[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17789-17790]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       THE CLEAN AIR PLANNING ACT

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Lamar Alexander 
announced his decision on this Senate floor to join Senators Gregg, 
Chafee, and me in cosponsoring the Clean Air Planning Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be added as a 
cosponsor of S. 843.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, we are delighted at this decision. We 
welcome him as a cosponsor. The Clean Air Planning Act is a sensible 
solution to a vexing and challenging problem. We welcome the support of 
Senator Alexander on this bill and the opportunity to work with him and 
other colleagues in this body to pass a strong bipartisan piece of 
clean air legislation later this year. Together, we can pass 
legislation that will control harmful emissions, provide cleaner air, 
and let more people live longer and healthier lives. We can do so in a 
way that does not impose hardship on those who produce electricity or 
on the consumers or an industry that relies on affordable electricity.
  There are several advantages for the Nation that the Clean Air 
Planning Act will provide, and I want to mention several of those at 
this time.
  First of all, let me begin with public health and environmental 
benefits. The Clean Air Planning Act will achieve substantially greater 
emissions reductions than the administration's Clear Skies Act. The 
Clean Air Planning Act will generate an additional 23 million tons of 
SO2 reductions, 3 million tons of nitrogen oxide reductions, 
240,000 pounds of mercury reductions, and 764 million tons of carbon 
dioxide reductions relative to the Clear Skies Act in the first 20 
years of the program.
  As a result, the human health benefits are likely to be substantially 
greater under the Clean Air Planning Act than the Clear Skies 
legislation. An EPA analysis has concluded that in 2020, the Clean Air 
Planning Act would avoid almost 6,000 premature deaths from fine 
particulate matter when compared with Clear Skies on an annual basis--
not a cumulative basis.
  Let me return to CO2 and business certainty. From the 
perspective of the electric generating sector, business certainty is a 
major driver for the enactment of multipollutant legislation. Without 
CO2 included, electric-generating companies will continue to 
make their investment decisions in the face of major business 
uncertainty. This raises the specter of stranded investments.
  By lifting the uncertainty surrounding future action on 
CO2, the Clean Air Planning Act creates a more favorable 
climate for the expansion of U.S. coal markets and stimulates the 
development of clean coal technologies.
  Let me talk for a moment about diverse generation mix. The Clean Air 
Planning Act and Clear Skies will both preserve a diverse fuel mix. 
Both bills are projected to have minimal impact on coal use. In 2010, 
coal use is expected to be about 2 percent lower under the Clean Air 
Planning Act than under Clear Skies--50 percent versus 48 percent. Coal 
is projected to constitute 45 percent of the electric generating mix in 
2020 under either bill, Clear Skies or the Clean Air Planning Act.
  An important question is, What will it cost to buy the relative 
advantages of the Clean Air Planning Act?
  In both 2010 and 2020, total annual electric system costs under the 
Clean Air Planning Act are projected to be only 2.5 percent higher than 
under Clear Skies. This includes the cost of regulating CO2 
under the Clean Air Planning Act. On a net present value basis, the 
total cost differences between Clear Skies and the Clean Air Planning 
Act over a 20-year period, from 2005 to 2025, is in the range of 2 to 3 
percent.
  The EPA itself has conceded that retail electricity prices would 
increase by only two-tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour more under the 
Clean Air Planning Act than under Clear Skies, which amounts to about 
$1.20 per month for the average residence.

[[Page 17790]]

  According to the EPA, the CO2 reduction plan could be 
carried out at ``negligible'' cost--that is their word--to the 
industry. Specifically, we can achieve the CO2 goal in our 
bill--returning electricity industry emissions to 2001 levels by 2013--
for approximately $300 million in additional costs on top of the $103 
billion the industry will already be spending to produce electricity. 
That is just 0.3 percent--not 3 percent, not 30 percent, but 0.3 
percent.
  Let me conclude. Once again, I thank Senator Alexander for having the 
courage to join us in this effort. I know it is not a decision that he 
made lightly. As a former Governor, he shares my commitment to getting 
things done in the Senate and in our Nation's Capital, with a 
commitment to focusing on policies that are the right thing for this 
Nation to do. Speaking for Senators Gregg, Chafee, and myself, we 
welcome the support of the junior Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________