June 9, 1977
Page 18149
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I certainly will, on the Senator's time. I only have 4 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right.
I just want to make this point: Nondegradation has absolutely nothing to do with coal conversion. Nondegradation has to do with the siting of new plants not the conversion of old plants. The Senator is talking about urban areas that are now under national primary and secondary ambient standards, the urban areas, the industrialized areas. That is what we are talking about, the nonattainment areas. Nondegradation has nothing to do with coal conversion.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, if you have to build a new plant or have to build a new boiler for electric generation that constitutes a new plant, a new site, which will have to—
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly, but that is not coal conversion.
Mr. JOHNSTON. In our part of the country that amounts to coal conversion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, but the point is that an existing plant is trapped in the circumstances in which it finds itself. A new plant presumably can be sited with respect not only to energy needs but also air quality needs and economic needs, and the thrust of the committee bill is that we achieve a balance of all three.
The Senator is not talking about coal conversion. The fact is that there is not in my State a power plant or an industrial plant — and we have some big paper companies — that could not be duplicated in any part of my State under the committee bill. So we are not talking about coal conversion. We are talking about the siting of new activities, and that is a different kind of problem.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Did the Senator answer "Yes," to my question though if you have to build a new boiler? In other words, if you have to scrub your old boiler for electric generation, and if you have to convert, say, from natural gas to coal that does constitute, that situation constitutes, a new plant, a new site which must meet the nondegradation standards; is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is a technical question, and let me check that. I do not believe we are talking about that here.
What the Senator is asking me is whether or not if in a nondegradation area, that is, an area that is cleaner than the areas covered by national primary and secondary standards, whether if there is now a plant in that area and a boiler is changed, whether the change of boiler makes—
Mr. JOHNSTON. Change of boiler, in other words, you have got to scratch your old boiler, go to a new boiler and go to coal burning.
Mr. MUSKIE I understand — whether or not that is a new plant within the meaning of the nondegradation area. Let me check.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield to the Senator from Idaho for an answer to that specific question?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I think we are on the time of the Senator from Maine at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has the floor.
Who yields time?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I believe we are on the time of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. The answer to it, the staff confirms my own view, is that if he is ordered to do it or if he does it as a result of curtailment of natural gas it is not a new plant within the meaning of the nondegradation provisions of the bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, under the FPC rules he is not ordered to switch to coal. He can be curtailed.
Is the Senator telling me that if Gulf States Electric Co.—
Mr. MUSKIE. If he is curtailed by the agency and modifies his current facility then he does not come within nondegradation.
Mr. JOHNSTON. He can go out and build a coal fired plant?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. That is not the example the Senator put to me. He put to me a plant in existence which is ordered to convert its boiler or curtail its use of natural gas. If that is done that does not make it a new plant within the meaning of the nondegradation provisions of this bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Ordered by whom to convert his boiler?
Mr. MUSKIE. By the appropriate Federal agency.
Mr. JOHNSTON. In other words, if we should pass a bill in the Energy Committee that orders all plants that are now burning oil and gas to convert their boilers to coal they will be able to make that conversion without respect to the nondeterioration standards; is the Senator saying that?
Mr. MUSKIE. That would probably becovered by the national primary and secondary standards which are now law.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is talking about conversion again, I repeat.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. And conversion, by and large, is a problem in already-industrialized areas, the so-called dirty air areas, which are already worse than primary and secondary standards.
Mr. JOHNSTON. It is also a problem in the class II areas that are below standards; in other words, that meet the standards for clean air, and they are going to have to convert boilers, they are going to have to build new plants, perhaps not on the same site, but they are going to have to build those new plants to convert to coal.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, exactly, of course.Nondegradation provisions are designed to provide some semblance of protection of air quality values by directing growth in those areas in an orderly way so that it takes account not only of energy problems but also air quality problems and also economic problems. We do not neglect any of them when you are talking about new plant, new growth, new development, that is what this whole argument is all about, as I understood it.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Let me ask the question in another way because, frankly, I am learning something that I did not know.
Do we have the latitude in the Energy Committee to vote out a conservation bill that will require existing plants to convert to coal and that the licensure, the permission for those plants, will automatically follow without respect to the nondegradation standards?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will say to the Senator with respect to the proposals that are pending and being considered and have not yet been reported from the committee on proposed expansion of coal use, obviously we all want to look at the implications of those proposals when we see them.
They will have implications in the present dirty air areas of the country, the so-called nonattainment areas of the country. We will want to know what they are, and what, if any, changes need to be made in the air quality legislation to accommodate them, to take them into account.
If we have reached a point in this country's history where we have to say there is no way to protect public health and also provide our energy needs, then we are in sad shape indeed.
But the proposals you are considering in your Energy Committee have an impact not only in the nondegradation areas of the country but in the nonattainment areas of the country, and we will have to weigh them both, and I do not think — I would be honest with the Senator in suggesting — there is any automatic answer that excludes further responsibility on the part of the Committee on Environment and Public Works or other Senators. I mean, I am not prejudging those. I am simply saying neither am I going to give him a blank check. I want to look at those.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I think then the fair answer to that question is that our committee could not report out legislation that would order that conversion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Haw much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right, I will devote another 2 minutes to this.
