    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

         THE AMERICAN ENERGY INITIATIVE, PART 29: A FOCUS ON H.R. 6172

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 20, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-179

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    85-564                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman

    JOE BARTON, Texas                    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky                 Chairman Emeritus
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    MARY BONO MACK, California           FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina   GENE GREEN, Texas
      Vice Chairman                      DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              LOIS CAPPS, California
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire       MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                JIM MATHESON, Utah
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            Islands
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    PETE OLSON, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia

                                     7_____

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             GENE GREEN, Texas
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   LOIS CAPPS, California
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                      officio)
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, opening statement....................................     7
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     7
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of West Virginiia, opening statement.....................    11
    Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    11

                                   Witnesses

    Eugene M. Trisko, Attorney at Law, on Behalf of United Mine
      Workers of America.............................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Mark McCullough, Executive Vice President, Generation, American
      Electric Power.................................................    37
        Prepared statement...........................................    39
    John N. Voyles, Jr., Vice President, Transmission and Generation
      Services, LG&E and KU Energy LLC...............................    56
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
    Robert Hilton, Vice President, Power Technologies for Government
      Affairs, Alstom................................................    64
        Prepared statement...........................................    66
    John Thompson, Director, Fossil Transition Project, Clean Air
      Task Force.....................................................   104
        Prepared statement...........................................   106
    Daniel A. Lashof, Director, Climate and Clean Air Program,
      National Resources Defense Council.............................   124
        Prepared statement...........................................   126
    John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director,
      Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in
      Huntsville.....................................................   139
        Prepared statement...........................................   141
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   199

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 6172, submitted by Mr. Whitfield............................     4

         THE AMERICAN ENERGY INITIATIVE, PART 29: A FOCUS ON H.R. 6172

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed
    Whitfield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus,
    Walden, Terry, Burgess, Bilbray, Scalise, Olson, McKinley,
    Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Rush,
    Markey, Green, Capps, Doyle, and Waxman (ex officio).
        Staff present: Anita Bradley, Senior Policy Advisor to
    Chairman Emeritus; Maryam Brown, Chief Counsel, Energy and
    Power; Allison Busbee, Legislative Clerk; Patrick Currier,
    Counsel, Energy and Power; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press
    Secretary; Cory Hicks, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power;
    Heidi King, Chief Economist; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and
    Power; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Peter Spencer,
    Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Kristina Friedman,
    Democratic EPA Detailee; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy
    Analyst; and Alexandra Teitz, Democratic Senior Counsel, Energy
    and Environment.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Whitfield. I would like to call this hearing to order,
    and once again, I want to thank the members of the panel for
    being here and we look forward to your testimony. All of you
    have had a lot of experience in the issues that we will be
    talking about, so after we finish opening statements, I will be
    introducing each one of you individually.
        Today we are holding the 29th day of our American Energy
    Initiative hearing. We will be focusing on H.R. 6172, which
    would prohibit EPA's proposed New Source Performance Standard
    for greenhouse gases from being finalized until it is
    technologically and economically feasible. I want to thank Mr.
    McKinley of West Virginia for spearheading this legislation,
    and I also want to thank the Democratic members who cosponsored
    this legislation.
        I don't think that anyone is not aware of the fact that
    this administration has a strong bias against coal. We all are
    familiar with the President's comments in San Francisco when he
    was running for President that people would be able to build
    coal plants if he is elected President but they would be
    bankrupt. Yesterday, many of you read about Alpha Resources
    closing down eight coalmines, 1,200 jobs. Patriot Coal recently
    announced they were going into bankruptcy. Murray Coal up in
    Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Illinois has announced they
    are going to be closing down three mines. And I understand the
    argument on the other side because they say it has nothing to
    with us, it has nothing to do with our regulations, this is
    because natural-gas prices are low, which is true. But even if
    that were not the case, once this regulation becomes final, no
    one will be able to build a new coal power plant in America.
    And so I lay that at the foot of the President and his
    administration. It is their responsibility and they are
    responsible for where we are today as it relates to coal. It
    still produces a great portion of the electricity in our
    country.
        Now, it is easy to talk about the benefits of lowering
    carbon dioxide emissions, and I would be the first to admit the
    Clean Air Act has been very successful. But I would also say
    that when EPA considers the benefits, and there are benefits
    from many regulations, that they have a responsibility to
    consider the cost and the impact on the health care of the
    thousands of people who lose their jobs as a direct result of
    the regulations. And of course, they never consider those
    costs.
        And so this legislation is very simple. It basically says
    no, you are not going to be able to implement this until it is
    shown that, technologically and economically, it is feasible to
    use carbon capture and sequestration and it appoints three
    different agencies in the government to make that decision.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield and H.R. 6172
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.004

        Mr. Whitfield. So I was going to yield to Mr. Barton. I see
    he is not here. Mr. Shimkus, do you have any comments you would
    like to make?

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    hearing.
        There was a huge rally in deep southern Illinois over the
    weekend to protect and save coalmining jobs in the country, and
    for the administration to continue to make this assault on our
    cheapest form of electricity generation, and I think for a lot
    of us who have been in this fight for a long time, it is the
    multitude of rules and regulations that are coming down from
    boiler MACT, mercury MACT, cooling towers to CSAPR. You name
    it, there is another rule and reg. No wonder there is
    uncertainty in the sector and no wonder they have to make tough
    decisions. These tough decisions are the loss of jobs,
    coalmining jobs in rural America.
        The untold story is also the loss of a taxpaying base to
    small, rural America that helps support our schools, our
    hospitals, our local communities, our public-safety net. That
    is why we are as impassioned as our friends on the other side
    saying we just have to stop this assault, so I appreciate the
    hearing. It comes at a critical time, and thank you for it.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
    Chairman, we are here yet another time, yet another day, yet
    another bill being introduced by my Republican colleagues that
    will attempt to roll back the progress that the American people
    have made and block and delay EPA rules that are designed to
    make our air, land, and water cleaner for the American people
    including those people who now currently have and will in the
    future work in coalmines.
        Today's hearing marks the 29th in a series of hearings that
    the majority party has dubbed the American Energy Initiative,
    but from each of those hearings, which represents hundreds of
    hours of endless debate, endless discussion and endless delay,
    we have enacted exactly zero, nada energy policy to move the
    country forward. All this hearings and it hasn't produced one
    bill that moved this country forward.
        Mr. Chairman, if today's hearing feels a bit like dEja vu
    all over again, as Yogi Berra would say, to those that are
    watching this subcommittee just because we have been here and
    we have done this countless times already.
        Today's hearing will focus on H.R. 6172, a bill that
    prohibits the EPA from finalizing standards of performance
    under section 111 of the Clean Air Act for carbon dioxide
    emissions from existing or new fossil fuel-fired power plants
    unless or until carbon capture and storage is found to be
    technologically and economically feasible. Ironically, Mr.
    Chairman, this bill comes on the heels of the last markup the
    subcommittee held where the majority defeated an amendment I
    offered that would have exempted future clean-coal projects
    from the arbitrary December 2011 deadline, and my Republican
    colleagues' misguided attempts to disrupt the Department of
    Energy loan program by prohibiting any funding for future
    proposals regardless of the merits or technological advances of
    those projects. So as the first attempt to abandon any new
    Department of Energy funding for future clean-coal projects,
    the majority party is now bringing forth a bill that would
    block and delay EPA rules from finalizing the proposed carbon
    pollution standards for new power plants or any future carbon
    pollution standards for existing power plants until carbon
    capture and sequestration is technologically and economically
    feasible. This bill to most people would seem simply another
    attempt to try and shield the dirtiest polluters from
    commonsense air quality standards that would make their
    facilities cleaner and more efficient while protecting
    Americans' health.
        Mr. Chairman, this messaging bill sends a clear message to
    industry that if we don't succeed once, twice, 10, 20, or in
    this instance, 29 times, we will try and try and try again to
    show the industry that we are with them standing shoulder to
    shoulder not to be divided by the plight or the affairs of
    Americans' public health.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a dead-on-arrival bill, as you well
    know, and if the stakes weren't so high and important to the
    protect the American people, then we could get a laugh out of
    29 times and nothing to show for it, these message after
    message attempts on the part of the Republicans. Whatever
    happened to governing through bipartisan legislation?
        Mr. Chairman, I think that this bill and our time here is a
    waste of our energy, a waste of our time, and it certainly is
    not an attack on coal, it is an attack on progress and what is
    best for the American people and common sense.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Upton, for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This hearing on H.R. 6172 continues the committee's
    oversight of EPA's costly regulatory agenda and follows
    previous subcommittee hearings on EPA's myriad greenhouse gas
    regulations, including its most recently proposed rule that
    would establish new emissions standards for fossil-fuel-fired
    power plants. We are extremely concerned about the impacts that
    this proposed rule would have on the future of affordable coal-
    fired power generation in America if indeed it is finalized.
        As currently written, the rule requires any new coal-fired
    plants to install costly carbon capture and sequestration
    technology. However, even President Obama's Department of
    Energy has acknowledged that CCS technology is not yet
    commercially available and that large-scale commercialization
    remains years, if not decades, away.
        Leaders in CCS technology and industry stakeholders agree
    that significant technical, legal and regulatory hurdles still
    need to be overcome in order to successfully bring CCS to
    commercial scale. And because CCS technology remains in its
    early stages of development, not a single CCS developer in the
    world can currently guarantee that its technology will work at
    commercial scale, and without such a guarantee, power plant
    operators will not, and cannot, make investment in CCS
    technology.
        In other words, unless and until CCS technology is proven
    to be commercially viable and cost-effective, EPA's proposed
    rule will effectively prevent the construction of any new coal-
    fired power plants in America. But a ban on coal-fired
    generation is the end result that the administration probably
    is trying to achieve.
        We shouldn't be surprised by that. This administration's
    position on coal has been crystal clear: President Obama
    himself said he wants to ``bankrupt'' coal companies and that
    ``electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.'' Meanwhile,
    the Secretary of Energy has declared that coal is his worst
    nightmare. Those are his words.
        This proposed rule would do exactly what the administration
    set out to do from the very start: prohibit the future use of
    coal in this country. Clearly, there is a war on coal that is
    being waged by the administration. Just ask the 1,200 employees
    of Alpha Natural Resources that were told this week that they
    are going to be out very quickly because of the announced mine
    closures forced in part by Federal regs aimed at restricting
    the use of coal, or the hundreds, probably thousands of other
    miners across the coal belt who have recently received pink
    slips too.
        If finalized, this rule will have a detrimental impact on
    electricity generation in the country and future electricity
    prices as well. This is why we are going to continue to
    scrutinize EPA's proposed rule and why I appreciate the
    gentleman from West Virginia's leadership on this bill, and I
    will yield now the balance of my time to Mr. McKinley.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.005

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. MCKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
              IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The EPA is indeed proposing a regulation that future coal-
    fired facilities must implement a carbon capture system that
    reduces their emissions by 50 percent, but like you have heard
    from some of the other speakers, it cannot be performed. There
    are no commercial applications available. We have even heard
    testimony, as you before from the EPA, saying we know that it
    can't be done for 10 years or more. Therefore, the mission here
    is no coal-fired electric powerhouses will be constructed in
    America until this technology is available.
        Now, that has to be coupled with the concept of maybe
    through research and development, maybe that will happen, but
    we all know here in Congress that this administration has cut
    the research money in National Energy Technology Lab last year
    40 percent, this year 41 percent. How are we going to achieve
    this objective if we don't have the research into the
    development of this process?
        You have heard the quotes. I will add one more. Joe Biden,
    the Vice President, has said that this administration does not
    support clean-coal technology. What better manifestation of it
    in this particular rule that they are promulgating? They are
    trying to bankrupt us to stop us from burning coal and what
    they are doing is hurting the working men and women all across
    America, putting them out of work, these 1,200 people.
        We have learned that AEP has already canceled one of its
    own projects, the Mountaineer plant, because they found out
    that that cost was going to be, as I understand it, increasing
    the utility bills by 80 percent to consumers, to schools, to
    manufacturers, and they chose not to do it.
        So for anyone that believes that there is no war on coal,
    they are in denial. This President, this administration and
    those who support him are hurting our consumers. They are
    hurting our Nation. They are close-minded about where we are
    going to go in developing our fossil fuels, the fuel that
    feuded our industry revolution.
        So this war on coal must stop. These ideologically driven
    regulations must not be implemented until the technology and
    the economics justify their cost.
        Thank you very much, and I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        This committee has heard a lot of arguments from victims
    and people are being convinced that they are victims by the
    government when that is not the case. Let me cite an example.
    This committee had a hearing on EPA's proposed regulation of
    farm dust. Can anybody think of anything more ridiculous than
    regulating farm dust that is ubiquitous to farms? So this
    committee rushed legislation to protect the farmers from EPA
    regulation of farm dust even though EPA said they had no plans
    to regulate farm dust, and we passed a bill. Do you know what
    the bill did? It provided for repeal of regulations from open-
    pit mining that put out particulate matter and toxic substances
    in the air. So the farmers were told they were victims and they
    were being used for a different purpose.
        It is not the government's fault if a utility decides it is
    cheaper to use natural gas than coal. That is what we call
    economics. If it is cheaper to use another substance, they will
    use it. Do we want to stop them from doing that? Do we want to
    stop the free enterprise system?
        We don't have the technology to remove the carbon from coal
    and store it. It is a technology we all should want to have.
    But the industry has no incentive to develop that technology
    because they are doing fine selling coal and using coal without
    that technology. That would just be an extra expense.
        So you have two ways you could get that technology. One is
    to say you have got to use it in order to achieve a certain
    standard. Well, the best way to achieve that standard, that is
    the way the environmental laws have worked in the past as long
    as we allow source of electricity to compete as long as it does
    not cause unacceptable harm to health and the environment. This
    bill picks winners and losers. The other EPA would set a
    standard that companies that generate electricity from coal
    will not have a free pass on pollution.
        But there was another way to do it. That was the way Mr.
    Upton proposed in legislation that would have put a fee on
    those who get electricity from coal and that fee would have
    been used exclusively for research and development of the
    technology. That was a bill he introduced in the last Congress
    with Mr. Boucher, and I suggested to him that we would take up
    that bill and vote for it. If we can't do anything else, at
    least do that. Never heard any other word on the subject after
    we proposed doing that.
        The Republicans in this House passed H.R. 910, the Upton-
    Inhofe bill. That would have barred EPA from reducing dangerous
    carbon pollution and codified science denial by overturning
    EPA's scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers health
    and welfare. It is a premise that climate change is a hoax, and
    since that time early last year, this Republican House has
    proved to be the most anti-environmental in the history of the
    Congress.
        Republicans have voted more than 300 times on the House
    Floor to weaken longstanding public-health and environmental
    laws, block environmental standards, defund protections of our
    air, water and public lands, oppose clean energy. They voted 47
    times to block action on climate change. When they passed that
    Upton-Inhofe bill a year and a half ago, House Republicans
    argued the science was uncertain, EPA was exceeding its
    authority. By now, everybody should understand that they were
    wrong on both counts. The science has been clear and clearer,
    and just look at all the signs of climate change occurring
    around us: recent wildfires, droughts, heat waves, exactly the
    type of extreme weather events that scientists have been
    predicting for years and that this committee has been ignoring.
        Since the passage of the Upton-Inhofe bill, we have sent 17
    letters to the chairman of this committee requesting hearings
    on new developments in climate science. We haven't even gotten
    a reply. Instead, what we have is the leadership of this
    committee talking about a war on coal, and if coalminers are
    losing their jobs, it is because of the government. Well, it is
    because of economics and the unwillingness of the Republicans
    who control the House to figure a way out of this issue.
        The EPA is not overreaching. The courts have affirmed their
    power to regulate in this area. It is about time we try to help
    the people in the coal area be viable in a new economy that is
    coming. Otherwise you can scare them with talk of war against
    them but it is a dishonest approach. It doesn't help them. It
    stirs up the feelings of victimology by the people in these
    areas, and I suppose it is supposed to help Republicans in the
    election. But sometimes let us stop playing politics and deal
    with national urgent matters, and this committee has refused to
    do it for a year and a half.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I would like to introduce the
    members of the panel. Once again, thank you for being with us
    today. We look forward to your testimony.
        First, we have Mr. Eugene Trisko, who is an attorney at law
    representing the United Mine Workers of America. We have Mr.
    Mark McCullough, who is Executive Vice President of Generation
    at American Electric Power. We have Mr. John Voyles, Jr., who
    is the Vice President of Transmission and Generation Services
    at Louisville Gas and Electric and KU Energy. We have Mr.
    Robert Hilton, who is Vice President of Power Technologies for
    Government Affairs at Alstom Power. And we have Mr. John
    Thompson, who is the Director of Fossil Transition Project at
    the Clean Air Task Force, and we have Dr. Dan Lashof, who is
    the Director of Climate and Clean Air for the Natural Resources
    Defense Council, and we have Dr. John R. Christy, who is
    Professor and Director of the Earth Science System Center at
    the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
        So thank you for being with us. Each one of you will be
    given 5 minutes to give an opening statement, and you will
    notice there is a little clock up here, so once your time is
    expired, it is expired. Obviously I am not going to just
    immediately cut you off but I wouldn't want you to go on like
    10 minutes, but we do look forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Trisko, I will recognize you for 5 minutes for your
    opening statement.

     STATEMENTS OF EUGENE M. TRISKO, ATTORNEY AT LAW, ON BEHALF OF
    UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA; MARK MCCULLOUGH, EXECUTIVE VICE
    PRESIDENT, GENERATION, AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER; JOHN N. VOYLES,
    JR., VICE PRESIDENT, TRANSMISSION AND GENERATION SERVICES, LG&E
        AND KU ENERGY LLC; ROBERT HILTON, VICE PRESIDENT, POWER
      TECHNOLOGIES FOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ALSTOM; JOHN THOMPSON,
      DIRECTOR, FOSSIL TRANSITION PROJECT, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE;
      DANIEL A. LASHOF, DIRECTOR, CLIMATE AND CLEAN AIR PROGRAM,
       NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND JOHN R. CHRISTY,
      PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE AND DIRECTOR, EARTH SYSTEM
          SCIENCE CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE

                     STATEMENT OF EUGENE M. TRISKO

        Mr. Trisko. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield,
    Ranking Member Rush, distinguished members. I am Eugene Trisko.
    I am an attorney in private practice, and I am pleased to be
    here today to testify on behalf of the United Mine Workers of
    America to support the enactment of H.R. 6172. I have had the
    honor of representing the UMWA in Clean Air Act and domestic
    international climate change issues for the past 25 years.
        H.R. 6172 is sound policy and a commonsense solution to the
    threat to new advanced coal generation posed by EPA's proposed
    carbon pollution standard rule. That rule sets a uniform
    CO2 emissions rate of 1,000 pounds of CO2
    per megawatt-hour applicable to both coal and natural-gas
    combined cycle units. New coal units would need to employ CCS
    technology to comply while new natural-gas combined cycle units
    could comply without CCS.
        EPA and DOE's National Energy Technology Lab estimates that
    applying CCS to new coal-based units would increase the cost of
    electric power by 80 percent. CCS has not been commercially
    demonstrated in this country as indicated by the findings of
    the 2010 Interagency Task Force Report on Carbon Capture and
    Storage. EPA's proposed rule is simply a means of forcing
    winners and losers in the future market for electric
    generation.
        The proposed rule also ignores 40 years of EPA regulation
    under the Clean Air Act by lumping together these two very
    different sources of electric generation into one category
    subject to a single emission standard that only one type of
    source can meet. The EPA rule says in effect that the best
    system of emission reduction for new coal and natural-gas units
    is natural-gas combined cycle technology. The mine workers
    comments to EPA, which are attached to my testimony, note that
    natural-gas combined cycle is a form of producing electricity,
    not a best system of emission reduction under the Clean Air
    Act.
        The UMWA has supported previous legislation to accelerate
    the commercial demonstration of CCS technologies including the
    Upton-Boucher bill. This legislation has not been enacted and
    funding available through DOE has not been adequate to support
    successful large-scale demonstration of CCS technology. We are
    hopeful that new proposals will be developed to put CCS
    demonstration projects on a firmer financial footing.
        Coal is an indispensable part of America's energy supply
    and must be a core element of any all-of-the-above energy
    policy. More than one-third of our Nation's electricity is
    generated by coal, mainly in baseload plants. The principal
    alternatives to coal for future baseload generation are nuclear
    and natural gas. While natural-gas prices have declined
    recently, substantial uncertainty surrounds future natural-gas
    prices, particularly in view of the 40- to 60-year lifetimes of
    electric generation assets.
        The United States should take the lead in establishing the
    technical and commercial viability of CCS technology for use
    both here and abroad. India and China have vast coal reserves
    and will continue to rely upon them to support their own
    economic development. China alone consumes three times more
    coal than we do. Our recoverable coal reserves hold the energy
    equivalent of the world's proven oil reserves.
        The United States should pursue policies that will
    accelerate, not stymie, the full range of advanced coal
    technologies including commercial-scale demonstration and
    deployment of CCS. Rethinking the EPA carbon pollution standard
    rule is an important step in that direction, and we support
    this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Trisko follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.026

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        Mr. McCullough, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MARK MCCULLOUGH

        Mr. McCullough. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Minority Member
    Rush and distinguished members of the Committee on Energy and
    Commerce, thank you for inviting me here today. I appreciate
    this opportunity to offer the views of AEP on EPA's proposed
    Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standard and the current
    state of carbon capture and storage technology.
        My name is Mark McCullough. I am the Executive Vice
    President of Generation at AEP. AEP is one of the Nation's
    largest generators, owning more than 37,000 megawatts of
    generating capacity and serving more than 5 million retail
    customers. EPA's generating fleet employs diverse fuel sources
    including coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, oil and
    wind. Due to the location of our service area and historic
    importance of coal to the economies of our States,
    approximately two-thirds of our generating capacity utilizes
    coal.
        AEP has a long history of proactive involvement in
    environmental stewardship, particularly with regard to reducing
    its net carbon emissions. Perhaps AEP's most significant
    contribution to technology solutions for addressing greenhouse
    gas emissions was a successful completion of a validation scale
    demonstration of the world's first fully integrated CCS project
    at an existing coal-fired electric generating unit. The
    Mountaineer CCS Project treated a 20-megawatt portion of flue
    gas from our 1,300-megawatt Mountaineer plant, removed the
    CO2, compressed it and injected it into two deep
    underground formations from 2009 to 2011, permanently storing
    nearly 40,000 tons of CO2.
        AEP has long maintained that the Clean Air Act is not a
    practical or cost-effective vehicle to limit greenhouse gas
    emission and any system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions
    should be developed by Congress. Global climate change and
    greenhouse gas emissions present a new set of issues that the
    existing framework of the Clean Air Act was never intended to
    address. As such, regulation of greenhouse gases under the
    existing Act is likely to be ill designed and significantly
    more costly than a more flexible legislative approach.
        The proposed New Source Performance Standard is a fuel-
    discriminatory rule that in effect requires CCS technologies
    that are not yet commercially available to be used on all new
    coal plants. As such, the NSPS is impractical and not legally
    justifiable. AEP's main concerns are the combination of two
    source categories, coal and natural gas, and setting a single
    standard based on EPA's estimate of the emission rate
    achievable at a new natural-gas combined cycle unit. This
    standard will preclude the construction of new coal-fired
    generation without the addition of CCS. However, based on AEP's
    experience and EPA's own admission, this technology is neither
    commercially demonstrated nor economically viable for coal-
    fired electric generation. Without a viable CCS solution, the
    NSPS forces reliance on a historically volatile commodity--
    natural gas--for new fossil generation, which could burden
    consumers with additional and unnecessary future risk in their
    energy costs.
        AEP believes that technological solutions such as CCS are
    critical to reducing emissions. However, CCS technology has not
    yet been proved at a commercial scale and cannot be provided
    with robust guarantees on performance and reliability.
    Furthermore, the path to CCS commercialization is also filled
    with significant regulatory and legal barriers regarding the
    ownership of storage space and long-term liability, which will
    also need to be resolved prior to commercialization. Given the
    obvious need for commercially available and cost-effective CCS
    in order to meet EPA's proposed NSPS for coal plants, H.R.
    6172, introduced by Representative McKinley, provides much
    needed Congressional direction in finalizing the NSPS for power
    plants and ensures that coal continues as a fuel for a balanced
    energy future.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McCullough follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.043

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much.
        And Mr. Voyles, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JOHN N. VOYLES, JR.

