[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11709-11710]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            EPA REGULATIONS

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the economic 
effect of regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency 
on the energy sector and particularly on fossil fuels and coal.
  The State of Wyoming is the largest coal-producing State in the 
Nation. Coal represents almost 40 percent of our share of electricity 
generation across the United States. It is abundant, it is affordable, 
it is stockpileable, it can be clean, and it shouldn't be replaced 
through regulatory actions. But this administration continues to try to 
regulate coal out of existence.
  In 2012, the EPA finalized a standard that requires a strict 
reduction in air emissions from electric-generating utilities. It is 
known as the mercury and air toxic standards rule. Like many of the 
rules coming from the EPA, the costs of this regulation are great and 
the benefits are very limited.
  EPA estimates the rule will create between $500,000 and $6 million in 
benefits. That sounds like a lot of money. But related to the mercury 
reductions, the cost is $10 billion annually--$10 billion annually--for 
a return of $500,000 to $6 million. That is a pretty big range. It 
indicates there probably isn't a lot of calculation into how that came 
into being or much transparency so we can see how that came about.
  The $10 billion annual cost will be to consumers of electricity. 
Those are costs that aren't allowed to be recouped. Now, many of those 
have already been put in place. They become part of the rate base, and, 
under most of the laws dealing with utilities, they are allowed to make 
a return on that. So there wouldn't be a huge protest for it. It is a 
lot of upfront cost for them, but they get to recoup that over a period 
of time. We have to be sure that when we are making regulations, we 
don't flood a whole bunch of them in there that have huge costs and 
very little benefit.
  We just had a hearing on this a short time ago on the homeland 
subcommittee on regulations, talking about how all of those costs come 
about. Well, the actual cost of doing it is pretty easily calculable. 
There are things that have to be bought and put in place and 
construction done in order to get it done. The benefits? It is a little 
hard to find out where those come from, and a lot of the things aren't 
clearly cut so that the problem comes from a single spot. Often there 
are a lot of things involved, but there is a tendency to pick on one 
place.
  Three years after the rule was finalized, the Supreme Court has ruled 
that the EPA should have considered costs before determining to 
regulate mercury from fossil-fired powerplants. The cost-benefit ratio, 
assuming the EPA's best case scenario, is approximately 1,600 to 1. The 
Court's majority opinion called this an overreach and stated: ``The 
Agency gave cost no thought at all, because it considered cost 
irrelevant to its initial decision to regulate.''
  Since these standards began to take effect in April, utilities have 
already retired or plan to retire coal-fired plants to comply with cuts 
in emissions. Sometimes it is cheaper to shut them down than it is to 
make the changes. The courts did not issue a stay on implementation, so 
companies began installing the mandated controls to meet the deadline 
for compliance. These costs will be passed on to consumers and will 
result in higher electricity prices. On average, a household could see 
their electricity bill go up by $400 a year--a cost that will 
disproportionately impact those with lower, fixed incomes, such as many 
older Americans.
  In 2012, Congress had a chance to use the Congressional Review Act to 
stop this devastating rule from moving forward. The Congressional 
Review Act gives Congress the ability to disapprove rules that go 
beyond what Congress intended. It requires a simple majority for 
passage and was a legislative vehicle available to stop the MATS rule 
from moving forward. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the Senate 
majority at the time.
  With the process, you have to get a petition with a lot of signatures 
on it, and then you are guaranteed 8 hours of debate and an up-or-down 
vote. Of course, after it goes to the Senate, it also has to go to the 
House. And after it goes to the House, it then has to go to the 
President for his signature. The rules and regulations are done by 
Congress, not by the President. The President is the enforcer of the 
rules that we supposedly put in place. So it should not take a 
Presidential signature to stop the action if the House and Senate 
agree. In this case, it was rejected by the Senate majority. It wasn't 
until this lawsuit filed by State Governors was finally decided that 
the Agency was called out for charging ahead with this disastrous rule 
without considering the consequences.
  Ratepayers shouldn't have to wait this long for the correct decision. 
Congress has to stand up to this runaway agency, but we need to expand 
on our tools to fight governing by rulemaking. We need to increase 
accountability for and transparency in the Federal regulatory process 
by requiring that Congress approve all new major regulations. The 
Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act would 
make sure the people's representatives get a say in regulatory action 
affecting our Nation's economy. The presumption should not be deference 
to a Federal agency attempting to implement a regulation but to 
Congress and to the States.
  If enacted, the REINS Act would require an up-or-down vote by both 
Houses of Congress before any executive branch rule or regulation with 
an annual economic impact of $100 million or more could be enacted. In 
the case of the Clean Power Plan, the costs are in the billions. So it 
would ensure Congress gets a say to stop the EPA from regulating coal 
out of business.
  Additionally, the Environment and Public Works Committee has moved 
legislation--that is, the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act--which 
would extend the proposed rule's compliance dates pending further 
judicial review. That way we don't see premature plant closures that 
harm our grid reliability and make energy more expensive before even 
knowing whether the rule is on good legal standing and whether the 
numbers are good.
  Both of these bills would give Congress additional tools to fight 
Executive overreach, and the House has already passed legislation 
similar to the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act. We must do what we 
can because there