Mr. JOHNSTON. As I understand the answer to the question it is this: They cannot convert automatically to coal and have a blank check, as the Senator would refer to it, or have an automatic approval. They would have to abide by the nonattainment rules.
Mr. MUSKIE. I wish to talk about one issue at a time. We are talking about the nondegradation areas of the country.
Mr. STEVENS. Only in class I and class II areas.
Mr. MUSKIE. We sort of switch back and forth between the dirty air areas and clean air areas in our discussion.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The clean air areas.
Mr. MUSKIE. In the clean air areas we are talking largely and I think totally about new growth and new plants, where they should be situated and should not be situated in order to protect air quality values. That does not involve coal conversion because we are talking about new plants.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I am dealing with that question of what constitutes a new plant.
Mr. MUSKIE. The one example the Senator has given to me is a new boiler which is being converted to coal under the orders of some Federal agency or because of the curtailment of natural gas. As to that I have already said that, in my judgment, is not a new plant requiring compliance with the nondegradation provisions of the bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. And the next question then was: Could our committee report legislation requiring those conversions of existing plants to class I clean air areas?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is posing the assumption that they have a conversion problem. I said that there is no conversion problem in clean air areas.
Mr. JOHNSTON. So the answer is yes, we may report out that kind of legislation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am afraid there has to be a little clearer understanding of what the Senator is trying to put to me before I can give him an answer, and at the moment I am kind of pinched for time and the Senator from Idaho has been asking me to yield.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I asked for 4 minutes.
Let me make my statement and then perhaps the Senator can reply and clear up any misconceptions.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so I might attempt to answer?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 30 seconds of my 4 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator for yielding. I find it very difficult because of background noise in the Chamber to hear the colloquy that is going on. I hope that the Chair would maintain order in the Chamber. Second, I had difficulty hearing the answer the Senator from Maine gave but it is—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who is yielding time to the Senator?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yielded 30 seconds of my 4 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has no time remaining.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I was given 4 minutes. The Senator from Maine asked to ask the question on his time, and I yielded for that purpose.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time is available all around? I do not want to cut anyone off. I have not had a chance to respond to the amendment. There are only 9 minutes remaining, and it is a serious amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 10 minutes. The Senator from Alaska has 13 minutes. If he yields 4 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, he has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. STEVENS. I did yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. He yielded 30 seconds to the Senator from Idaho; am I correct?
Mr. STEVENS. Let me clear this up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He did.
The Senator from Louisiana has 4 minutes remaining. The Senator from Alaska did indeed yield 4 minutes to him.
Mr. STEVENS. I did yield originally 4 minutes. Is this a second 4 minutes? Yes, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; the time has been taken out of the time allocated to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. STEVENS. He is a very gracious man, and I am happy to have that.
Mr. MUSKIE I will settle for 2 minutes of that back.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest he see the Senator from Louisiana.
I do wish also to discuss the amendment, and the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from California seek time.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I believe the Senator yielded 4 minutes to me. And I have yet to use my first minute; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has remaining 4 minutes yielded to him by the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I shall yield at the end of my 4 minutes.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to comment because it ties in with what the Senator from Maine said.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator.
First of all, as I understand the question, the question dealt with both mandatory and voluntary conversions. My understanding, and I think perhaps the Senator from Maine may have said this, is that it applies to mandatory conversions but does not apply to voluntary conversions. The second part of the question was: can the Energy and Natural Resources Committee report out legislation dealing with this subject? We have to get down to the question of the parliamentary assignment of authority over the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974.
It is my understanding that that jurisdiction was in the Environment and Public Works Committee but has been now assigned to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee; if my understanding of that assignment is correct, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee would have the jurisdiction to modify the terms of that act which would then have an effect upon the exemption permitted here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 30 seconds have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I recall that action it was shared jurisdiction, may I say to the Senator, but in any case we will have an occasion to work that out.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am now starting with my 31/2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 31/2 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I was not here dealing with the question of committee jurisdiction and where one committee jurisdiction stops and where another can start. What I was talking about was what you can do within the four corners of this act unless this amendment is agreed to.
I submit that you cannot have a broad use of coal in this country and you cannot meet anything like the goals the President has required and set as the goals in this country under this act.
You may be able to so do some limited situations on an involuntary conversion of an existing plant in some limited situations, but you cannot have voluntary conversions, you cannot go to a new site, which is usually required when you build a new power plant. You have to go to a new site because you have new considerations to deal with, including access to railroads and water. You have always to move it in a certain centralized location. You have to have room to store your coal. That is not a problem with gas or with oil.
So, Mr. President, you are simply not going to be able to do it under this bill unless this amendment is passed.
We are going to try to go from 665 million tons to 1.2 billion tons of coal by 1985. That is the President's program.
Mr. President, I state here flatly in the Chamber that that cannot be done under this bill. I am not sure that it is going to be all that easy to do even under this amendment because this amendment has some restrictions, but it will at least be possible to start.
Mr. President, it takes about 61/2 years of lead time in order to build a new coal fired powerplant.
The first step is to determine whether you can get your financing. You cannot get financing unless you can burn the coal, and you cannot get a permit to burn the coal unless there is some relaxation of these standards.
That is all this bill does. This bill does not relax the health standards. Those are still there. This bill does not relax the requirement for the best available technology. At present those are secured.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 31/2 minutes have expired.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator.