June 10, 1977
Page 18494
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator, the chairman of my committee, yield to me for a brief second, and that is all?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield gladly.
Mr. STAFFORD. I thank the Senator.
I just wish to point out that what principally intrigues me was the statement of the principal sponsor of the bill, Senator METZENBAUM, that low sulfur coal could be consumed in the utilities in Ohio at an economically advantageous price vis-a-vis imported coal. That caused me to inquire of him why he offered the amendment. That was my principal purpose.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I understand the question.
I only say we are not thinking of importation even from another area of the country, the West against the East. West Virginia has faced this situation in connection with coal from Kentucky. So this is, of course, a question that all of us in an attempt certainly to discuss this amendment would want the full facts known.
We have heard — and Senator BAKER is not in the Chamber at the present time, but I know that he would understand my reference and I would make it if he were here — the language on this matter of scrubbers. It was indicated that we had to order a large number of scrubbers and do it very quickly. That is not necessarily true.
The language is "enter into contracts to acquire any additional means of emission limitation ..." It does not even mention scrubbers. It does not mention any particular type of cleaning techniques.
Listen to this language following "... which the President or his designate determines may be necessary to comply" — and I say to the able chairman of the subcommittee on environmental pollution (Mr. MUSKIE) to meet the requirements of this act; we are not trying to vitiate the act in any sense
So, I am grateful to the knowledgeable Senator from Ohio (Mr. METZENBAUM) for giving me the opportunity to join with him as a cosponsor of this legislation.
I have listened very carefully to all of those who have spoken. We have had quite an array, a very powerful group, speaking against this amendment, and that is all right. We are not going to fall back because of that. We are not going to get worried about it because the facts are with us in connection with this amendment.
Senator METZENBAUM, knowledgeable; Senator HEINZ, knowledgeable; Senator BAYH, knowledgeable; Senator GLENN, knowledgeable; and I hope I am knowledgeable in reference to these matters that we are discussing.
Mr. President, it is widely recognized that the energy concerns of our country can substantially be alleviated by the expanded use of coal — that is very frankly what we are talking about — and making arrangements for the use of coal.
We have vast supplies of this fuel. We need to expand the use of coal. This is practical.
In 1943, with another young man, on November 6 of that year, I was flying in a single engine plane from Morgantown, W. Va., across the Alleghenies and the Blue Ridge to the Washington National Airport. What were we using? We were using aviation fuel processed from West Virginia coal.
The tragedy of all these years is the non-use of coal. After the fact — that is the way we do it so often in this country, when you see we could have done it so long ago. We knew it then. We developed the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act and the submarines prowling around the east coast went home. The people of this country went back to doing their jobs thinking there was no problem whatsoever. Now new problems have arisen and I do not need to delineate them. The embargoes and all of these matters have found us what? In the very shortest of supply.
When we talk about coal, we talk about its profitable use, not only profitable to a large company but to the small company because very frankly it is the small coal company that is involved in the matters that I discuss.
Do we need to utilize coal? Why certainly we need to more fully utilize it, to reduce our growing use of costly foreign oil and our diminishing supplies of natural gas.
I say to all Members of the Senate and to those who are listening to this debate that it is a tragic situation when 51 percent of all the petroleum products used in this country are coming from other countries. This is a situation which could leave us within an hour or a day or a month at the feet of those who would want America, with all of its strengths, inventiveness, creativity, resourcefulness which have not been used to take care of the problems of energy within our own country, in dire straits.
Yes, I do not believe, as I have said on innumerable occasions, that the greater use of coal should be undertaken at the expense of a clean environment.
I can stand here, of course, with any Member of the Senate, any member of our committee, and document that as a fact. I am not speaking against a clean environment when I speak in favor of this amendment, and I say to my friend from Ohio (Mr. METZENBAUM) I am very appreciative of the fact that I can cosponsor this amendment with other Members who have joined with him.
We know that coal can be mined and burned in environmentally sound ways. We know that to be a fact. We have followed that belief in developing the substantial body of law that we are dealing with in these Clean Air Act amendments. I think the debates have been helpful. The discussions have been informative. We have worked our way, but we must provide what is necessary, I say to my colleagues, to facilitate the greater use of coal within the goals set for air quality protection.
We are not moving away from air quality. We are trying to work within the very structure of the Clean Air Act to bring about the use of coal.
Pollution controls must be applied so that the burning of more coal will not result in an equivalent increase in pollution. One of the basic truths of our Clean Air Act is its commitment to the use of continuous controls to keep pollution levels within proper boundaries, and I believe that.
We believe that the technology exists to permit the burning of coal without environmental damage. In certain instances, installations that use coal are attempting to meet air quality standards by using low-sulfur coal. That can be a correct approach and a practical approach. But it can cause hardship and local economic disruption.
There have been instances when users have chosen to import coal from other States and other parts of the country, even when an ample supply of coal was very close at hand. The local coal, however, had a higher sulfur content. Burning it would have required the installation of pollution control equipment — a step some users, very frankly, are unwilling to take.
Mr. President, cases such as I have described have occurred in West Virginia. I am not provincial in bringing this to the attention of the Senate. Coal companies in my State have been — and I underscore these words — by-passed in favor of bringing lower sulfur coal from outside the State of West Virginia. Even our local low-sulfur from West Virginia has not been used.
Mr. President, I do not believe that we should create a situation in which there is conflict and competition, as it were, between eastern and western coal. I do not believe in that. I am against it. We do not need that type of polarization as we attempt to cope with a continuing and worsening energy crisis in this country.
Yes, there will be ample need for coal from all areas of the United States as we move forward in expanding the usage of coal. Mr. President, users of coal should take advantage of the supplies which are most readily available.
The Senator from Ohio (Mr. METZENBAUM) and the other Senators who have spoken and those that we hope will support our amendment recognize this problem.
Someone may believe this is not the place for this amendment. It is the place. There may be, and I am sure there are, other places for such a treatment as we propose, but that does not mean this is not the place. This is the place, this is the time, this is the occasion; so we should not pass it by.
What do we do in connection with this proposal? We would permit the President to direct the plants to use locally or regionally available coal, and to install, as I have read from the language of the amendment itself, whatever controls are necessary to comply with air pollution requirements. Such a directive could be used, and I stress these words, only after a finding that economic hardship would result locally from the use of coal from other areas.
I think it is important to stress that it is not necessarily the larger coal companies that are involved in whatever is done here. We know that there are small coal companies that are hurt by the importation of coal from other areas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 15 minutes have expired.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have available?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. RANDOLPH. May I have 3 minutes?
Mr. METZENBAUM. Three minutes, fine.
Mr. RANDOLPH. These large companies frequently have stable, long term contracts. I would remind the Senate, as I have said so many times today, that it is the small local companies that are hurt. It is not always a case of eastern consumers going West for low-sulfur coal. I come back to West Virginia, because a user there ignored local coal supplies and went — not to the West, not Montana, Utah, nor any Western State — that user went no farther than the neighboring State of Kentucky to buy low-sulfur coal. To avoid what? To avoid installing controls.
That is what we are after, controls where necessary; and this user did not even try to obtain low-sulfur coal from another section of the State of West Virginia.
Mr. President, in conclusion, issues relating to energy and environmental protection very often overlap. This is inevitable, and as I have indicated again and again, we have worked in the Committee on Environment and Public Works to structure the Clean Air Act to energy needs as well as other needs in a reasonable manner when required.
So the pending amendment would help. It does not rip apart, it helps to structure that adjustment. It would have the obvious benefit of encouraging the use of locally available coal. At the same time, it would reduce the pressure to weaken the requirements, I say to the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and others, of the Clean Air Act by those who would resist the installation of emission control equipment.
This is a balanced approach to the problem. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Ohio that I guess I have 32 minutes left. I do not expect to use 95 percent of that time. At the appropriate time, I will indicate my own position briefly, but at this time I do not have anyone else on this side who is interested in engaging in extensive debate. If the Senator from Ohio wishes to consume more of his time at this point, this would be the time to do it.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I did not know; I thought perhaps the distinguished Senator from New Mexico wanted to speak further.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have indicated to the chairman I just want 1 minute, or one and a half, to sum up; so I will wait at this time.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
I have sat here and listened with interest, and am very appreciative of the support received from the very able chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, and the senior Senator from Ohio. I would like to comment a little bit about some of the arguments that have been made in opposition to this legislative proposal.