[[Page 11710]]

is no doubt that MATS regulations will continue to be challenged for 
its requirement of outside-of-the-fence-line changes, its coordination 
with existing source performance standards, the implementation of 
Federal standards should States not submit plans or on the scientific 
basis if the status quo contributes to the endangerment of public 
health. In fact, the White House has requested over $50 million to 
defend the rule in court. That is your tax money. They have already 
lost once.
  And while the EPA ignores the costs, outside groups have projected 
four to seven times the costs of the regulation. The National Economics 
Research Association found an annual compliance cost for MATS $41 to 
$73 billion. That is the annual compliance costs. So that would be up 
to $73,000 million, as I like to put it, because I think talking about 
millions instead of billions makes it a little more understandable. So 
that is the policy that is going to affect consumer prices.
  It also shows States like Wyoming seeing double-digit increases in 
electrical prices. Congress must ensure the EPA does not continue to 
act unreasonably by not considering the costs of compliance before 
drafting carbon regulations. By requiring States to implement their own 
plans, the EPA is trying to skirt their responsibility to determine the 
true costs. The EPA has not adequately considered the costs of the 
Clean Power Plan. So what they did was shift that over and said: 
States, this is what each of you has to do to make the Federal plan 
work, but since this is a State plan, we don't have to do all of this 
analysis to see what the costs are going to be. Of course, we need more 
transparency in the calculations.
  As I mentioned, costs are easy to come up with, but benefits are 
pretty hard to determine, and they are kind of in the eye of the 
beholder or eye of the calculator. Usually, the costs happen upfront in 
just a few years--5 years, maybe 10 years at the most--but they are 
allowed to calculate benefits over 50 years, 100 years. How long can 
they do that? The company has to pay it upfront, but the consumers have 
to pay it over a regular short period of time.
  Fifteen percent of U.S. coal-generating capacity is already planned 
for retirement. Wyoming would be forced to prematurely close four 
additional coal-fired plants under this rule. Incidentally, that is 
about the amount of electricity that we export to California. The EPA 
asserts that since States determine compliance, the remaining useful 
life of coal-powered units prematurely shut down need not be 
considered.
  Governors have already begun telling the EPA that they will not be 
able to submit plans to meet the proposed standards, so Administrator 
McCarthy has threatened a Federal implementation plan if States do not 
comply. Now, a Federal implementation plan is a Federal regulatory 
action, and so they need to consider the costs of premature plant 
shutdowns and the consumer energy prices that will cause prior to being 
finalized. You cannot bypass these considerations by placing the onus 
on the States first.
  Congress also needs to empower States to oppose Federal regulations 
that hurt their constituencies, again with little benefit. As Wyoming's 
Governor Matt Meads commented on MATS: ``The EPA does not have the 
legal authority to propose, finalize or enforce this proposal.'' The 
EPA has introduced a proposal that functionally and structurally 
hamstrings energy and electricity sectors, thereby driving up the 
electrical prices. It would burden our Nation's economic security and 
prosperity with almost no environmental or health benefits. The State 
of Wyoming is considering its legal options once the rule is finalized. 
They can't do anything until it is finalized.
  I have proposed an amendment to the Constitution which would give 
States the ability to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified 
by two-thirds of the legislators. That is almost like calling a 
constitutional convention under article V of the Constitution. This 
amendment stands up for States' rights and gives them another option 
other than the court system to find solutions to regulatory problems. 
Ultimately, the States know what is best for them, and it is time to 
shift the power back into their hands. Even when Federal regulations 
may have good intentions, they can create situations in which they 
cause more harm than good.
  Unfortunately, the regulatory process is skewed in favor of the 
administration. We need to find a way to empower Congress and to 
empower the States--those most accountable to the voters--to keep 
runaway agencies in check or we will continue to see regulations that 
impede our economy by directly hurting the energy industry, which hurts 
individuals, costs jobs, and hits the ratepayers--the price ultimately 
paid by the consumers.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________