        Mr. Voyles. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking
    Minority Member Rush and distinguished subcommittee members,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
    present comments regarding proposed House bill 6172. My name is
    John Voyles, Jr. I am the Vice President of Transmission and
    Generation Services for LG&E and KU Energy. LG&E and KU Energy
    is a wholly owned subsidy of PPL Corporation and operate
    Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities
    Company, regulated utilities that serve 1.3 million customers
    in 90 Kentucky counties and five counties in Virginia.
        Today, the company's operated capacity is approximately
    8,100 megawatts. Of that capacity, 74 percent is coal-fired, 25
    percent is gas-fired peaking units, and the remaining 1 percent
    is hydroelectric. Approximately 96 percent of our coal-fired
    capacity is equipped with controls for sulfur dioxide and 67
    percent of the capacity has SCR for nitrogen dioxide control.
    After assessing the impact of the most recent regulations
    promulgated by the EPA, the companies developed compliance
    plans, which were presented to and approved by the Kentucky
    Public Service Commission in December of 2011 and May of 2012.
    Those plans include installing additional environmental
    controls at four stations, retiring 800 megawatts of coal-fired
    capacity and constructing a new 640-megawatt gas-fired combined
    cycle unit. These investments are expected to cost up to an
    additional $3 billion and projected to raise electric rates by
    up to 14 percent and 18 percent for KU and LG&E customers,
    respectively, by 2016.
        My company has not been standing idly by on the sidelines
    waiting for carbon dioxide policy or regulatory developments.
    Since 2006, we have invested millions of dollars in research
    and development aimed at finding technically and economically
    viable carbon management solutions for electric generating
    units. We were the founding member of the Carbon Management
    Research Group at the University of Kentucky's Center for
    Applied Energy Research and a member of the Western Kentucky
    Carbon Storage Foundation. The CMRG membership has grown to
    include three other electric generators that operate in
    Kentucky and the Electric Power Research Institute. We have
    made our E.W. Brown coal-fired plant site available to the CMRG
    as the test location for a carbon capture slipstream project
    which received a $14.5 million supporting grant from the
    Department of Energy in 2011. Additionally, we fund research on
    carbon capture technology supported by two other DOE grants,
    one with the University of Texas and one with the 3H Company.
    As a member of EPRI, we continue to fund collaborative research
    for carbon management and stay abreast of technological
    developments. Through these efforts we track several pilot
    projects in North America and across the globe. We are aware of
    no full-scale application of carbon capture and storage in
    continuous operation on a fossil-fueled electric generating
    unit. There are several technical and policy hurdles for CCS
    that remain unresolved which I will highlight briefly today.
        First, the energy penalty to add CCS technology to a coal-
    fired electric generating unit is prohibitively high. Many of
    the current pilot projects estimate that the parasitic load and
    cycle efficiency penalties to be at least 25 or 30 percent of a
    generating station output. For a company like mine, those
    penalties would mean if CCS technology were retrofitted to an
    existing 2,000-megawatt coal-fired station producing power for
    our customers today, the output from the plant would be reduced
    by 500 megawatts at a minimum. That loss of production
    capability would have to be replaced by some source of energy
    supply, creating additional costs for the consumers and perhaps
    other emissions to the environment.
        However, an even bigger challenge is the application of
    CO2 storage technology. While some carbon dioxide is
    successfully being utilized in enhanced oil or methane recovery
    operations and other pilots have successfully injected small
    quantities of CO2 into deep saline aquifers, the
    volume of storage necessary to facilitate such operations on a
    continuous basis for the life of an electric generating station
    has yet to be established. Very serious questions remain
    regarding the implications such injection processes have on
    mineral and property rights, the monitoring of the
    CO2 plume across property lines or State boundaries,
    and the verification systems necessary to ensure long-term
    monitoring is taken into account. We believe these questions
    loom much larger than the simple view that CO2 can
    be captured and injected underground and might be done more
    cost-effectively with less energy penalties at some
    undetermined point in the future.
        Until such time as CCS technology is commercially available
    to be deployed at full scale in a technical and economical
    manner, we are concerned that any standard of performance
    proposed for CO2 emissions from existing or new
    electric generating units will effectively eliminate coal-fired
    generation from the Nation's energy portfolio. On July 16,
    2012, we provided testimony to this subcommittee on the U.S.
    EPA's proposed Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standards.
    In those comments, we explained the importance of having
    separate standards for new and existing plants by fuel type and
    our concern that EPA's proposal for new plants could not even
    be met by new gas-fired plants. Those comments assumed that EPA
    is required by law to develop greenhouse gas standards. A
    clearly better course would be for Congress to pass legislation
    relieving EPA of the obligation to develop greenhouse gas
    standards until carbon capture and storage becomes an
    economically and technologically viable option.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on House bill
    6172.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Voyles follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.049

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Voyles.
        Mr. Hilton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF ROBERT HILTON

        Mr. Hilton. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Robert
    Hilton. I hold the position of Vice President of Power
    Technologies for Government Affairs for Alstom. I would like to
    thank Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush as well as the
    entire subcommittee for the opportunity to address these key
    issues on CCS.
        Alstom is a global leader in power generation, transmission
    and transportation infrastructure. More than 50 percent of the
    power plants in the United States have Alstom equipment, and 25
    percent of the world's electricity is generated on Alstom
    equipment. We are the largest air pollution control company in
    the world. In the United States, Alstom employs about 6,000
    full-time permanent employees in 45 States, and 91,000
    globally. Alstom provides virtually all power generation
    technology options. Significant pillars of our program are
    deployment of non-CO2 sources of generation, like
    renewables and nuclear, reduced CO2 emissions
    through efficiency, and the CO2 capture from fossil
    fuels. Alstom invests approximately $1 billion annually in R&D.
    Alstom has completed work on four pilot and validation-scale
    plants and has 10 pilots, validation, and commercial-scale
    plants in operation, design, or construction worldwide. These
    CCS projects include both coal and gas generation.
        We are here today to specifically address the status of CCS
    as a commercial technology. CCS is, within the realm of
    innovation, no different than any other technology under
    development. It is required to move through various stages of
    development at consistently larger scale. Alstom has taken each
    of its CCS-related technologies from the bench level to
    validation scale with the aim of finally reaching commercial.
    However, to date, no CCS technologies have been deployed at
    commercial scale. Validation scale is the proof of technology
    in real field conditions. This is important. It is at this
    point we can say confidently that the basic technology works.
    CCS technology is technologically feasible now.
        The final stage to reach commercial status is to perform a
    demonstration at full scale. It is critical to define the risk
    of technology to make offers. This cannot be defined until the
    technology can be shown to work at full scale. This is the
    first opportunity we have to work with the exact equipment in
    the exact operating conditions that will become the subject of
    contractual conditions including performance and other
    contractual guarantees. This also becomes the first opportunity
    to optimize the process and equipment to effect best
    performance and seek cost reduction. Based on these criteria,
    Alstom does not currently deem its technologies for CCS
    commercial and, to my knowledge, there are no other technology
    suppliers globally that can do so. I emphasize, however, that
    the technologies being developed by Alstom and others work
    successfully.
        For a number of reasons primarily related to technology
    funding and lack of regulatory clarity, the timeline for
    commercialization for CCS is not clear. The current DOE program
    for first generation-technologies on CCS appears not likely to
    become operational until 2017 with the exception of the Kemper
    plant. Globally, the picture is similar.
        When we look at the history of the EPA and the air-
    pollution-control industry, we generally see a harmony of
    regulation and technology development. In many cases, we have
    had the ability to meet or anticipate the need for certain
    technologies and in other cases we have developed the base
    technologies either in other industries. In its recent
    rulemaking, EPA has required CCS for all new coal plants and,
    conceivably gas plants. While Alstom, in conjunction with AEP,
    has run the largest plant, we are not ready to do this on 500-
    or 1,000-megawatt plants. It has been suggested that the
    proposed rule would stimulate CCS development. However,
    advancing CCS requires a regulatory approach that recognizes
    the steps of the technology development process and the need
    for financing. Commercial power plants cannot secure financing
    for a plant that includes technology still under development
    and that carries with it undefined guarantees.
        Coal is an important part of America's future energy mix as
    it has been in the past. It is an abundant resource we have,
    and we have the technologies to make it clean in all other
    respects. CCS is coming but preventing new highly efficient
    coal plants from being built to replace older less efficient
    plants by requiring a technology not yet in practice is not in
    keeping with the needs of the industry or the public. We
    believe a more realistic approach would be to provide a
    reasonable ramp down of CO2 over time that can take
    advantage of efficiency and other technologies to reduce
    CO2 in a gradual manner. This would provide the
    industry, along with State and local regulators, with the
    needed incentive to support CCS.
        Alstom believes that the technology will be commercial when
    the industry determines that both buyer and seller can enter
    into ordinary contractual relations that meet the needs of both
    parties. We know that carbon capture technology works. We
    believe CCS will play a pivotal role in meeting the needs of
    carbon. We need time and support to reach the point of
    commercial offerings.
        I thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hilton follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.087

        Mr. Whitfield. Thanks, Mr. Hilton.
        Mr. Thompson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF JOHN THOMPSON

        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rush,
    members of the committee. My name is John Thompson. I direct
    the Fossil Transition Project of the Clean Air Task Force. The
    Clean Air Task Force is a nonprofit environmental group
    headquartered in Boston and with offices in Beijing, Illinois,
    Ohio, Washington, DC, Texas, New Hampshire and Maine. I am from
    our Carbondale, Illinois, office.
        Our mission is to reduce the air pollutants associated with
    climate change and premature death and disease. We work
    throughout the United States and China on these issues, and the
    project I direct works to shift fossil fuels to use
    technologies that have less impact on the environment.
        I want to be clear: worldwide coal use will increase
    dramatically in the coming decades as the standard of living in
    developing nations improves. Increasing energy efficiency,
    greater use of renewables and nuclear power will displace some
    of the CO2 emissions associated with this growth in
    fossil use but any meaningful climate action must include
    widespread use of carbon and storage. It is the only technology
    that can remove up to 90 percent of the carbon dioxide from
    large stationary sources. Without CCS, it will be difficult, if
    not impossible, to avoid the worst aspects of climate change.
        The Clean Air Task Force is committed to finding ways to
    advance CCS development. Our organization has filed comments in
    support of air permits for coal plants with CCS. We have
    advocated for coal projects that use advanced technology before
    State public service commissions. We have worked to promote
    incentives for CCS and EOR, and we have supported regulations
    that establish CO2 emission limits that enable CCS.
    We have promoted partnerships between U.S. and Chinese
    companies that would lower CCS costs and encourage projects in
    both countries. I also serve on the National Coal Council,
    which advises DOE on coal-related projects.
        I would like to make a few points this morning. First, the
    value of CCS goes beyond reducing emissions for the purpose of
    climate change. Capture of CO2 from industrial and
    power sources could be used to expand domestic oil production
    through EOR. Currently, EOR accounts for 6 percent of domestic
    oil production but with additional supplies of carbon dioxide,
    more oil could be produced from domestic oil wells. Estimates
    for the amount of EOR that can be produced domestically have
    grown in recent years. DOE has estimated that approximately 67
    billion barrels of oil are economically recoverable, but to
    produce that 67 billion barrels of oil, we need approximately
    20 billion tons of CO2. That is an amount that is
    equivalent to about 30 years of CO2 emissions from
    about a third of the Nation's coal plants.
        Now, contrary to assertions earlier today, several coal
    plants are proposed or are under construction that show the
    feasibility of CCS at scale and would meet EPA's CO2
    emissions standards for fossil plants, and they would use the
    CO2 for EOR to increase domestic oil production.
    These include Mississippi Power's Plant Ratcliffe in Kemper
    County and Summit Power's Texas Clean Energy Plant in Odessa,
    Texas. Plant Ratcliffe is a 582-megawatts IGCC plant which
    began construction in 2010 and is expected to go into operation
    in 2014. It will gasify lignite, capture 65 percent of the
    CO2 emissions and sell them for EOR. The Texas clean
    energy plant is a 400-megawatt gross plant that would capture
    90 percent of its CO2 and produce about 200
    megawatts of power and fertilizer and produce about 2.5 million
    tons of CO2 to produce 7 million barrels of oil
    annually.
        What I would like to make as points are a couple things
    here. First of all, CO2 performance standards are
    needed to gain public service commission approval for coal CCS
    projects. After AEP's West Virginia Mountaineer project was
    denied, Mike Morris, the CEO of AEP made a statement that
    included this sentence: ``It is impossible to gain regulatory
    approval to recover our share of costs for validating and
    deploying the technology without Federal requirements to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions already in place.''
        U.S. EPA considered technical feasibility and cost in its
    draft CCS rule. They concluded CCS was technically feasible,
    and addressed the cost issues through a number of means:
    establishing reasonable standards of 50 percent reduction
    overall through partial capture rather than full capture of 90
    percent. They provided regulatory flexibility. They gave longer
    periods of time to comply with the standards, and I think this
    approach is reasonable.
        I would like to just conclude by saying that the problem
    with H.R. 6172 is that you can't consider technical and
    economic feasibility in a vacuum. You must consider it in the
    context of regulations, and EPA's regulatory approach is
    reasonable, and what is more, contrary to the intent of the
    sponsors of this bill, I believe this will add confusion to
    regulations, which will only help the building of natural-gas
    plants. We need certainty. What H.R. 6172, by creating this
    regulatory confusion, would do would contribute to the
    following problems. It would delay new CCS projects because
    regulators would not know whether they had to meet these
    standards in order to build them. It would delay the economic
    production of oil through EOR, and it would replace
    longstanding precedent of promoting technology that has
    achieved significant public-health and environmental benefits
    with a static, backward-looking approach.
        So I would conclude by saying that what Congress really
    needs to focus on is two things: we need performance standards
    but we also need incentives to move EOR. EPA's regulations
    coupled with further incentives I believe is the correct
    approach. H.R. 6172 would delay that progress. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.105

