[House Report 115-514]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





115th Congress     }                                 {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                 {        115-514
======================================================================



 
         SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

January 12, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Walden, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1119]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1119) to establish the bases by which the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
issue, implement, and enforce certain emission limitations and 
allocations for existing electric utility steam generating 
units that convert coal refuse into energy, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     3
Committee Action.................................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Oversight Findings and Recommendations...........................     7
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     7
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     7
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     8
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     8
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     8
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     8
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.......     8
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................     8
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     8
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
Dissenting Views.................................................    10

    The amendments are as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the 
Environment Act'' or the ``SENSE Act''.

SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR COAL REFUSE POWER PLANTS.

  (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
          (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
          (2) Boiler operating day.--The term ``boiler operating day'' 
        has the meaning given such term in section 63.10042 of title 
        40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
          (3) Coal refuse.--The term ``coal refuse'' means any 
        byproduct of coal mining, physical coal cleaning, or coal 
        preparation operation that contains coal, matrix material, 
        clay, and other organic and inorganic material.
          (4) Coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit.--The 
        term ``coal refuse electric utility steam generating unit'' 
        means an electric utility steam generating unit that--
                  (A) is in operation as of the date of enactment of 
                this Act;
                  (B) uses fluidized bed combustion technology to 
                convert coal refuse into energy; and
                  (C) uses coal refuse as at least 75 percent of the 
                annual fuel consumed, by heat input, of the unit.
          (5) Coal refuse-fired facility.--The term ``coal refuse-fired 
        facility'' means all coal refuse electric utility steam 
        generating units that are--
                  (A) located on one or more contiguous or adjacent 
                properties;
                  (B) specified within the same Major Group (2-digit 
                code), as described in the Standard Industrial 
                Classification Manual (1987); and
                  (C) under common control of the same person (or 
                persons under common control).
          (6) Electric utility steam generating unit.--The term 
        ``electric utility steam generating unit'' means an electric 
        utility steam generating unit, as such term is defined in 
        section 63.10042 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
        any successor regulation.
  (b) Emission Limitations To Address Hydrogen Chloride and Sulfur 
Dioxide as Hazardous Air Pollutants.--
          (1) Applicability.--For purposes of regulating emissions of 
        hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide from a coal refuse electric 
        utility steam generating unit under section 112 of the Clean 
        Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412), the Administrator--
                  (A) shall authorize the operator of such unit to 
                elect that such unit comply with either--
                          (i) an emissions standard for emissions of 
                        hydrogen chloride that meets the requirements 
                        of paragraph (2); or
                          (ii) an emission standard for emissions of 
                        sulfur dioxide that meets the requirements of 
                        paragraph (2); and
                  (B) may not require that such unit comply with both 
                an emission standard for emissions of hydrogen chloride 
                and an emission standard for emissions of sulfur 
                dioxide.
          (2) Rules for emission limitations.--
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator shall require an 
                operator of a coal refuse electric utility steam 
                generating unit to comply, at the election of the 
                operator, with no more than one of the following 
                emission standards:
                          (i) An emission standard for emissions of 
                        hydrogen chloride from such unit that is no 
                        more stringent than an emission rate of 0.002 
                        pounds per million British thermal units of 
                        heat input.
                          (ii) An emission standard for emissions of 
                        hydrogen chloride from such unit that is no 
                        more stringent than an emission rate of 0.02 
                        pounds per megawatt-hour.
                          (iii) An emission standard for emissions of 
                        sulfur dioxide from such unit that is no more 
                        stringent than an emission rate of 0.20 pounds 
                        per million British thermal units of heat 
                        input.
                          (iv) An emission standard for emissions of 
                        sulfur dioxide from such unit that is no more 
                        stringent than an emission rate of 1.5 pounds 
                        per megawatt-hour.
                          (v) An emission standard for emissions of 
                        sulfur dioxide from such unit that is no more 
                        stringent than capture and control of 93 
                        percent of sulfur dioxide across the generating 
                        unit or group of generating units, as 
                        determined by comparing--
                                  (I) the expected sulfur dioxide 
                                generated from combustion of fuels 
                                emissions calculated based upon as-
                                fired fuel samples, to
                                  (II) the actual sulfur dioxide 
                                emissions as measured by a sulfur 
                                dioxide continuous emission monitoring 
                                system.
                  (B) Measurement.--An emission standard described in 
                subparagraph (A) shall be measured as a 30 boiler 
                operating day rolling average per coal refuse electric 
                utility steam generating unit or group of coal refuse 
                electric utility steam generating units located at a 
                single coal refuse-fired facility.

    Amend the title so as to read:
    A bill to establish the bases by which the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement, and 
enforce certain emission limitations for existing electric 
utility steam generating units that convert coal refuse into 
energy.

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.R. 1119, Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the 
Environment (SENSE) Act, was introduced by Representative Keith 
Rothfus (R-PA) on February 16, 2017. The legislation addresses 
the application of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA), 
issued pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, to 
electric generating units that utilize coal refuse to generate 
electricity and serve critical environmental cleanup and 
remediation purposes. The bill would provide for limited 
modifications with respect to the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule 
for these coal refuse facilities by providing for alternative 
compliance options with respect to sulfur dioxide and hydrogen 
chloride emissions standards.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    This legislation seeks to ensure that innovative, 
environmentally beneficial facilities that use coal refuse as 
fuel can continue to operate and will not be forced to shut 
down, due to unachievable requirements included in the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards (MATS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\On February 16, 2012, EPA finalized the MATS rule. This rule was 
promulgated pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act and requires 
reductions in emissions of mercury and other air toxics, as well as 
certain acid gases from power plants. On June 29, 2015, the U.S. 
Supreme Court ruled that EPA erred when the agency concluded that costs 
did not need to be considered in the MATS rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coal refuse is the aboveground waste product of coal mining 
found near many abandoned mines. Coal refuse piles pose a 
number of environmental and safety threats and create 
significant costs for government and industry. Coal refuse-to-
energy facilities are specialized power plants developed to 
recycle the coal refuse by using it as an energy source to 
generate affordable, reliable electricity. There are 19 coal 
refuse-to-energy facilities, including 14 in Pennsylvania.\2\ 
In addition to creating an estimated 3,600 jobs, many of which 
are in economically distressed communities, these facilities 
create an average of $26 million per year in environmental 
value for the State of Pennsylvania alone.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See Econsult Solutions report prepared for the Anthracite Region 
Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA), Economic and 
Environmental Analysis of Pennsylvania's Coal Refuse Industry (2016). 
In Pennsylvania, coal refuse-to-energy facilities are recognized in the 
Pennsylvania Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act.
    \3\See written testimony of Vincent Brisini, Director of 
Environmental Affairs for Olympus Power, LLC, testifying on behalf of 
ARIPPA, at September 2017 Energy Subcommittee hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some have suggested that coal refuse-to-energy facilities 
can meet the requirements of the MATS rule, citing the District 
of Columbia Court of Appeals decision in White Stallion v. 
Environmental Protection Agency.\4\ In that case, the agency 
had the authority to create a separate subcategory for coal 
refuse plants, but declined to do so in part because there were 
some such plants that could achieve the HCL and SO2 standards 
in the MATS rule. Notwithstanding the court's holding that EPA 
had acted within its discretion, Mr. Vincent Brisini testified 
earlier this year on behalf of the Anthracite Region 
Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA) at the 
Subcommittee on Energy's September 13, 2017 hearing that a 
number of bituminous coal refuse fired units cannot meet the 
MATS rule's acid gas limits and face a threat of imminent 
closure absent passage of H.R. 1119.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Case No. 12-1100, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (April 15, 2014).
    \5\See written testimony of Vincent Brisini, Director of 
Environmental Affairs for Olympus Power, LLC, testifying on behalf of 
ARIPPA, at September 2017 Energy Subcommittee hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the extraordinary environmental benefits of these 
facilities, the EPA has included certain emissions limits in 
the MATS regulations that are not achievable for all coal 
refuse-to-energy plants. If these facilities shut down, the 
communities served by them will lose the electricity, jobs, and 
environmental cleanup provided by these coal refuse-to-energy 
plants.

