our job
in the regions is implementation. We don't create or promulgate
the rules. That is done by the policymakers in D.C. So I can't
really respond to that.
Mr. McKinley. I guess we will have to deal with it another
day. When you come to Washington, we can carry on this
conversation. You can see how frustrating it is. We know the
EPA is promulgating the rules. If we want to parse our words
and say it is the regulators doing it, it is what the EPA is
doing.
Mr. Jordan. The previous question I asked you was part of
your job was to listen to what constituents in your district
have to say. I think we were on the first panel. So which is
it? Are you going to listen to them and take the information
back? You can only do what they say. Or are you going to
actually take that information back and try to impact those
regulations because you heard from people who you represent or
at least you are supposed to represent? You heard from them on
the first panel.
Mr. Garvin. Absolutely. As I said, we will take that
information back and we will provide that to those who make the
decisions. My point to the Congressman from West Virginia was I
can't respond to how the ultimate decision is going to be made,
but we can help provide information on what we are seeing in
our regions from various areas and sectors on issues and
concerns that are related to those.
Mr. Jordan. Before the decisions were made on Utility MACT
and other rules that have been promulgated by this
Administration, did you seek input from West Virginia and
Pennsylvania? Did you pass that up the line to those folks?
Mr. Garvin. We had our staff that was passing along
information based on our engagement.
Mr. Jordan. Did you? Did you pass it along?
Mr. Garvin. Not personally, no.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Garvin, in your discussion I think with
Congressman McKinley, you said not only environmental impact,
but you also look at the economic impact.
Mr. Garvin. Yes.
Mr. Kelly. So what are the metrics? Tell me when you look
at the economic impact, where is the cut-off point? Where do
you say we are trying to achieve something that doesn't make
sense economically?
Mr. Garvin. There is not a matrix. What I am referring to
is we have an applicant that comes before us with a permit, be
it either a 402 which is direct delegated authority from EPA to
the states or a Corps permit in which EPA is engaged in the
process. We look at the project that they are looking to
implement, and we try to find ways to work with both the state,
the Corps and the applicant to figure out how best to protect
the environment as well as continue to move forward with their
projects.
I will give you an example. The Hobath Mine that was
permitted, we were all able to successfully work together to
minimize, to reduce 50 percent of the impacts and still getting
over 91 or 92 percent of the coal take that the company was
looking for. When I talk about economics, that is kind of----
Mr. Kelly. In business time is always of the essence.
Permitting times, I have friends that do this. And they tell me
it has gotten to the point right now--it may be that there is
not enough people to review permits. I don't know. But this
idea it can take whatever amount of time it takes to get
something reviewed, I mean, you could stall anybody for about
as long as you want.
In the coal business, these people have done this, some for
generations, and are experiencing a tie-up in getting permits.
There is no permit authority. I will tell you that that may be
okay for you to say, but when you are actually on the field,
there is a tremendous tie-up. These folks cannot keep their
machinery idle and their working crews idle while the
Department, whether you or the Army Corps of Engineers,
continues to sift through this permitting. You don't think it
is taking longer to get permits?
Mr. Garvin. In Pennsylvania----
Mr. Kelly. Just yes or no, because I don't want to put you
through this too much longer.
Mr. Garvin. No. In Pennsylvania basically there are no
Corps permits, no 404. There is no mountaintop mining. It is
all subsurface and all longwall mining.
Mr. Kelly. So these people that are telling me it is taking
longer to get permitting----
Mr. Garvin. I can't speak for the process for the state to
get it to us, but we have a 30-day clock to do a general
objection, then a 90-day clock to address that. We have had 113
permits from the same period of 2011 to 2012. In Pennsylvania
we had one objection which has been resolved. So I am not sure
what that is based on.
Mr. Kelly. I will tell you what it is based on is going out
and actually talking to people in the business and saying to
them so how much tougher is it for you now than it was before,
and they are telling me it is much more difficult. They have no
reason to tell me that other than the fact they are trying to
make payrolls, they are trying to be profitable and they are
just trying to keep their business alive.
What they keep saying to me is, what can you guys do to
help us? So returning to this, if we are not studying the
economic impact of some of this policymaking that we are doing,
how do we know it is beneficial? Is there no determination of
where we are trying to get to? And at what point do we say it
is no longer economically feasible to do it? I think that is
what we are doing with a lot of these folks. We are putting
them out of business. They can't continue to do what we are
asking them to do, because we are raising the bar all the time
for them.
I wish the DOE had used the same type of a metric when they
were talking to all these people with renewables. We threw
billions of dollars away. Do you not look at that? I know you
can't speak what is going on in other regions, but I would
think that you all get together from time to time and you talk
about best practices and what would be more efficient and what
would be more effective.
Is there any consideration given to the job creators as to
what would be better for them?
Mr. Garvin. Again, what I know we focus on, we focus on
trying to look at it, but trying to do it working with the
states and the applicants.
Mr. Kelly. So the people that are in the business, that is
not part of the equation?
Mr. Garvin. Well, the projects are in the equation which
then engage the folks who going to do the projects. Our focus
is trying to move the projects along, but protect the
environment.