        Mr. Whitfield. Dr. Lashof, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. LASHOF

        Mr. Lashof. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rush and members
    of the committee. My name is Daniel Lashof. I am the Director
    of the Climate and Clean Air Program at NRDC, and I appreciate
    the opportunity to testify before the committee.
        NRDC strongly opposes H.R. 6172 for a simple reason: It
    would interfere with EPA doing its job, which the taxpayers pay
    it to do and want it to do of protecting public health from
    dangerous carbon pollution. And let us not make any mistake:
    Carbon pollution is dangerous. It is imposing staggering health
    and environmental costs in the United States and around the
    world now, contributing to more severe heat waves, worsening
    smog pollution, fueling more extreme weather that takes the
    lives of thousands of Americans and causes billions of dollars
    in damage. So EPA is moving forward under the law and following
    the science in proposing the standards that it has proposed to
    set performance standards for carbon dioxide emissions from
    power plants.
        Let me just give you one--Mr. Rush commented that this
    seems like deja vu. Let me give you one piece of new
    information. This was released yesterday, and it updates my
    testimony even though it was only submitted a couple days
    before NASA released new data showing the minimal arctic ice
    that we have ever seen since satellites have been monitoring
    this in 1979. The minimum was reached on September 16th. It is
    a full 50 percent below the minimum from 1979 when the records
    started, about 50 percent below the average from the 1980s and
    1990s. And we are confident that this is driven by carbon
    pollution, which is trapping heat in the atmosphere, because
    not only are we setting this record minimum ice extent but the
    thickness of the remaining ice is much lower, making it more
    vulnerable, and the warming that we see is not just in the ice.
    Heat is accumulating in the oceans, which is a major driver of
    this.
        Now, this is the arctic. It is far away. Most Americans
    don't visit the arctic. None of us own land up there except a
    few folks in Alaska, so why do we care about this? The fact is
    that what happens in the arctic doesn't stay in the arctic. The
    changes here are so dramatic and they affect the energy balance
    of the entire earth. They change the position of the jet
    stream. They accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice, which
    does contribute to more rapid sea-level rise, and they
    contribute to enhancing global warming in several other ways
    that I detail in my testimony. So this startling image I think
    should give us all pause, and recognize that we need to allow
    EPA to move forward and do its job.
        Now, I want to comment specifically on the proposed
    regulation that EPA has issued because we have heard language
    about a war on coal, about how the EPA is picking winners and
    losers. The fact is that EPA's proposed standards for carbon
    emissions are fuel and technology neutral. They set a rate for
    all plants that provide the same service of providing baseload
    and intermediate-load electricity to consumers. This is the
    kind of commonsense performance-based standard that I would
    expect Congress to welcome. It is not a command-and-control
    regulation. It doesn't say what technology to use. It is
    completely technology and fuel neutral.
        H.R. 6172 turns that on its head by limiting EPA's ability
    to move forward with that regulation until one particular
    technology is deemed technically and economically feasible.
    Now, as both Mr. Thompson and Mr. Hilton have testified, CCS is
    technically feasible. It is not economically feasible for the
    simple reason that no commercial entity is building new coal-
    fired power plants with or without CCS now. The economics in
    the absence of performance standards for carbon dioxide dictate
    that we are meeting our electricity needs through energy
    efficiency, through expansion of renewable energy such as wind,
    and through natural gas, which is much less expensive. So
    Congress can no more repeal those rules of economics than they
    can repeal the physics and chemistry that is driving climate
    change.
        The reality is that we hold no other EPA standards up to
    this single-technology approach. EPA has moved forward for
    decades with performance-based standards, and they should be
    allowed to do their job as the American people would like them
    to do to set sensible performance standards for carbon
    emissions from power plants. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lashof follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.118

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        Dr. Christy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CHRISTY

        Mr. Christy. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking
    Member Rush and members of the committee. I am John Christy,
    Alabama State Climatologist, Professor of Atmospheric Science,
    and Director of the Earth Systems Science Center at the
    University of Alabama at Huntsville. I am a climate scientist
    who builds data sets from scratch to answer questions about
    climate variability and to test assertions people make about
    climate change. That is really what the scientific method is
    all about.
        During the heat wave of late June and early July, high
    temperature extremes became newsworthy. Claims were made that
    thousands of records were being broken and that this is what
    global warming looks like. However, these headlines were not
    based on climate science. As shown in figure 1.3 of my
    testimony, it is scientifically more accurate to say this is
    what Mother Nature looks like since heat waves even worse than
    these happened before greenhouse gases were increasing like
    they are today.
        Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick
    and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather
    than struggle with the real truth, which is, we don't know
    enough about the climate to even predict these kinds of heat
    waves as Nature magazine itself reported yesterday.
        More evidence is available now to suggest that the climate
    is not as sensitive to extra greenhouse gases as previously
    thought. A simple comparison between climate model output and
    observation makes this point. In figure 2.1 of my written text,
    I plotted 38 of the very latest climate model simulations. The
    models tend to overreact to carbon dioxide by warming the earth
    much more than what has actually happened. This has bearing on
    the recent 33-year record low of arctic sea ice coverage that
    you saw previously. Model projections warmed by CO2
    show somewhat more warming than in that region in the
    observations but not too much in figure 2.2.
        It is tempting to believe that the models are correct and
    the CO2 warming is the main cause of melting the
    ice. However, when compared with the area of sea ice around
    Antarctica, where as shown in figure 2.3 the temperature is not
    increasing and the sea ice is not decreasing. The models fail
    the test. The CO2 warming in climate models doesn't
    explain what we see. I cite research in my testimony which
    again points to natural variability as the main cause.
        I encourage you to propose legislation based upon what
    observations show rather than speculative climate models.
    Basing legislation on observations means addressing the large
    year-to-year variations like droughts and floods, which will
    always occur and which will continue to cause economic
    distress. When it comes to legislation and regulatory actions,
    there really is nothing that will definitively alter whatever
    the climate is going to do. However, I suspect there will be
    some discernible negative economic consequences if energy costs
    are made to rise.
        As more CO2 is released back into the
    atmosphere, there are benefits that are often overlooked. Most
    notable of these is the invigoration of plant life on which we
    and the rest of the animal world depend for food. Atmospheric
    CO2 fundamentally is plant food and therefore our
    food. In my opinion, higher food production is a benefit to
    society and should be factored in any cost-benefit analysis.
        Now, with all due respect to former President Bush, in my
    opinion, he was not accurate to say in 2006 that we are
    addicted to oil. Oil and other carbon-based energies are simply
    the affordable means by which we satisfy our true addictions,
    and those are long life, good health, plentiful food, Internet
    services, freedom of mobility, comfortable homes with heating,
    cooling, lighting and even colossal entertainment systems.
    Carbon energy has made all those possible.
        Today, carbon energy provides about 87 percent of the
    world's energy demand so rising CO2 emissions can be
    an indicator that a nation is providing energy for its people,
    energy which allows them to live longer, healthier and more
    prosperous lives.
        But, and I will close with this unpleasant thought,
    demanding a reduction in worldwide carbon emissions and without
    affordable and reliable energy alternatives means reducing the
    opportunities for many of our fellow world citizens to escape
    their impoverished conditions.
        I thank you for your time and I will be happy to answer
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Christy follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.154

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Dr. Christy, and thank all of you
    for your opening statements. At this time I will recognize each
    member for 5 minutes of questions, and I will begin by
    recognizing myself.
        Mr. Trisko, Dr. Lashof in his opening statement made the
    comment that the standard under the proposed greenhouse gas
    regulation is a commonsense, performance-based, fuel-neutral
    standard. Now, it is my understanding that that proposed
    regulation reverses 40 years of precedent at EPA in that they
    are requiring coal to meet the same standards as any other
    fuel, and in the past they had standards for individual fuels--
    gas, coal, whatever. Is that your understanding?
        Mr. Trisko. In general, yes, Mr. Chairman, and let me
    explain the basis for this. We are talking really about setting
    particular standards for different types of generation
    technologies. EPA has regulated coal for the past 40 years
    under subpart (d)(A) regulations covering steam electric-
    generating units. These are basically large boilers utilizing
    coal or oil. There are not many oil boilers now being built.
    The first coal-based NSPS standard was set by EPA in 1971
    pursuant to Section 111 of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments.
    That coal-based standard was subsequently revised by EPA in
    1978 pursuant to the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments that added
    the so-called percent reduction clause.
        Mr. Whitfield. Excuse me. I asked a question and I am sorry
    to interrupt, but we all get caught up in this time clock, but
    the bottom line was that in this greenhouse gas regulation, the
    same emission standard was set for every fuel, and that had
    never been done before.
        Mr. Trisko. What had never been done before, Mr. Chairman,
    was to combine subpart (d)(A) for steam electric-generating
    units--coal or oil--with subpart (kkkk) which covers natural
    gas combined cycle units. Those had always been subject to
    separate, discrete standards.
        Mr. Whitfield. But not under this regulation?
        Mr. Trisko. But not under this regulation.
        Mr. Whitfield. And that is a significant change, and
    because of that, we cannot build a new coal-powered plant in
    the United States because the technology is simply not there at
    an affordable price. Is that correct?
        Mr. Trisko. Yes, Mr. Chairman, because in effect this
    regulation raises the cost of electric generation from coal
    plants by 80 percent but does not impose any increase in cost
    on natural gas combined cycle. Therefore, only natural gas
    combined cycle plants would be constructed in the future.
        Mr. Whitfield. So in my opinion, this is not a fuel-neutral
    proposed regulation.
        Now, we recognize that it only applies to new coal-powered
    plants but what creates additional problems is that the Utility
    MACT applies to existing coal-fired plants, and in order to
    meet those standards, they are going to have to modify some of
    the existing plants, and there is some genuine concern that if
    you modify, then you might be classified as new. Is that your
    understanding, Mr. Voyles?
        Mr. Voyles. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, that is my
    interpretation of how we read the rules, that you make
    modifications, it does subject you to different parts of the
    standard.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, so, you know, when they were up here
    testifying, Lisa Jackson and others, they were talking about
    oh, this applies only to new plants but they had already pushed
    through the Utility MACT, as I said, that applies, makes you
    modify existing plants, and once you modify, then you have got
    to meet the new standard. So I think the President's comment
    when he was running for President clearly shows that there is a
    bias against coal and they are following through with that.
        Now, Mr. Trisko, you are here on behalf of United Mine
    Workers. Is that correct?
        Mr. Trisko. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. And you read yesterday that Alpha Resources
    is closing down eight mines, and I am assuming your membership
    is quite concerned about the way things are happening to the
    coal industry.
        Mr. Trisko. These are not happy times in coalfields
    generally, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. And, you know, in my opening statement, I
    made the comment that even Lisa Jackson when she was here and
    she said well, if other countries don't do the same thing on
    greenhouse gas, then our doing it is not going to make any
    difference. But the thing that really upsets me is that all
    these analyses talk about the benefits on health improving
    because of regulations but they never explore, look at,
    consider in any way the negative impact on the health care of
    the thousands of people in this industry that are losing their
    jobs, and they have indicated, no, we don't consider that,
    which I do not think is a fair and balanced playing field.
        My time is expired. I recognize for 5 minutes Mr. Rush.
        Mr. Rush. Dr. Lashof, Mr. Trisko indicated--he spoke
    disparagingly of the standards that the EPA is setting, and he
    also indicated that this plant that had modifications and that
    that plant would be classified as a new plant and it would
    suffer some negative responses, would have to newer, higher
    standard because of the new reclassification. How do you
    respond to some of the things he said?
        Mr. Lashof. Thank you, Mr. Rush. Well, you know, it is
    funny because the EPA is actually very explicit in its proposal
    in saying that it does not apply to modified plants. They have
    not proposed any standards that apply to the existing fleet,
    and the argument that the existing plants couldn't meet the
    current standard is irrelevant because the proposal only
    applies to new plants. So, you know, the problem here with this
    legislation is, it doesn't actually do anything to promote CCS.
    It just blocks other solutions and cost-effective ways of
    reducing pollution.
        Mr. Rush. I guess that is really my point. I am from
    Illinois. Illinois is a coal-producing State. You know, the
    President is from Illinois, and I don't think that the
    President is waging an attack on coal. I think the President is
    taking some postures under his administration to make sure that
    coal is usable in the future and that it is not only energy, we
    can use coal for our energy needs but also that coal does not
    have to be harmful to the climate and to our health.
        Mr. Thompson, let me ask you this. Can you talk about some
    of the advances in clean-coal technology that has occurred
    under the President's administration?
        Mr. Thompson. Well, I think perhaps the largest advance has
    just been the plants that have broken ground. I have mentioned
    two, the Kemper plant, which broke ground in 2010, and the
    Texas Clean Energy Project, which will break ground in 2013 and
    go into operation in 2017. There has been a lot of funding for
    Future Gen and projects like that, loan guarantees that help
    advance coal, but obviously there is more work that needs to be
    done, and I think Congress should pick up areas that I alluded
    to like incentives to promote enhanced oil recovery. There is a
    lot of work that can be done on both sides of the aisle.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Hilton, what are the most important things we
    should do to stimulate CCS development and deployment?
        Mr. Hilton. I think there is really I would say four
    things. You know, we do need proper regulatory structure that
    provides guidance to States for permitting and for funding of
    R&D, and we need financial support. You know, grants don't go
    far enough. Kemper goes ahead because it has got a 20 percent
    rate increase associated with it. All the rest of the projects
    are struggling. But then we have the issues, that sequestration
    is not going to happen until we resolve the issue of financial
    liability and pore ownership, you know, because you can't--so I
    think those are the four things.
        Mr. Rush. Those are the things that you think that this
    committee could be focused on that would really be of help to
    the industry at large. Is that correct?
        Mr. Hilton. Yes.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Lashof, how important is CCS technology to
    ensuring a long-term future for coal?
        Mr. Lashof. Well, NRDC has supported development of CCS
    technology. We supported the Upton-Boucher bill as part of
    comprehensive legislation that was passed in the last Congress,
    and as Mr. Thompson said, there are applications around the
    world so I think that there is a real need for the United
    States to be a leader in this technology and a big market for
    CCS.
        The reality, though, is that the bill that this hearing is
    about would set up a catch-22 test because it would block the
    very standards that would actually create an incentive for the
    industry to invest in making that technology commercial.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Barton [presiding]. Thank you. The gentleman's time is
    expired. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Christy, you have got a very illustrious resume both
    academically and professionally. Are you now or have you ever
    been a part of the IPCC process?
        Mr. Christy. The IPCC, yes, and about every year including
    being lead author in one of the assessments.
        Mr. Barton. So you would be acknowledged by the U.N.
    officials that operate that as a climate scientist?
        Mr. Christy. I have my certificate that says I am a Nobel
    Peace Prize winner.
        Mr. Barton. But you obviously do not appear to share some
    of the more generic, popularized conclusions that they have
    promoted. Is that a fair statement?
        Mr. Christy. That is a fair statement, yes.
        Mr. Barton. OK. How do you get along with Dr. Mann?
        Mr. Christy. I don't communicate with him since that time
    back in--we were lead authors together back in 2001.
        Mr. Barton. Is it fair to state--I mean, the popular
    presentation is that there are thousands of climate scientists
    and they all agree that the world is going to hell because of
    CO2 and that the sooner we start restricting
    CO2, the better. Obviously you don't share that
    opinion. How many climate scientists are there like you, and
    are you ever heard or welcomed in those discussions?
        Mr. Christy. Rarely am I welcomed or heard in those kinds
    of discussions but I would say that, you know, it depends on
    how you define a climate scientist, but it is----
        Mr. Barton. Well, however you define it, you obviously are
    one.
        Mr. Christy. I am one. Yes, I actually build climate data
    sets from scratch. I qualify as a working-stiff climate
    scientist. There aren't very many of us, by the way. Other
    people that like to use the term, you know, have some oblique
    relationship to how climate might impact something but in terms
    of the hard core, there aren't many of us, and I would say that
    they are a lot less confident about what climate models can do
    and can tell us, and the Nature article that just appeared
    yesterday was very clear about the lack of ability of climate
    models to tell us what is going on with the world and what will
    go on with the world.
        Mr. Barton. Is it fair to state, in your opinion and the
    scientists that share your opinion, that the science on
    CO2 made by man being a primary contributor is
    unsettled and that it is not yet conclusive that manmade
    CO2 is a primary contributor to global warming?
        Mr. Christy. That science is unsettled, and I think the
    clearest example of that is in the three figures I put in the
    written testimony that show what the real world is doing, what
    climate models say it is doing or should be doing, and the two
    don't agree.
        Mr. Barton. Dr. Lashof, we obviously are very pleased that
    you are here. We do want to have a balanced hearing.
    Unfortunately, there is only one of you and you are
    outnumbered, but we do appreciate you being here. When you
    talked about the performance-based standard, Chairman Whitfield
    pointed this out, but I think it bears repeating. We could do a
    performance-based standard based on wind power or nuclear power
    that would be zero, and those are the only two that could
    comply with it. On the other hand, we could do a performance-
    based standard set on the 1971 standards that were first put
    out under the 1970 Clean Air Act and all the conventional power
    sources could comply with that. So it is a little misleading to
    say we are just asking for performance-based standard when you
    know and everybody else at this table knows that the only ones
    that comply with the proposed EPA standard are natural gas,
    nuclear and wind power. No coal plant can comply.
        Mr. Lashof. Well, Mr. Barton, the EPA's authority is to
    regulate emissions from fossil fuels.
        Mr. Barton. But you admit what I said is true?
        Mr. Lashof. No, I don't, because we actually believe EPA
    could set a tighter standard than it has.
        Mr. Barton. So you are saying that you think there is an
    existing coal technology that is economic that can comply with
    this standard?
        Mr. Lashof. Well, as Mr. Thompson testified, there are two
    plants that are under construction that would meet the
    standard, and----
        Mr. Barton. Well, what is the subsidy to the clean-coal
    plant down in Texas? How many--I would almost say billions of
    dollars, and I support that plant. But on its own merit, it
    can't compete without the tax subsidies and the direct
    subsidies to it. Isn't that a fact?
        Mr. Lashof. That may be true but----
        Mr. Barton. That is not may be true; it is true.
        Mr. Lashof. Well----
        Mr. Barton. It is true.
        Mr. Lashof [continuing]. I think there are plants
    potentially that have enhanced oil recovery opportunity that
    may be competitive.
        Mr. Barton. My time is expired. I want to ask Mr. Voyles a
    question. What is the most economic clean-coal technology that
    is currently available today for commercialization, and how
    much does it add to the cost of the best coal technology that
    we already have in place--power plant generation technology?
        Mr. Voyles. In our case, the best technology is the recent
    unit that we just put in service in 2011. It is a supercritical
    coal-fired unit that has got all the available technology. It
    actually received an investment tax credit for clean-coal
    technology and it has been operating now for 2 years and it
    actually produces 20 to 30 percent less CO2 than
    other technologies.
        Mr. Barton. And how much additional does it cost than the
    technology that it is replacing?
        Mr. Voyles. Because of its efficiency, it runs all in, in
    the $30-to-$40-a-megawatt range. It is a little bit more
    expensive because of the amount of controls that are on it but
    significantly less than what you would experience if you put in
    carbon capture and sequestration.
        Mr. Barton. Well, the number that I have been given is at a
    minimum----
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, we have to have regular order.
        Mr. Barton. You are exactly right, Mr. Rush.
        Mr. Rush. I thought you were going to stop at some point.
        Mr. Barton. You couldn't be more right, so as soon as I
    agree with you that you are right, I am going to recognize Mr.
    Doyle. Mr. Doyle is recognized for--is it Mr. Green instead of
    Mr. Doyle? I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. I am finally getting the rules down. If I come
    when the gavel goes down, when I come back they will let me
    speak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a district in Texas. We have refineries and chemical
    plants, and I know the EPA, when they exempted coal, they
    grandfathered in the existing coal facilities, and yet the
    tenor of this hearing and what we hear so much is that all
    these layoffs, whether it be Alpha or a lot of them, are based
    on the Obama administration and EPA. There is not a coal plant
    that in existence that will have to deal with carbon under the
    EPA, and yet Canada is requiring their coal plants to retrofit.
    I hope that when the EPA gets around to my five refineries and
    chemical plants in our district that they would let us have the
    same grandfather clause. But that is the concern I have.
        And I have an area that produces pet coke, not anything
    near what coal does, but we have not been able to use that pet
    coke in our own country because of the pollution problems and
    burning it, and we export it, and I support exporting coal. In
    fact, I know there is controversy over a port up in Washington.
    So, you know, is the export market, could that keep our
    coalmines open whether it be in West Virginia or Pennsylvania
    or western United States? Anyone from the coal industry.
        Mr. Trisko. Congressman Green, the United States consumes
    approximately 1 billion tons of coal annually, and the