Senators talk about economic Balkanization. Well, if you call something a name, you no longer have a problem about it, because that does not sound right. But there is nothing in this legislation that is anything more than economic self-preservation. It only becomes applicable, can only be used in those instances where economic disruption or unemployment would be a reality of life.
There was some question about all of the increased coal production that may take place, and that the miners would not be out of work.
I have in my hand the publication called Coal, an energy publication. It is the Coal Monthly for February 1977. It has an entire issue addressed to the problem that some 15,000 miners may become out of work and thousands of others affected. As a consequence, they write an entire paper on the whole subject of unemployment.
Of course, if there is no unemployment the amendment will not be applicable. The only time the amendment can become applicable is when the Governor or the EPA Administrator, or the President himself; determines that there would be severe economic disruption or severe unemployment. Then and only then would the President have the right to take some action in order to preserve the economy.
The suggestion has been made that 10 year contracts would be terrible.
Let me say the President is not limited to 10 years. He has the right to use the figure of 10 years, or any other period that he determines. That is his right and the language is very clear. It says:
Enter into long term contracts of at least 10 years in duration (except as the President or his designee may otherwise permit or require by rule, or order for good cause).
Then it goes on to talk about the supplies of local coal.
Yes, it is true it is contemplated there would be some stability in the industry, but it is not contemplated that it would have to be 10 years, 15 years or 20 years, if the President determines that a shorter period should be used.
The question has been raised: Does this amendment belong in this bill? Is it inappropriate for a measure having to do with clean air to have an amendment such as this?
I can only answer by pointing out that Mr. PAUL ROGERS, chairman of the Environmental and Health Subcommittee of the House, is the author of an amendment in the legislation in the House which actually goes a bit further than does this amendment.
If the chairman of the committee on the House side, which has responsibility for the environment and health, and who was the manager of the bill on the House floor, determined that it was appropriate to put it in, certainly I believe we in the Senate can recognize that it is appropriate that it be included in the bill at this point.
The Senator from Vermont very appropriately asked me a question about why the utilities do not buy at a lower rate. I can only respond that there are many things the utilities do which I do not understand. There is a Library of Congress report as well as a special report from the Environmental Protection Agency, dated May 6, 1976.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I allow myself an additional 2 minutes.
Both reports arrive at the same conclusion.
The 1977 report, which was prepared by the EPA, has language in it as follows: A comparison of costa indicates that the FGD option is attractive over the low sulfur coal and medium sulfur coal options primarily because of the higher coat of the low and medium sulfur coal.
I can only answer the Senator, on the basis of those reports and studies which have been made, that the utilities have that option but apparently are not willing to make the capital expenditures which may be required if they are to use the higher sulfur coal in some instances.
The Senator from Tennessee addressed himself to the question of ordering scrubbers. The Senator from Indiana appropriately pointed out there is nothing in this legislation which requires the use of scrubbers, although that may be an incidental result.
In the last analysis, there is only one issue before the Senate on this matter. That is, are we going to permit economic disruptions and unemployment to occur in a part of the country which has its own resources at the present time if alternatives are available? Are we going to permit the utilities to make a determination to go elsewhere and buy their coal, or if the economics of the situation require and it becomes a necessity are we going to trust the President to protect the regional areas which presently have coal and which may not be in a position to use it by reason of the unwillingness of their utilities to use that local coal?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senator from West Virginia returned to the Chamber. I have been with him on many occasions, meeting with many people from all parts of this Nation. It is obvious that he represents the State of West Virginia very well. I will say no more.
Now with reference to one other item, I believe it is an error to suggest that the facts are conclusive as to whether or not it is cheaper to try a different source of fuel, such as low sulfur coal versus high sulfur coal with scrubbers put on to retrofit existing plants. I do not think the evidence is anything like as conclusive as the Senator from Ohio is saying. He is saying that it would have been cheaper in Ohio for them to use high sulfur coal and put on scrubbers.
