[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.
____________________