    predominant customer for that coal is the electric utility
    industry, thus the cause of concern that we have expressed here
    today. There is a very robust international market in both
    steam coal and metallurgical coal with low-cost producers from
    countries such as Australia being able to in effect outcompete
    the United States. Now, our exports have increased a good deal
    over the course of the last 5 years but at most we are talking
    about an export market that is on the order of 60 to 70, 80
    million tons a year against that 1-billion-ton utility demand.
        Mr. Green. I guess I am trying to understand that if it is
    a billion tons that is used in existing coal facilities now and
    not one of them is being threatened to shut down because of
    carbon capture, it seems like we would continue. Now, I know
    there is a lot of things that enter into including the cheap
    price of natural gas. I am a big supporter of nuclear power.
    The problem is, if we didn't have loan guarantees and even
    questionable then, we wouldn't have a nuclear power plant
    because of the low price of natural gas. So I think it is a lot
    of market conditions, and coming from where I am, I can't not
    support natural gas expansion.
        Mr. Thompson, you mentioned that several States already set
    emission standards for carbon capture for new coal-fired
    plants. Can you elaborate? How do companies plan to comply with
    these standards?
        Mr. Thompson. There are several States that already have
    emission limits that are similar to what U.S. EPA has proposed.
    Some of them are like California and Washington State. There is
    a proposed coal project in California called HECP that seeks to
    meet that standard and do so with using carbon capture and
    storage. In places such as my State, Illinois, there is
    actually a clean-coal portfolio standard that seeks to promote
    coal projects with 50 percent capture. And some of those have
    not, I think are unlikely to move forward in Illinois simply
    because the price of gas is so low, and that is a real
    challenge.
        But what I think is really important to understand is that
    what projects need is certainty, and the regulations that EPA
    has proposed are quite reasonable: 30 years to comply if you
    want to choose that route in some cases for new plants. The
    challenge with H.R. 6172 is that it introduces confusion about
    whether or not EPA would be allowed to issue those very
    reasonable standards, and in an era of low natural-gas prices,
    that uncertainty actually, I would submit, favors the expansion
    of gas because someone who wants to finance a project or is
    being asked to finance a project is going to say well, you
    know, I am not really sure if there is some----
        Mr. Green. I am almost out of time, and I understand if
    somebody is cost-benefiting it out today and you are building a
    new power plant, you know, natural gas will get there. Wind,
    solar, nothing will get there without substantial tax
    incentives except for natural gas.
        I am a big supporter of enhanced oil recovery, and we are
    trying to grow that in Texas because we have a lot of fields we
    can do, and do you have any suggestions on how we can further
    incentivize enhanced oil recovery, use some of that carbon from
    other States? And I know there is a potential pipeline from
    Mississippi into southeast Texas where our refineries are to be
    able to deal with that.
        Mr. Thompson. A group of environmentalists, coal companies,
    chemical companies have gotten together under the umbrella of
    the National EOR initiative and recommended several
    recommendations. I will highlight one, and that is to actually
    to use a portion of the tax revenue that would have--that comes
    from new oil development and put that back into subsidizing
    some of the cost of CCS capture. That would allow a lot of
    projects to move ahead. So I would direct this committee to
    look at the National EOR Initiative's recommendations. I think
    that is a great starting point.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barton. I just want the record to show that I gave you
    extra time, but it was only because you are from Texas. If you
    had been from Illinois or Pennsylvania, I would have been on
    you.
        Mr. Green. Well, maybe Mike can have a Texas drawl.
        Mr. Barton. We want to recognize the gentleman from the
    Cornhusker State, Mr. Terry.
        Mr. Terry. Since I am from the Cornhusker State, do I get 1
    minute?
        Mr. Barton. It depends on how you are behaving.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you.
        Mr. Hilton and Mr. Thompson, I want to ask you, as I am
    trying to sort through this, I haven't been able to resolve one
    specific question, and that is whether or not technology exists
    to meet the proposed standards, and Mr. Hilton suggests that it
    is a work in progress. Mr. Thompson, you are saying they are
    already building them. So Mr. Hilton, you start first. How do I
    resolve this as a Cornhusker?
        Mr. Hilton. Well, the first part is, you know, is that it
    is technologically feasible. As far as getting to the point
    where it is commercially available, we need the proof that the
    technology, that what we guarantee and what we are going to do,
    and there are no plants currently operating out there right now
    at commercial scale. Kemper will reach commercial scale because
    it has been able to get the financing, and this is what I have
    said that CCS needs. It has a 20 percent rate increase. Summit,
    if it goes ahead, because it doesn't have financing yet--it has
    an MOU with Sinopec to sell part of the project and get Chinese
    financing--it may go ahead and this is the point that I was
    making. There are no projects out there that are going ahead on
    their own with the financing package that is, you know, there.
    And that is what we need as suppliers to be able to sell and
    guarantee the performance. Southern also has a unique thing. It
    is their technology and they are a self, if you will,
    guarantor.
        Mr. Terry. Mr. Thompson?
        Mr. Thompson. Thanks. I also agree with Bob about the
    technology is technically feasible. Here is the difference, I
    think, that maybe you are alluding to. Kemper and the Texas
    Clean Energy Project are using pre-combustion capture
    technology. That has been around for 30 years commercially
    available. If you look at my written statements, you will see
    what Mississippi Power said in support of that. What Bob is
    talking about is the post-combustion capture, and his
    technology from his company, I respect his opinion that it is
    not ready yet but there are projects in Texas like the
    Trailblazer Project. It is a proposed project, would be post-
    combustion capture but it is not moving ahead, fully permitted,
    that would use this post-combustion capture technology and they
    have been able to get warranties from either MHI or Fluor, I
    can't remember which, to do post-combustion.
        Mr. Terry. Let me interrupt, because you said something in
    a previous answer that stood out to me from Nebraska versus
    Texas is, we don't have oil fields, and you said having that
    available is a key component to its fiscal viability. So what
    about our northern coal-fired plants?
        Mr. Thompson. Pipelines. We have been supporters----
        Mr. Terry. Oh, we have tried that. They are against it.
        Mr. Thompson. Well, not everyone is. Seven hundred miles of
    pipelines have been proposed by Denbury to go from the Gulf
    Coast area through to Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and
    legislation has been passed in those three States to provide
    eminent domain authority to make that happen. So it is not
    easy, but that is my short answer.
        Mr. Terry. All right. Well, I appreciate that.
        Then back to you, Mr. Hilton. You had mentioned the issue
    of there is liability issues. Can you in a minute and 15
    seconds tell me what the liability issues are specifically and
    what other barriers in addition to liability?
        Mr. Hilton. OK. The liability issue is obviously if you
    sequester, there is going to be need typically in accounting to
    have some liability associated with having put that
    CO2 in a reservoir, so we expect that that is going
    to have to be dealt with just like any other waste that has
    happened. It may even end up that way in EOR before it is over,
    before things are done. So, I mean, there is a liability issue.
    There is an issue of pore ownership, you know, who owns the
    pore structure you are putting the CO2 in, and in
    the history of the United States, it is the classic, you own to
    the center of the earth under your house and so, you know, if
    you add in paying royalties to put CO2 under
    people's houses if they will let you, you know, you have to get
    permission. This is a major issue. So I think those are the
    really two biggest issues that we are facing.
        Mr. Terry. All right.
        Mr. Thompson. I would just say that with EOR, which could
    account for a third of the Nation's coal fleet, there are no
    liability issues. We have injected over a billion tons of
    CO2 in Texas since the 1980s. So there are ways of
    addressing this issue even within the EOR context.
        Mr. Barton. The gentleman's time is expired. We now
    recognized the gentleman from the Keystone State, the winner of
    the Congressional baseball game manager, Mr. Doyle.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for your all your testimony. I have read it. Mr.
    Trisko, you mentioned in your testimony a 2008 wires-charge
    bill, which I was a cosponsor of, by the way, which would have
    provided path forward for CCS funding. Can you tell us a little
    bit about where that bill ended up?
        Mr. Trisko. Congressman Doyle, the bill eventually ended up
    as Section 113 of the Waxman-Markey bill, the larger climate-
    change bill, and while that bill passed the House, the
    companion legislation in the Senate did not fare as well.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Hilton, in your testimony, you refer to several
    commercial-scale CCS demonstrations planned in other
    countries--the U.K., European Union, even China. Can you tell
    us how these projects are being funded?
        Mr. Hilton. Well, the U.K. projects are being funded by a
    billion-pound fund the U.K. government is putting up. Most of
    the European projects are a combination of E.U. funding from
    what is called the NER-300, which is a grant for allowances
    which can be sold and then funded, which is somewhere on the
    order of $2-1/2 billion to $4 billion euros worth of funding.
    The Chinese projects are a little bit, I am going to say,
    different. The Chinese projects get funded because the Chinese
    government particularly says that project will go ahead and
    where the funding is actually comes from is harder.
        Mr. Doyle. From the Chinese government?
        Mr. Hilton. Right.
        Mr. Doyle. What about the CCS projects here in the United
    States like the Summit plant? How is that being financed?
        Mr. Hilton. Well, the Summit plant has a significant grant
    from the government. It is going to do EOR but its financing,
    it looks like it will come from selling part of the project as
    an MOU with Sinopec and Chinese banks.
        Mr. Doyle. Right. So would you say there is an argument
    here then for a commitment to Federal funding for CCS
    demonstration projects like we provided in the stimulus bill?
    In other words, we need to step up to the plate, don't we?
        Mr. Hilton. Absolutely.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        This question is for several of the panelists. There has
    been a lot of testimony this morning about the state of CCS
    technology development and the need for better drivers of CCS
    technology. Many of you have addressed this in your testimony
    already, but I want to ask you what you think would be the best
    driver for commercialization of affordable CCS technology.
    Would it be EPA regulation? Would it be a carbon tax, cap and
    trade or something else? Just very quickly because I have some
    more to say. Go ahead.
        Mr. Trisko. Congressman Doyle, we would again advocate
    consideration of the wires-charge approach. That is a non-
    budget way to raise $10 billion to support CCS demonstrations.
    Until we have commercial-scale demonstrations, there will not
    be a regulatory structure that will allow that technology to
    proceed, and given the state of the Federal budget, which we
    are all acutely aware, we need to find a non-budget source of
    these revenues.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. McCullough. Yes, I first of all refer you to the CURC-
    EPRI roadmap that recognizes the technology roadmap to get to
    cost-effective, reliable CCS capture. We would also support the
    funding that Mr. Trisko just----
        Mr. Doyle. Great. I don't mean to rush you but I have some
    more to say.
        Go ahead, Mr. Voyles.
        Mr. Voyles. And I would only add to what Mr. McCullough
    says by saying--and we have talked about the Kemper County
    plant. That plant has been progressing without the imposition
    of any standards so the industry is investing in carbon
    research, trying to develop technology, and that should
    continue.
        Mr. Doyle. Mr. Hilton?
        Mr. Hilton. Clearly, I think a wires charge or similar
    thing.
        Mr. Thompson. A combination, both performance standards and
    incentives that promote enhanced oil recovery.
        Mr. Lashof. Yes, I would say we need the standards to make
    it clear that if you are going to build fossil plants, you are
    going to need CCS in the future to motivate people to invest,
    and then we need support.
        Mr. Doyle. Dr. Christy?
        Mr. Christy. Yes, I would just say please don't raise the
    rates of Alabamians for utilities.
        Mr. Doyle. OK. Thank you.
        This week, Mr. Chairman, in the House, our friends on the
    other side are going to bring a bill to stop the war on coal to
    the House Floor, and among other things, the bill prohibits any
    acknowledgement that global warming is caused by carbon
    emissions and it bars the Federal Government from setting any
    kind of carbon-emission limit. The bill we are debating here in
    the subcommittee also would bar the Federal Government from
    setting any kind of limit on carbon pollution. In 2009,
    Democrats passed a stimulus bill that provided $3.4 billion to
    CCS funding. That was 49 percent of all the energy funding in
    the stimulus bill went to CCS. Half of all that funding, CCS.
    That bill was denigrated, maligned and smeared by many in this
    House chamber. Also in 2009, we took up a cap-and-trade bill
    that had $60 billion for CCS funding as well as the $10 billion
    in wire charges that Mr. Trisko referred to in his testimony.
    That bill as well was smeared, denigrated and maligned by many
    on this House Floor.
        So here we are today dealing with regulations that are a
    result of court-imposed deadlines and we are being told that
    the industry doesn't have commercially available tools to meet
    these limits. Well, whose fault is that? I would just say to my
    friends, when you want to bring a bill forward to invest--you
    know, you have to do both. You can't just----
        Mr. Gardner [presiding]. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Mr. Doyle. No, I would like 10 more seconds.
        Mr. Gardner. I am not from Texas.
        Mr. Doyle. Let me just say this to my friends. I have
    sympathy for what is going on in the coal industry. Bring a
    bill to the floor that says we need commercially available
    technology before we can do certain regulations, but where is
    the money to go with it? There is no commitment to fund the
    technology. We do this in nuclear and we do this in other
    areas. You know, show me the money. We had $60 billion on the
    table and that got voted down. So don't just come here and say
    you can't do something because the technology is not available.
        Mr. Gardner. The gentleman's time has expired. The
    gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do feel
    obligated to point out that during the first 2 years of the
    Obama administration when cap and trade, Waxman-Markey passed
    and the stimulus bill did pass, of course the President's party
    controlled all the levers of government. Whatever this side of
    the dais wanted was absolutely irrelevant because the Democrats
    had a 50-vote majority in the House and a 60-vote filibuster-
    proof majority in the Senate. It was the Senate that was unable
    to do Waxman-Markey because after they saw the public angst
    over Waxman-Markey being shoved through the floor of the House
    the last day of June 2009, no Senator had the courage to step
    forward and say let us talk about this. They wanted to withdraw
    from that fight. Whether it was right or wrong, I mean, that is
    what happened. Blame us if you want if you can't find any other
    reason but the reality was, 60 Democratic votes in the Senate
    and the President could not get that bill even considered in
    the other body. So don't blame House Republicans. I didn't want
    that. I thought it was a bad idea. I thought it was a bad idea
