[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 124 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6634-S6635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EMISSION STANDARDS

  Mr. DONNELLY. Madam President, I am here today with my colleague from 
Missouri, Senator Blunt, to talk about our efforts to bring some common 
sense to the EPA's emission standards.
  It is my firm belief that we can establish emission standards that 
protect our environment without hurting our economy and without hurting 
the pocketbooks of families in Indiana and across the country.
  When the EPA released draft standards in 2012 that would regulate 
greenhouse gas emissions from powerplants, it was clear that the 
administration's standards far exceeded the level of carbon reductions 
that would be available using existing technology. They also failed to 
acknowledge that different fuel types pose different challenges when 
trying to reduce emissions.
  If we don't address these standards in a commonsense way, the 
affordable, reliable energy that Hoosier families and businesses depend 
on will be in doubt. It is absolutely critical that the EPA understand 
the impact of these standards and the price their proposed regulation 
would ask Hoosiers to pay.
  Our amendment urges the EPA to use common sense when putting together 
emission regulations by ensuring that efforts to regulate carbon 
dioxide emissions are realistic about existing technology and do not 
negatively impact our economy.
  Our amendment states that if the EPA puts together regulations to 
control carbon dioxide emissions from an industrial source, the EPA 
must develop the regulations using emission

[[Page S6635]]

rates based on the efficiencies achievable using existing technology 
that is commercially available. ``Commercially available'' is defined 
as any technology with proven test results in an industrial setting. It 
also must be subcategorized by fuel type. Different fuel types must 
have different emission rates to be reflective of what is realistic for 
fuel producers using all available technologies.
  Our amendment develops an NSPS for carbon dioxide emissions to 
protect our environment while also ensuring that the regulations do not 
excessively burden Hoosier families and businesses that rely on 
affordable power. The EPA is scheduled to release its updated standards 
tomorrow. I urge them to make sure that any NSPS regulation is 
something that reflects existing technology. We must prevent anything 
that would jeopardize the affordable, reliable energy that allows many 
Hoosier families--and families and businesses across our country--to 
make ends meet.
  Again, I thank my friend Senator Blunt for working with me on this 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I am pleased to work on this with Senator 
Donnelly. This is an amendment which, as he said, requires that we 
categorize fuel types and that we say what works for various types of 
fuel as opposed to setting some standard that makes it impossible for 
other resources we have to be used. It says that the technology has to 
be commercially available.
  We had the Acting EPA Director before the Appropriations Committee 
earlier this year. I asked the Acting Director: The rule that you are 
talking about, is this technology available? Can somebody go out and 
buy this? And the response was something like: Well, parts of it are 
out there, but nobody has ever quite put it together yet--which, of 
course, meant that the rule, for the first time ever, set a standard 
that couldn't possibly be reached.
  In States such as ours, Missouri and Indiana, where Senator Donnelly 
and I are from, we are more than 80 percent dependent on coal. Some of 
our constituents are 100 percent dependent on coal. If you do things 
that raise their utility bills, families know it and their community 
knows it.
  This amendment simply would force the EPA to use common sense when 
setting standards for any facility. The new source performance 
standards, based upon emission limits for powerplants, for refineries, 
for manufacturing facilities, for whatever else they can cover, simply 
don't meet that commonsense standard. In fact, last March when the 
proposed rule went out, there were more than 2 million comments. You 
have to work pretty hard to find this rule, and you have to really be 
dedicated to read it, and 2 million comments said this won't work. It 
is so obvious that it won't work.
  The rule said that if someone wants to build a coal plant, they have 
to install carbon capture technology, which according to the rule would 
add 80 percent to the cost of electricity. It would overstate it a 
little bit initially, but not very far in the future--if you get your 
utility bill and multiply it by two, you will be pretty close to what 
your utility bill would be if the proponents of this rule--if what they 
say will happen is what happens. What happens if you double the utility 
bill? How many jobs go away? How many families find themselves in 
stress?
  When cap and trade failed, the President--who had said earlier that 
under his cap-and-trade plan electricity rates would necessarily 
skyrocket--when it failed, the President said that was only one way of 
skinning the cat. Obviously, the EPA is looking for the second way to 
skin this cat and to impact families. It would make it expensive to do 
what can be otherwise done in the country. Businesses and households 
would need to make a decision about that.
  What we need to be doing is looking to use all of our resources in 
the best possible way. More American energy is critical, and we ought 
to be doing everything we can to see how we produce more American 
energy, a more certain supply, easier to transition from one fuel to 
another, not harder, not putting one electric plant out of business and 
requiring that you build an entire new electric plant. Do you know how 
you pay for an electric plant? Somebody gives you the authority to pass 
all that cost along to the people who are served by it. There is no 
free electricity out there. It makes a real difference.
  The most vulnerable families among us are the ones who are most 
impacted by the higher utility bill. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 
said that nearly 40 million American households earn less than $30,000 
a year, and those households spend almost 20 percent of their income on 
energy. Do you want to make that 30 percent or 40 percent? Surely that 
is not the answer for vulnerable families.
  If you read the press reports today, the EPA will come out with a 
rule tomorrow. I hope this amendment becomes part of the law that would 
make that rule, frankly, make common sense.
  The American people want the administration to stop picking winners 
and losers through regulatory policies. If the Congress wants to have 
that debate and change the law and do that in the open, that is one way 
to do it, but I think we all know that American consumers have figured 
out where this road takes their family, and they don't want to go 
there.
  So I urge support for the amendment Senator Donnelly and I are 
working on--common sense and real cost-benefit analysis. New standards 
that work are essential, not new standards that you know won't work. I 
am glad to be a cosponsor of this amendment and urge my colleagues to 
join Senator Donnelly and me if we get a chance to vote on it as part 
of this bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Levin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1533 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate is in morning business.

                          ____________________