What the Legislation Would Do

    The bill includes limited provisions that would allow these 
innovative coal refuse-to-energy facilities to generate 
affordable, reliable energy and continue their essential 
environmental remediation work in a responsible manner.
    Specifically, the bill would, with respect to MATS, create 
an alternative means of demonstrating compliance with the 
hydrochloric acid (HCl) standard by using SO2 as a proxy and 
assuming that a 93 percent reduction in SO2 demonstrates 
compliance with the HCl standard.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    On September 13, 2017, the Subcommittee on Environment held 
a hearing on H.R. 1119. The Subcommittee received testimony 
from:
           Ryan Parker, President and CEO, Endicott 
        Clay Products;
           Vincent Brisini, Director of Environmental 
        Affairs, Olympus Power, LLC, on behalf of Anthracite 
        Region Independent Power Producers Association 
        (ARIPPA);
           Frank Moore, President, Hardy Manufacturing 
        Company, Inc.;
           Steve Page, President and General Manager, 
        Sonoma Raceway;
           Alexandra E. Teitz, Principal, AT 
        Strategies, LLC, on behalf of Sierra Club; and
           Rebecca Bascom, Professor, Penn State 
        College of Medicine, on behalf of American Thoracic 
        Society.
    On November 15, 2017, the Subcommittee on Environment met 
in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 1119, as amended, to 
the full Committee by a record vote of 13 yeas and 10 nays. On 
December 6, 2017, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1119, as amended, 
favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 31 yeas and 
23 nays.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the 
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during 
the Committee consideration:


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII, the Committee held a hearing and made findings that 
are reflected in this report.

   NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee 
finds that H.R. 1119 would result in no new or increased budget 
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or 
revenues.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, the following is 
the cost estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office 
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, January 11, 2018.
Hon. Greg Walden,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1119, the 
Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jon Sperl.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1119--Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act

    H.R. 1119 would require the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) to amend an air emissions standard for certain power 
plants that are subject to emissions limitations under the 
agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The bill 
would affect power plants that generate electricity by burning 
coal refuse (a waste byproduct of coal) as their primary fuel 
source. Specifically, the bill would require the EPA to permit 
operators of such plants to comply with an alternative 
emissions standard for controlling acid gases that is less 
stringent than the current MATS.
    Using information from the EPA about current regulation of 
hazardous air pollutants, CBO estimates that the costs of 
modifying existing regulations to comply with H.R. 1119 would 
be minimal and would not have a significant effect on the 
agency's workload or spending.
    Enacting H.R. 1119 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1119 would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    H.R. 1119 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jon Sperl. The 
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general 
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to provide 
for limited modifications to the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards (MATS) to allow alternative compliance options for 
coal refuse to energy facilities.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of 
H.R. 1119 is known to be duplicative of another Federal 
program, including any program that was included in a report to 
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the 
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee 
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

       EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

    Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the 
Committee finds that H.R. 1119 contains no earmarks, limited 
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

                  DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

    Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, the Committee finds 
that H.R. 1119 contains no directed rule makings.

                      ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 provides the short title of ``Satisfying Energy 
Needs and Saving the Environment Act'' or the ``SENSE Act''.