Mr. Kelly. I guess somewhere you said that would be on
them, talking to people that actually have to make a living and
actually sign those paychecks. I will tell you that until you
have been in that position--you fellows work for the
government. I don't think you guys ever miss getting paid. I
can tell you there are many times I have not paid myself and
made sure that the guys and gals that work for me get paid
first. I wish we could flip that around in this government. I
wish we could hold up the paychecks until this becomes more
effective and more efficient and doesn't run $1.7 trillion a
year in the red. And that same group of people that is running
that model is trying to tell these folks how to run theirs? I
would guarantee you if all of you didn't get paid because of
poor performance, you would see the performance level rise real
quick.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Good point.
Mr. Mathur, Dr. Hedman, she is chairing a Great Lakes
restoration initiative, is that why she couldn't come to the
meeting, the reason she gave for not being able to be with us
today?
Mr. Mathur. Yes, Mr. Chairman. She is chairing a committee
of 15 federal agencies.
Mr. Jordan. Where is that? Where is that meeting taking
place?
Mr. Mathur. I am not sure of the location.
Mr. Jordan. We are looking at her schedule from yesterday.
It says will chair the annual budget meeting for the federal
agencies involved in implementation of the Great Lakes
restoration initiative. That was yesterday at 12:00 noon,
12:05. Is this a 2-day meeting?
Mr. Mathur. I was under the impression the meeting was
continuing today.
Mr. Jordan. But there is no way she could have gone from
12:00 to 5:00, five hours yesterday at this meeting, flew to
Columbus, then here, and then flew--we understand this meeting
is in Chicago--back to Chicago? She just couldn't do that?
Mr. Mathur. I can't speak to her schedule.
Mr. Jordan. Obviously she told you. She said, I am not
going. You are going to have to go take what they are going to
give to Mr. Garvin and what they would have given to me. You
have to take this. I don't want to be there. I would rather
chair a meeting that takes place five hours the day before and
I am going to make sure I stay overnight and be there for the
second day because I don't want to talk to the members of
Congress who are going to talk about the jobs that have been
lost because of the policies of this Administration.
Mr. Mathur. She actually asked me last week to represent
her here today. After consultation with appropriate folks in
Washington, I am here. She wanted to make sure I can answer
your questions on how Region 5 does its business.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mathur, I might remind you that you are under oath.
Mr. Mathur. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Are you saying you do not know whether your
boss' meeting was yesterday or today? When was the meeting, Mr.
Mathur?
Mr. Mathur. I honestly don't know exactly what were the
dates of her meeting with the other federal agencies. All I was
made aware of was that----
Mr. Johnson. Where is she today? Where is she physically
today? Most everybody that has a boss checks in periodically.
You are the deputy administrator. So she is probably pretty
anxious about hearing how this hearing went.
Where are you going to be calling her? Where is she today?
Mr. Mathur. I honestly don't know where she is today.
Mr. Jordan. This is a meeting that happens periodically?
Mr. Mathur. A face-to-face meeting happens infrequently.
Mr. Jordan. No. I am talking about the meeting she is at.
This happens periodically. Is it typically a 1-day meeting, a
2-day meeting, 5-day meeting, all week meeting? Only a 2-day
meeting when you have to come in front of a committee of
Congress?
Mr. Mathur. Particularly they meet by telephone. Face-to-
face meeting is infrequently held. I cannot tell you how long.
Mr. Jordan. This is a face-to-face meeting?
Mr. Mathur. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Is it typically one or two days?
Mr. Mathur. It can go either one or two days. It has gone
both ways in the past.
Mr. Jordan. But you don't know if this meeting is a one or
two day?
Mr. Mathur. I do not.
Mr. Jordan. She didn't tell you were coming here till last
week? She didn't tell you were going to be in front of this
Committee until last week?
Mr. Mathur. I was made aware that I was going to attend
this meeting I think very soon after the Committee requested
her presence at the meeting.
Mr. Jordan. Did you guys discuss this meeting, what you
would say, the response you would give or the fact that you
wouldn't give an opening statement? Did you discuss all that?
Mr. Mathur. Not with Ms. Hedman. That was discussed with--
--
Mr. Jordan. You are the number two at the region, is that
correct?
Mr. Mathur. That is correct.
Mr. Jordan. If this is an indication of the infrequency
that you communicate with the boss, then it is no wonder that
people in the field have a misunderstanding of what is going
on. If that is the kind of communication that we have with the
region, I think it is understandable why people are confused
about this as well.
Mr. Mathur. I think the preparation for this meeting was
discussed more with the Congressional folks in Washington.
Mr. Jordan. Further questions? Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. It is not untypical that we ask witnesses to
respond back with answers to questions that they don't know the
answer to.
Mr. Mathur, we are going to be here for a few minutes after
the adjournment of this meeting. Can you find out where your
boss is? Can you call the office and find out where she is
today?
Mr. Mathur. I most certainly will do that.
Mr. Johnson. We would like to know. Thank you.
Mr. Jordan. Members will have 7 days to submit questions
and information to the Committee.
Mr. Jordan. I want to thank our guys. I know it is not
always pleasant. But it is the nature of this job. We
appreciate you coming here and taking the time. I know you have
busy schedules as well. We appreciate you coming--it is an
important part of the country on an important issue--and
participating in this morning's hearing.
I thank all our members for being here. I want to thank the
audience and members of the first panel, those who are still
here. We appreciate you all being here today.
With that we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]