    on several levels. I will still vote against it if you are able
    to bring it up again. But don't blame House Republicans for
    your inability to get that done because you know very well that
    thing was forced through this committee, subcommittee, full
    committee and the floor of the House and it was in fact to the
    detriment of your side because, honestly, you never recovered
    the public confidence after you did that. It was done in the
    worst possible way, and I would hope whatever happens with
    energy legislation going forward it is constructed in a
    bipartisan fashion. I think that is the lesson a lot of us can
    take away from the last 3 \1/2\ years.
        Mr. Hilton, I have a question for you, because when Michael
    Williams was Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission, I think
    he came to this committee and testified either in committee or
    in a briefing, and he talked about how the State of Texas had
    taken title. You were answering some questions from Mr. Terry
    about the liability issues. The State of Texas, as I understand
    it, took title to the carbon that was pumped back down for
    carbon sequestration. Is that not correct?
        Mr. Hilton. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Burgess. Does that help with the liability issue?
        Mr. Hilton. It helps in Texas.
        Mr. Burgess. Right. Has any other State stepped forward and
    done that?
        Mr. Hilton. I don't believe so.
        Mr. Burgess. Now, Texas, of course, is a little bit
    different because we are our own country. We don't have Federal
    lands; we have State lands. So there actually is the
    availability of State land to do that. In other areas of the
    country where there are large amounts of Federal lands, has
    there been any discussion about the Federal Government taking
    title to the carbon that might be injected under Federal lands?
        Mr. Hilton. I can say it has been suggested. I don't know
    if the Federal Government itself has discussed it, but, I mean,
    people have talked about it, of course.
        Mr. Burgess. But even there with the liability cloud
    removed as it was in Texas, I mean, it has been a slow go. It
    is not something that has really been--there hasn't been a lot
    of enthusiasm for it.
        Dr. Christy, welcome back to our committee. You have spent
    a lot of time here over the years. I really appreciate the
    graphic representation that you brought to us today. It is
    fascinating because, I mean, I lived through at least half of
    it so I actually remember those years very well. There does
    seem to be a certain amount of randomness to the temperature
    variations that you described. There also seems to be some
    clustering. Are you able to make any predictions about, is this
    occurring on a cyclic basis? I mean, clearly some of the most
    startling temperatures were in the early part of the last
    century as opposed to these latter years when the carbon
    numbers were supposedly going up. Are you able to make any
    predictive statements based upon the data that you have
    collected?
        Mr. Christy. You know, my most confident predictive
    statement is that if it happened before, it will happen again
    and probably worse.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, history always repeats itself right up
    until the time that it doesn't.
        Mr. Christy. Yes. In fact, even on the arctic sea ice
    thing, I think it would be interesting to note that over
    western civilization the arctic has probably been warmer than
    it is today.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, let me ask you a question because it did
    come up that because of the reliance on natural gas when the
    price collapsed of natural gas in 2008, apparently carbon
    dioxide levels are lower now than what they were predicted to
    be. Is that correct?
        Mr. Christy. In this country, they have fallen, yes.
        Mr. Burgess. Is that happening worldwide or is it just this
    country?
        Mr. Christy. I believe that is not the case worldwide. It
    is still going up thanks to China and India, who are really
    burning a lot of coal.
        Mr. Burgess. So if we were really able to achieve the goals
    that were set forward in Waxman-Markey, the rest of the world
    could actually negate any benefit effect if indeed that was the
    cause of global warming?
        Mr. Christy. Whatever the United States does, it will be
    pretty much imperceptible for the global climate.
        Mr. Burgess. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
    yield back.
        Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--or thank you, Mr.
    Burgess.
        Mr. Burgess. I will yield you additional time.
        Mr. Gardner. Yes, that is right. Well, I was maybe getting
    even for Mr. Doyle right there.
        Mr. Olson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and on behalf of the people
    of Texas 22, welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for your time
    and expertise today.
        Clean air and economic growth are not mutually exclusive.
    The great people of Texas 22 aren't buying the notion that EPA
    can create jobs by strangling business with overly burdensome
    and unnecessary regulations, especially when the electricity
    bills are going up. We all know, the people of my district,
    Texas 22, our rates by the comments our President made when he
    was running for the office in 2008 in San Francisco. You guys
    know these comments but just let me read them for you. If
    someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant, they can,
    but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge
    sum. I served 10 years in the United States Navy. It sounds
    like an attack on coal, doesn't it?
        My first question is for you, Mr. McCullough and Mr. Hilton
    and Mr. Voyles. Do you believe EPA's goal with all these new
    rules is to shut down coal plants like the President said in
    San Francisco and keep new ones from being built?
        Mr. McCullough. Well, the motive is up to someone else to
    decide but the effect is that no new coal plants will be built.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Voyles?
        Mr. Voyles. I would concur with that.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Hilton?
        Mr. Hilton. I would concur with that.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you.
        Texas is predicted to have a severe supply shortage,
    meaning that we will need more electricity than it can
    generate. We are the second largest State, the fastest-growing
    State in our Nation. We are expected to have a 2,500-megawatt
    shortfall in generating capacity, equivalent to five large
    power plants, as early as 2014. We have proposed a pet coke
    plant in Texas, the Corpus Christi area, Las Brisas Energy
    Center, that EPA has been slow walking for more than 3 years.
    Some of my colleagues have wrote EPA about 2 months ago and
    they haven't gotten back to us yet. So we are optimistic that
    we will get something from EPA. But is this the sort of
    treatment you guys are getting used to from EPA, no answers, no
    responses? I will put it another way: has EPA been a corporate
    partner or are they an adversary working against you?
        Mr. McCullough. Well, we have certainly had our discussions
    with U.S. EPA around many rules, the MACT rule for mercury
    being included in that discussion, and saw very little in the
    way of response positively for our industry.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Voyles?
        Mr. Voyles. We too have had numbers of discussions with EPA
    on numbers of rules, and the plant that I spoke of earlier, we
    had some discussions with them about the time that was taken to
    get our permits but we did finally achieve those.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Hilton?
        Mr. Hilton. As a technology supplier, we really don't get
    into those kind of discussions per se. We talk about technology
    with the agency.
        Mr. Olson. OK. One round of questions for all of you
    starting with Dr. Christy. Our former EPA regional
    administrator, Mr. Al Armendariz, was in charge of overseeing
    our power plants. He had resigned his radical agenda. He came
    forward to actually crucify--he used that term--to crucify the
    oil and gas companies but it went public. He now works for the
    Sierra Club, their beyond-coal campaign. What do you think
    about that? Are there more people like Dr. Armendariz working
    at EPA now?
        Mr. Christy. My impression in the Federal Government, there
    are several folks like that, have a pretty clear view of what
    the climate situation is.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Trisko?
        Mr. Trisko. Our experience, Congressman, is that EPA is
    staffed by highly experienced experts in environmental
    regulation, and if one follows the letter of the Clean Air Act
    that has not been amended by Congress for some 22 years except
    by virtue of a 2007 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, it is not
    difficult to understand how we have ended up in the predicament
    we are today.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. McCullough?
        Mr. McCullough. Yes, I would agree. In the discussions, the
    Clean Air Act, I would classify as used as a reason or a crutch
    to not be flexible, and it is pretty consistent in that way.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Voyles, your comment, sir?
        Mr. Voyles. I don't know that I would add anything that
    hasn't already been said. I am not sure where they get all the
    employees but they have some expertise that we talk to from
    time to time, and I think that they do try to use the Clean Air
    Act to the advantage of one side or the other, depending upon
    the issue.
        Mr. McCullough. Mr. Hilton?
        Mr. Hilton. I have great respect for the professionals at
    EPA and they do have some terrific experts there, and I think
    the comments that Mr. Trisko made are probably very
    substantial.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you.
        Mr. Thompson?
        Mr. Thompson. My experience is, the EPA officials are very
    professional and some leave the agency to work for industry and
    some for environmental groups.
        Mr. Olson. And finally last but certainly not least, Dr.
    Lashof?
        Mr. Lashof. Yes, my experience is similar. EPA Is trying to
    protect public health by setting standards. They have proposed
    a fuel-neutral and technology-neutral standard, and the public
    supports it overwhelmingly.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you. I am way over time. I thank the
    Chair.
        Mr. Gardner. The gentleman from West Virginia, Mr.
    McKinley, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Thompson, I want to focus back in on the enhanced oil
    recovery. Are you aware that earlier this year there was an
    amendment on the floor that was adopted by Congressman Connolly
    that cut the research funding in the enhanced oil recovery?
        Mr. Thompson. I am not familiar with that.
        Mr. McKinley. So when we hear the folks on the other side
    talking about this, if we know this is going to be part of the
    solution, this is where we need to be focusing on but yet all
    these members, and Mr. Doyle was one of them that voted to cut
    the funding. I find that very interesting.
        But let me build on that just a little bit. In fact, all
    the Democrats did. If the oil industry--because I am somewhat
    aware of this process. If the oil industry finds this is a
    possibility of increased recovery, instead of--well, how many
    of them are contributing from the oil industry, how many of
    them are contributing to the carbon-capture research so that
    would enable that to occur to provide them with a supply of
    material? Are any oil companies contributing to CCS research?
        Mr. Thompson. Sure, Shell, among others, is.
        Mr. McKinley. Do you have numbers for that, how much? Are
    they contributing a million or they are contributing hundreds
    of millions of dollars?
        Mr. Thompson. No, I don't, but what I would be happy to do
    is after the hearing----
        Mr. McKinley. I would like to understand more----
        Mr. Thompson [continuing]. I would be happy to respond in
    writing.
        Mr. McKinley [continuing]. Because if they are going to be
    the ones that are going to benefit from this, I think they are
    the ones that should be contributing the money for it.
        Let us go back now to Dr. Lashof. I am just curious. It was
    touched on just a minute ago about the CO2
    emissions. Are you aware that the CO2 emissions
    across North America are down to a low that hasn't been seen in
    20 years?
        Mr. Lashof. Yes, I am. I have published a report on that a
    month or so ago.
        Mr. McKinley. And so with that, you think we ought to go
    even--we need to continue this message, this fight?
        Mr. Lashof. Well, the amount of CO2 in the
    atmosphere is 25 percent higher than it was in the year I was
    born, 1959, and what we need to do is stabilize that level. The
    United States needs to reduce further. Certainly, China and
    India also need to reduce. The United States has to provide
    leadership.
        Mr. McKinley. Because what you are saying is, it is the
    main culprit? I think I heard you say that is the main culprit
    of global warming.
        Mr. Lashof. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. It
    would be remarkable if it weren't causing global warming, and
    in fact, we are seeing global warming.
        Mr. McKinley. So you disagree with Dr. Lewis, Hal Lewis,
    when he resigned from his position, the American Physicists
    Society when he said this is the greatest pseudoscience fraud
    perpetrated on America?
        Mr. Lashof. Yes, I totally disagree with that.
        Mr. McKinley. I would assume you do. But I think several
    others have joined him in resigning because there are other
    scientists that disagree with you on that, that this is being
    used for other purposes. I look at what Hal Lewis has said, and
    if you look back to Milankovic, back to the Serbian physicist
    back in the last century, by virtue of his own studies had
    predicted that this was going to happen at this time in our
    history. Are you aware of that?
        Mr. Lashof. I am. Look, scientists will always disagree
    with each other. That is what they do. That is how they make a
    living is writing papers to disagree with other scientists. If
    we predicated policy on unanimity among scientists on any
    issue, we would never do anything.
        Mr. McKinley. Do you recognize too that National Geographic
    just came out with a study that says we are just coming out of
    an ice age, a mini-ice age, and therefore we should be
    expecting higher temperatures today?
        Mr. Lashof. I haven't seen that particular National
    Geographic article, but the fact is that the amount of heat
    trapping that the excess CO2 that we put into the
    atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is now a much bigger
    factor in influencing the earth's climate than the Milankovic
    cycles and what we have had to start with. We have entered a
    new era that many scientists call the----
        Mr. McKinley. So my point here is, given that there is not
    unanimity--and I remember earlier last year when Lisa Jackson
    came before us, she said it is all been decided, that global
    warming is anthropogenic, global warming is manmade cause and
    it is CO2 driven, that there is no argument anymore,
    but you also just acknowledged that it is not, that the science
    is still up in the air over that issue. So I accept that there
    is not a lack of unanimity on it because what we are about to
    do here is allow the EPA to impose a regulation. That is the
    purpose of my bill. Just hold back. If we had the scientific
    ways of doing it, then to go ahead and implement it, but when
    we don't have the technology available, let us hold back
    because there is enough evidence that possibly CO2
    is not contributing to as much of the problem as you are
    suggesting that it is. So let us just hold back. I am over my
    time----
        Mr. Lashof. Mr. McKinley, if I can just answer quickly, I
    don't agree that the science is up in the air. I said that
    there is not unanimity among scientists and there won't be, but
    the National Academy of Science said that the idea that carbon
    dioxide is contributing to climate change is as well proven as
    gravity, and I think that is a strong basis for making policy.
        Mr. Gardner. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman
    from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Markey. Could you recognize someone from the minority
    and then come back to me? Is that possible, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Gardner. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds?
        Mr. Markey. No, I am ready to go, if the majority does not
    need to have the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So here is what I would say, that coal has dropped from 51
    percent of electrical generation down to 35 percent over the
    last 5 years, but there is a concomitant trend as well which is