Section 2. Standards for coal refuse power plants

    Section 2(a) provides definitions for the following terms: 
administrator, boiler operating day, coal refuse, coal refuse 
electric utility steam generating unit, coal refuse-fired 
facility, and electric utility steam generating unit.
    Section 2(b) provides an alternative compliance means for 
Hydrogen Chloride and Sulfur Dioxide under the Mercury and Air 
Toxics Standard for coal refuse electric utility steam 
generating units.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We oppose H.R. 1119, the ``Satisfying Energy Needs and 
Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act,'' which gives special 
breaks and preferences under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to power 
plants that use waste coal to generate electricity. These 
preferences would allow them to emit more pollution than other 
power plants, including other coal-fired facilities. The 
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule is one of the most 
important rules for protecting public health from toxic air 
pollutants like mercury and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 
H.R. 1119 directly undermines this important public health 
regulation. The legislation would also prevent the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from strengthening 
emission standards for these plants, even if future technology 
could achieve lower emissions, or if clear evidence of harm to 
public health or the environment is present.

                               BACKGROUND

    Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to set technology-
based standards to reduce air toxics. These hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) are known or suspected to cause cancer and 
other serious health effects, such as reproductive or birth 
defects or neurological effects, as well as adverse 
environmental effects. EPA rulemakings aim to reduce the 
release of 187 HAPs including mercury, cadmium, lead, benzene, 
and dioxin.\1\ EPA takes a technology-based approach to 
regulating HAPs in order to achieve substantial reductions in 
air toxics relatively quickly using readily available 
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Environmental Protection Agency, About Air Toxics (https://
www.epa.gov/urban-air-toxics/about-urban-air-toxics) (accessed Jan. 9, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 112 requires EPA to develop regulations for 
distinct source categories--like power plants--that set 
specific emission limits based on levels already being achieved 
by similar facilities. These regulations are known as Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, and the CAA 
required EPA to complete them for all source categories by 
2000. EPA sets minimum emissions levels, known as the MACT 
floor, based on the best-performing sources in a category.
    Power plants are by far the largest U.S. source of mercury 
air pollution. They also release other heavy metals, such as 
arsenic, chromium, and nickel, which can cause cancer and other 
serious health effects. In 2012, EPA issued the MATS rule, 
which established the first national standards to address power 
plant emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution.\2\ The MATS 
rule established MACT standards for HAPs emitted from coal- and 
oil-fired power plants, limiting the emissions of heavy metals 
and acid gases\3\ from these sources. To achieve these 
reductions, the MATS rule set numeric emissions limits for 
mercury, particulate matter (as a surrogate for other heavy 
metals), and acid gases for all existing and new coal-fired and 
oil-fired units. Existing sources had three years with the 
possibility for a one year extension--or until April 2015 and 
2016 respectively--to comply with the rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Environmental Protection Agency, National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility 
Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-
Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small 
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, 77 Fed. 
Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012) (final rule) (www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-
02-16/pdf/2012-806.pdf) (hereinafter ``MATS Final Rule'').
    \3\Acid gases include compounds such as hydrochloric acid and 
hydrofluoric acid.
    \4\Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards (MATS) Basic Information (www.epa.gov/mats/basic-information-
about-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A number of groups submitted comments on the MATS rule 
urging EPA to create a separate subcategory for waste coal 
units.\5\ In the final MATS rule, EPA noted that HAP emissions 
from waste coal units are not sufficiently different from 
emissions from coal-fired power plants to warrant further 
subcategorization.\6\ But in fact, waste coal facilities are 
some of the best-performing units, and were used in setting the 
MACT floor for the MATS rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See note 2, at 9396-9397.
    \6\Id. at 9395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A subset of U.S. power plants burn waste coal as their 
primary fuel source. This waste coal is a byproduct of coal 
mining, physical coal cleaning, and other coal preparation 
operations, containing matrix materials, clay and other organic 
and inorganic materials.\7\ Waste coal is primarily found in 
large piles near abandoned mines, and once burned the resulting 
ashes are used in mine reclamation projects.\8\ The majority of 
these power plants are in Pennsylvania; however, a few are 
located in other states, including West Virginia and Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Id. at 9484.
    \8\White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222, at 1250 
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 15, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After EPA denied its petition to change the MATS rule for 
waste coal burning plants, the Anthracite Region Independent 
Power Producers Association challenged the agency's decision in 
the D.C. Circuit. The case is still pending. In April the court 
granted the Trump Administration's request for additional time 
to consider the appeal so that EPA could reconsider its 
position on the MATS rule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\D.C. Circuit sides with Trump EPA, delays mercury litigation, 
Greenwire (Apr. 28, 2017) (www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060053772/
).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        SUMMARY OF THE SENSE ACT