I am not going to argue about his State on that set of facts, and I am not going to produce a litany of the facts that I recall about another situation in our country, another region with the same facts.
I will say that in our committee we have jurisdiction over TVA, as the distinguished manager of the bill and ranking Republican know better than I. The unequivocal evidence from TVA is that it will cost substantially more for them — I do not know about Ohio — to put scrubbers on their present coal burning utility plants owned by the TVA, serving the people of those States. In fact, the evidence they give is in justification of a somewhat different approach that they would like to take, which I believe will come before us sooner or later.
They say that if they were forced, not by a Presidential order in their case but forced by the technology-pushing requirements of our law, to do that in any shorter period of time, the economics are exactly the opposite of what we have been told here in the Senate. It will be far more expensive both by way of capital outlay and annualized expenditures of operation and maintenance and debt service of the capital improvements.
I think there may be a reason beyond the uncertainties which have burdened Ohio for that State's utilities, private and public, not to have gone quickly to high sulfur coal with scrubber technology.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for 1 additional minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 1 additional minute.
Mr. DOMENICI. Whatever value my recommendation is to the Senate, I know with reference to the TVA it is exactly the opposite with reference to cost to go from present coal burning plants to high sulfur with scrubbers retrofitted onto them.
I thank the manager of the bill for yielding me the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I rise not for the purpose of provoking further debate. I very carefully let others carry that burden.
As floor manager of the bill, I must state my position. I do not do so for the committee. The committee has not taken a position on this bill. That must be evident from the identity of those who have spoken on both sides of the issue this afternoon. The chairman of the full committee has spoken for the amendment. The ranking Republican member and other members have spoken against it. I am going to vote against the amendment. I have done my best to see its merits and to vote for it because I have been requested to do so by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, and because my own distinguished chairman is a cosponsor of the amendment.
I cannot support it for reasons I will state very briefly that should not take more than 30 seconds.
First of all, I do not make the argument that the amendment does not belong in this bill. I have been a Member of the Senate too long to argue that anything does not belong on a bill. We can put anything on any bill, whatever its relevance or irrelevance. But I must say that in my judgment the dominant thrust of this amendment is not its relationship to clean air, but its relationship to the economics of the areas it is designed to protect.
For that reason, I regret that it is being offered to a clean air bill.
There is not any reason why it cannot be offered to a clean air bill. I am not against its connection to a clean air bill. But I do not see its dominant thrust as related to the clean air bill.
Second, I must say in all candor that, as I recall my American history, the Constitutional Convention was the result of the fact that 13 colonies were busily erecting trade barriers against each other. I do not think we want to get to another constitutional convention. I just see this as a first step, benign as its intentions are, as a first step in that kind of regionalization, around regional economic interests. It disturbs me a great deal.
It is a propensity we all find in all of our regions and all of our States from time to time.
For that reason, I will oppose it.
Third, insofar as its mechanisms are concerned, I think they could stand some refinement if, in fact, the Congress were finally to decide that the policy it represents is a good one.
I just find it difficult to justify this kind of approach to the achievement of clean air goals required in any State's implementation plan.
But, in any case, those are my reasons. I have not belabored them. I have not said anything that has not been said earlier this afternoon.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and proceed to vote.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I would like to respond and say to the distinguished Senator from Maine that I do appreciate the position he has taken and his fairness in doing so.
I want to point out that such prestigious groups who have a concern with the whole question of clean air as the National Clean Air Coalition, the Environmental Policy Center, and the Sierra Club, have all come out formally in support of this amendment.
Those groups that are concerned with jobs, such as the United Mine Workers, who are directly concerned, the AFL-CIO, the United Steel Workers of America, the United Transportation Union, all of them have indicated their support of this amendment.
Last, but not least, ConRail has indicated its support.
Now all we need is the support of a majority of the Members of the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE Does the Senator want a yea and nay vote?
Mr. METZENBAUM. A roll all vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.