    operating simultaneously which is that natural gas has risen
    from 21 percent to 30 percent. So there is a war between fossil
    fuels going on in our country right now.
        By the way, the same thing is happening on home heating oil
    in New England. The market for home heating oil is collapsing
    as the price of natural gas is rising. Now, why is that?
    Because natural gas is so much less expensive than home heating
    oil. The price of natural gas has collapsed in terms of a
    source for generation for electricity. And by the way, the same
    thing is true for wind. Wind was only 1 percent of all
    electricity just 4 years ago. It is now 4 percent of all
    electricity.
        So coal is losing a marketplace battle. There is no
    question about it. It is losing a marketplace battle. Natural
    gas is up to 30 percent. It will probably go up a percent a
    year every year. That is just a fossil-fuel battle. The same
    thing is true for home heating oil. Natural gas is eating into
    home heating oil in a very significant way. That is a fossil-
    fuel interfuel battle. And I know a lot of people don't like
    it, you know, any more than--let us be honest, any more than
    the horse industry likes the horseless-carriage industry. It
    just moving on, you know, but when the price drops, that is
    what you get.
        So a lot of people are just trying to blame the concern,
    which the Obama administration or members of this committee
    that might care about clean air or pollution or science but
    that is not what has really been happening. This is all
    happening before there was any rule promulgated on
    CO2. This is already happening and it is going to
    continue to happen because of the low price of natural gas.
    Now, again, the Democrats are the party of natural gas and the
    Republicans are the party of coal, if that is how you want to
    frame it, but that would of course be a wrong frame. That is
    the wrong frame. I am just bringing to you the marketplace
    reality, the economics of it. When a flat-screen TV costs
    $5,000, you don't buy it. When the cost collapses down to $299,
    you are buying one. That is what is happening with natural gas.
    People are buying natural gas, utilities and homeowners, and
    they are moving to it, plain and simple.
        So Dr. Christy, I want to read to you two statements. One,
    scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences
    cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface
    temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th
    century, and two, it is virtually certain that increasing
    atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other
    greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be
    warmer. Dr. Christy, do you agree with those statements?
        Mr. Christy. Those statements have no magnitude to them, no
    metrics to them, so if the increase is 1,000th of a degree due
    to the greenhouse effect, you would say yes. You would agree
    with those statements.
        Mr. Markey. OK. Well, Dr. Christy, those statements are
    direct quotes from the 2003 American Geophysical Union
    statement on human impacts on climate that you helped to draft.
    So Dr. Christy, in 2003, you agreed with those statements, but
    the Dr. Christy of 2012 does not agree with those statements.
        Dr. Lashof, do you agree with those statements? Is the
    science, Dr. Lashof, more certain now than it was in 2003?
        Mr. Lashof. Yes, there has been a huge accumulation of
    observations and studies which tie the warming that we have
    seen to the accumulation of heat-trapping pollution in the
    atmosphere. Of course, as Dr. Christy says, there is natural
    variability. There will always be natural variability. But on
    top of the natural variability there is an undeniable trend
    that is very significant and very dangerous.
        Mr. Markey. So Dr. Lashof, tell us the status of the arctic
    right now, could you?
        Mr. Lashof. Right. So NASA released data yesterday showing
    that the arctic ice has fallen to about 3.4 million square
    kilometers at minimum. It is less than 50 percent of what it
    was in 1979. It is about a 49 percent reduction form the
    average over the whole period from 1979 to----
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Doctor.
        I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Markey.
        You know, I would just say in conclusion to my friends, and
    many weren't here when we passed the cap-and-trade bill in the
    House, but I think one thing is clear. Mr. Hilton says, you
    know, he has an MOU with the Chinese. We are going to use coal
    for the foreseeable future, and even if we don't use it, China
    is going to use it, India is going to use it, other countries
    are going to use it. It only makes sense that if it is going to
    be used, we try to do it in the most efficient and
    environmentally safe way. To do that, we have to make an
    investment in it. These things are not going to happen by
    themselves. So either the Chinese are going to develop the
    technology, they are going to come over here and fund the
    project and part of that deal is, they get the technology and
    then they get to market it to the world or the United States
    does it. I would suggest that, you know, if we want to deal
    with coal, I would say to my friends on the other side of the
    aisle, let us put our money where our mouth is, and if you are
    going to pass a bill saying there is no commercially available
    technology, then where is the money to make that happen? And
    until we do that, other countries will do that and they will
    have the technology and we won't.
        Mr. Gardner. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman
    from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Christy, did you want to respond to anything that the
    previous gentleman said? I know that he made some assertions
    about your positions and you didn't get a chance to respond.
    Would you like to do that at this time?
        Mr. Christy. I agree with those statements in 2003. I was
    one of the authors. There were no magnitudes on those
    statements. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It will cause
    surface warming. How much is the uncertainty.
        Mr. Griffith. And I would point out that one of the things
    that I see as a difference with what is happening now, and lots
    of time people like to talk about the market conditions, and
    clearly the market conditions are important, but one of the
    things that is interesting is, is that there was a reference to
    the horseless carriage versus the horse-drawn vehicles, but we
    didn't outlaw horses at the same time as the horseless carriage
    was being developed and that is the big difference, and while I
    am getting older every day and thankful for that, I can
    remember in my youth a gentleman who in my hometown still had
    his team of horses to plow fields, and people felt he did a
    great job and he made a living doing that for a number of years
    well into the 1970s, and horses were not made illegal by the
    advent of the automobile.
        Mr. Hilton, did I hear you say that--and I may have
    misunderstood so please get me straight--that in regard to the
    Kemper coal-fired power plant with what they are doing that
    there would be a 20 percent rate increase?
        Mr. Hilton. That is what I have read, yes.
        Mr. Griffith. You know, this is part of what causes me
    great concern, and Dr. Christy, you touched on this earlier as
    well, is that we have all of these requirements and it is not
    just the one that we are debating today but we have numerous
    requirements coming in and every time we turn around there is a
    rate increase. We are already experiencing that in my district,
    which is a coal-producing district in southwest Virginia, but
    the folks, you know, many counties away from where the coal is
    actually dug are watching their electric rates go up and it is
    making it hard on the working poor and on the poor folks
    because they can't afford a 10 percent increase, or in this
    case, a 20 percent increase. And you mentioned that they were
    having similar problems in your community in Alabama. Is that
    true, or that you have noticed this?
        Mr. Christy. I would just say this, that we have many, many
    poor people in my State and any increase in cost of living for
    them is really a hardship.
        Mr. Griffith. And that is true in my district as well, and
    I think that is probably true in a lot of the districts across
    the United States, that what you have is, you have--when the
    price goes up, then it makes it hard.
        And you know, what is interesting is, is that everybody
    likes to talk about the statement by the President when he said
    that they would bankrupt the facilities if they were using coal
    or whatever but they also mentioned at that time in 2008 he
    mentioned as well because on capping greenhouse gases, 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. They will pass
    that money on to consumers. So I just find it rather
    interesting that the consumer side of this equation is often
    left out.
        And Dr. Christy, you indicated that if the United States
    took all these actions and we reduced and continued to reduce
    our carbon footprint that it would be relatively--and I don't
    want to put your words in your mouth, I don't remember,
    something along the lines of negligible, is that correct?
        Mr. Christy. Yes.
        Mr. Griffith. In the world's output. But wouldn't you agree
    with me that it is not negligible to the families that are
    having to pay those higher increased prices for electricity to
    light and heat their homes or to run factories?
        Mr. Christy. Yes. I think anyone who sees their utility
    bill rise would feel the effect and it wouldn't be good for
    them.
        Mr. Griffith. And of course, we have got not just this
    regulation but lots of other regulations that are putting
    pressure on those prices, and then of course you have all these
    folks that are out of work because it is not just the 1,200
    folks that are going to be laid off by Alpha Natural Resources,
    which, by the way, is headquartered in my district, but it is
    also all the other coalmines that have laid off people,
    sometimes 20 at a time, 30 at a time that people aren't
    necessarily noticing and then the people who are laid off from
    suppliers, joint manufacturing, other suppliers to the
    coalmines, the railroads that may not have had the effect yet
    but will have the effect, etc., and so you are going to have
    more and more people who are unemployed because we are
    insisting upon--for a negligible result, we are insisting upon
    taking our economy and throwing it in the trashcan for a
    negligible result on carbon footprint in the world and we are
    sending our jobs overseas to other countries and we are
    watching as they gain the wealth, and when there comes a time
    when there is a technology that may make things better, we
    won't have the money to buy that technology because we will
    have sent all of our wealth overseas.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Gardner. The gentleman yields back. The chairman
    recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
        Thank you to the panelists for the opportunity to be here
    today and your testimony. Several years ago when Congress was
    considering its first greenhouse-gas bill, I received a letter
    from a couple of local rural electric associations that were
    talking about the price impact that that particular regulation
    would have on their customers. In fact, according to one
    analysis in northeastern Colorado, they determined that an
    average farmer, the average sprinkler cost for a farmer would
    increase by about $2,000 per sprinkler. This is a big pivot
    irrigation system, 160 acres. Now, if you are a farmer in
    eastern Colorado, you don't just have one pivot irrigation
    system; you have got five, maybe ten. That is $2,000 each.
    Maybe you have more. And so we are talking about considerable
    costs being added under their estimate from the rural electric
    association that that particular regulation would have on their
    customers' operations.
        And so Mr. McCullough, or was it Mr. Hilton, that you
    mentioned rate increase of 20 percent. Is that correct?
        Mr. Hilton. In Mississippi.
        Mr. Gardner. In Mississippi. And I would be curious to see
    if Mr. Trisko, are you hearing anything through the various
    businesses that you work with on rate increases?
        Mr. Trisko. Chairman, we understand that the Kentucky
    Public Commission has decided a number of cases. Now, this is
    for prospective Clean Air Act regulations for hazardous air
    pollutants and the like, not this proposed regulation, and the
    rate increases are on the order of 16 to 18 percent.
        Mr. Gardner. Mr. McCullough?
        Mr. McCullough. Yes, I would agree with that. We recently
    pulled down an order for a new scrubber for a plant in Kentucky
    that would have impacted customers there by over 30 percent.
        Mr. Gardner. Mr. Voyles?
        Mr. Voyles. Yes, as I have said in my testimony, the
    compliance plans that we recently got approved for the Utility
    MACT Rule and the New Source--the National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards are impacting our ratepayers by up to 14 and 18
    percent, not counting anything on carbon.
        Mr. Gardner. And to follow up on Mr. Griffith's questions
    as well, these are costs that are passed on to your customers,
    your consumers. Is that correct, Mr. Hilton?
        Mr. Hilton. Ultimately, of course.
        Mr. Gardner. Mr. Voyles?
        Mr. Voyles. As well as we have said before, we not only
    pass it along to all of our ratepayers but it passes along to
    the commercial industry so the food prices are impacted,
    McDonald's prices are impacted, everybody's prices are
    impacted.
        Mr. Gardner. And who does that affect the most
    disproportionately in our society? People on a fixed income,
    poor?
        Mr. Voyles. It certainly presents some significant
    challenges for fixed income.
        Mr. Gardner. Mr. McCullough, what happens to American
    business competitiveness with the rate increases of 20 percent,
    18 percent, 14 percent?
        Mr. McCullough. Obviously, it further disadvantages them.
    We have seen that in our territory with especially aluminum
    smelters who--the Century aluminum plant in West Virginia went
    out of business with the recession and recently Ormat in our
    home State of Ohio has just announced that they are going to
    decrease their production.
        Mr. Gardner. Dr. Lashof, what happens to an economy where
    rates are increasing by 20 percent, the poor being hurt and
    those on fixed incomes are being hurt disproportionately?
        Mr. Lashof. Well, Mr. Chairman if we could return to the
    specific proposal that EPA has put forward, it would not cause
    any rate increases.
        Mr. Gardner. My question to you is, if rates increase by 20
    percent, for a variety of reasons that have been mentioned,
    what happens to our economy? What happens to the poor? What
    happens to people on a fixed income?
        Mr. Lashof. It depends what else is happening in the
    economy. If people are using energy more efficiently, their
    costs might go down, which we have seen in many, many States
    that have invested in energy efficiency. You can't just look at
    rates.
        Mr. Gardner. If people that have low income are able to buy
    something that is more energy-efficient, that will help them?
        Mr. Lashof. Yes, and if we provide--and technology is
    improving on the efficiency side.
        Mr. Gardner. OK. So if people on a fixed income, are poor
    can afford to buy something new, then that will help them?
        Mr. Lashof. Well, as pollution also imposes more severe
    costs on poor people, they are exposed to it more, so the
    benefits of air-pollution regulations in fact go to the low-
    income people. So the EPA is actually required to look at costs
    and benefits when they propose regulations.
        Mr. Gardner. We have actually heard testimony in this
    committee before where they have failed to do an adequate
    analysis on cost and benefits, and this is, I think, one of the
    frustrating parts of this entire debate. Nobody doubts that we
    can do a better job when it comes to energy efficiency. There
    is no doubt about that. Nobody doubts that we have incredible
    opportunities in new energy. But the problem is, when we have
    regulations that come down from agencies that increase cost on
    developing energy, on consuming energy, it hurts our economy
    and it hurts the people who are most vulnerable in our society,
    and that seems to get left out of this entire debate is the
    people who are affected disproportionately are poor and low
    income because it hurts the economy and it hurts their ability
    to lift themselves and their families out of the position that
    they are in.
        I see that my time is expired as well, and thank you very
    much to the panelists for being here, the witnesses for your
    time and testimony today. And with that, this hearing is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5564.157