    Section 2(b) of the SENSE Act relates to the treatment of 
waste coal facilities under MATS. This section provides an 
additional compliance option for the hydrogen chloride (HCl) 
and SO2 standard, allowing waste coal facilities to 
capture and control 93 percent of SO2 emissions. 
This standard is weaker than the standard required of other 
power plants.
    Proponents argue that waste coal plants are unable to meet 
the current HCl and SO2 limits and need an 
alternative pathway to comply with the MATS rule. However, 
existing technology is capable of meeting the standard.\10\ The 
D.C. Circuit already rendered a decision on this argument, 
rejecting the assertion that waste coal plants are incapable of 
achieving these MATS requirements.\11\ Contrary to what is 
alluded to in the majority's report, the CAA is not designed to 
merely maintain the status quo. In setting up this program, 
Congress intended for the law to push all facilities within an 
industrial sector to make the necessary upgrades to reduce 
their pollution in line with the best performing units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis for 
the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, at 2-8--2-9 (Dec. 2011) 
(www3.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf).
    \11\In response to questions during the February 3, 2016 hearing, 
John Walke from the Natural Resources Defense Council explained ``when 
the D.C. Circuit in its decision heard the full legal arguments from 
the trade association for waste coal operators and looked at all the 
evidence they presented and the evidence in the administrative record 
that EPA had compiled, they squarely rejected those claims in a three 
to nothing decision and that decision was left untouched by the Supreme 
Court in that relevant Respect.'' House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Hearing on H.R. 3797, the 
SENSE Act and H.R. __, the BRICK Act, 114th Cong (Feb. 3, 2016) 
(democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/
hearing-on-hr-3797-the-satisfying-energy-needs-and-saving-the-0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is not known how many facilities would opt for the new 
compliance option envisioned in this bill, but the end result 
is likely to be additional air pollution. The SENSE Act also 
picks winners and losers. By giving waste coal facilities 
license to pollute more than they should, it shifts the burden 
of reducing emissions to other sources in the state, most 
likely coal-fired units. Furthermore, the bill would lock in 
this weaker standard for the foreseeable future. A small number 
of waste coal units would be allowed to avoid controlling 
harmful pollution in perpetuity, regardless of any subsequent 
developments in control technologies or new information on the 
health and environmental effects of their pollution.

                               CONCLUSION

    We oppose H.R. 1119 and the legislative remedy offered by 
this bill. It comes as no surprise that the majority is once 
again offering legislation to undermine CAA regulations to 
benefit coal-fired power plants at the expense of public 
health. What is surprising is that the SENSE Act puts major 
coal-fired plants at a disadvantage relative to waste coal 
plants by granting them unnecessary and unwarranted regulatory 
relief.
    All of this is being done for no other reason than to 
benefit approximately 20 waste coal plants that exist in a 
handful of states. While these plants address one of coal's 
major legacy problems--dangerous, polluting piles of coal mine 
tailings from abandoned coal mining operations--cleanup of 
these piles can and should be done without undue transfer of 
mercury, SO2 and other pollutants from the land to 
the air.
    None of this is necessary. There are waste coal plants that 
meet the MATS requirements today, and there is technology 
available to enable waste coal plants to comply with the 
requirements of this rule. There is no justification for 
treating them differently from other coal-fired generation 
facilities.
    For the reasons stated above, we dissent from the views 
contained in the Committee's report.

                                   Frank Pallone, Jr.,
                                           Ranking Member, Committee on 
                                               Energy and Commerce.
                                   Paul D. Tonko,
                                           Ranking Member, Subcommittee 
                                               on Environment.

                                  [all]