"Ensuring Reasonable Regulations To Protect Maine Jobs"
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work and manufacturers are struggling to retain jobs, it simply does not make sense for Washington to swamp businesses in red tape and new regulations. Doing so would only create further uncertainty, making it impossible for them to plan, grow, and add jobs.
I am particularly concerned with onerous new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would impose billions of dollars of new costs on mills that use biomass for energy. Nationwide, the new boiler rules could jeopardize thousands of manufacturing jobs, particularly in the forest products industry, which is the economic backbone of many rural areas here in Maine.
To be sure, the EPA performs some vital functions in helping to ensure that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. We need, however, to make sure that as the EPA issues new regulations, it does not create so many roadblocks to economic growth that it discourages private investment, which is the key to maintaining and creating jobs.
Since EPA first proposed these "boiler MACT rules" in April 2010, I have been alarmed that the cost of implementation would be far greater than EPA originally estimated. According to the forest products industry estimate, this rule could cost Maine businesses alone hundreds of millions of dollars and put many jobs at risk, when less expensive approaches could be used to address emissions from boilers. Mill managers and workers in Maine have told me about the potential harm of imposing excessively costly regulations on their mills at this time of economic hardship.
Furthermore, these rules might force some of our mills in Maine to stop using biomass, a source of renewable energy, and instead switch to fossil fuels and dump the biomass in landfills. This makes no sense. As the President has stated, biomass is an important renewable energy source that our nation should promote in working to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Converting to fossil fuels alone would also cost mills hundreds of millions of dollars.
My colleagues and I have been concerned about this issue since the EPA proposed these rules. Last year, 40 of my Senate colleagues, including 17 Democrats, wrote to the EPA expressing our deep concern that the boiler MACT regulations would impose onerous burdens on U.S. manufacturers. We asked the EPA to set emissions standards based on what real-world, best-performing units actually can achieve. This letter reflected the widespread bipartisan concern about the proposed boiler MACT rules.
Under The Clean Air Act, a Maximum Achievability Control Technology rule, or "MACT" rule, is designed to reduce emissions to an achievable degree while also considering the economic impact on businesses. The MACT rule must also set its standard according to the best performing practices at existing facilities. However, in the case of the boiler MACT rule, the EPA cherry-picked data without considering the real-world operating practices of the plants that will be affected by this rule.
At a hearing in March 2011, I asked EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to explain why the EPA is not considering alternative standards for emissions since the MACT limits appear to be far more stringent than necessary to protect public health. Additionally, I have pressed officials at the Office of Management and Budget about the very negative impacts EPA's boiler MACT rules would have on the forest products industry.
After receiving thousands of comments that raised technical and cost concerns that the agency had not originally considered, EPA requested 15 months to analyze and implement new rules, noting that the public interest would be best served if it could obtain additional input from the public on these complex rules. Unfortunately, a court rejected this plea, and the agency was forced to re-propose the rule in a mere 30 days.
The stakes are too high for the EPA to be forced to rush a complex, multi-step process that could cost thousands of American jobs. That is why I have introduced bipartisan, common-sense legislation that would allow the EPA the time it needs -- by its own estimate -- to adequately consider and propose a reasonable, workable rule that affects boilers.
My bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), includes four key provisions. First, it would provide the EPA with the 15 months it requested to properly analyze the best methods for implementing the application of the Clean Air Act to certain boilers. Second, it would give businesses adequate time to comply with any requirements the EPA adopts by extending the compliance deadline. Third, our bill would direct the EPA, when developing the new rules, to ensure that renewable and carbon-neutral materials remain classified as fuel and not solid waste. Fourth, it would help ensure that the rules are achievable by real-world standards consistent with the President's directive to improve federal regulations.
Our bill would provide a balance that will help the EPA protect the environment and public health while ensuring that manufacturers in Maine and throughout the country are not faced with needlessly onerous burdens at a time when many are struggling to maintain jobs.
The EPA is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a more practical approach to the boiler MACT rules, and I believe we can achieve the health benefits that we desire without putting thousands of people out of work. Our bill would ensure that the EPA has sufficient time to propose a well thought-out rule that will protect public health, the environment and our economy.
###
I am particularly concerned with onerous new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would impose billions of dollars of new costs on mills that use biomass for energy. Nationwide, the new boiler rules could jeopardize thousands of manufacturing jobs, particularly in the forest products industry, which is the economic backbone of many rural areas here in Maine.
To be sure, the EPA performs some vital functions in helping to ensure that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. We need, however, to make sure that as the EPA issues new regulations, it does not create so many roadblocks to economic growth that it discourages private investment, which is the key to maintaining and creating jobs.
Since EPA first proposed these "boiler MACT rules" in April 2010, I have been alarmed that the cost of implementation would be far greater than EPA originally estimated. According to the forest products industry estimate, this rule could cost Maine businesses alone hundreds of millions of dollars and put many jobs at risk, when less expensive approaches could be used to address emissions from boilers. Mill managers and workers in Maine have told me about the potential harm of imposing excessively costly regulations on their mills at this time of economic hardship.
Furthermore, these rules might force some of our mills in Maine to stop using biomass, a source of renewable energy, and instead switch to fossil fuels and dump the biomass in landfills. This makes no sense. As the President has stated, biomass is an important renewable energy source that our nation should promote in working to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Converting to fossil fuels alone would also cost mills hundreds of millions of dollars.
My colleagues and I have been concerned about this issue since the EPA proposed these rules. Last year, 40 of my Senate colleagues, including 17 Democrats, wrote to the EPA expressing our deep concern that the boiler MACT regulations would impose onerous burdens on U.S. manufacturers. We asked the EPA to set emissions standards based on what real-world, best-performing units actually can achieve. This letter reflected the widespread bipartisan concern about the proposed boiler MACT rules.
Under The Clean Air Act, a Maximum Achievability Control Technology rule, or "MACT" rule, is designed to reduce emissions to an achievable degree while also considering the economic impact on businesses. The MACT rule must also set its standard according to the best performing practices at existing facilities. However, in the case of the boiler MACT rule, the EPA cherry-picked data without considering the real-world operating practices of the plants that will be affected by this rule.
At a hearing in March 2011, I asked EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to explain why the EPA is not considering alternative standards for emissions since the MACT limits appear to be far more stringent than necessary to protect public health. Additionally, I have pressed officials at the Office of Management and Budget about the very negative impacts EPA's boiler MACT rules would have on the forest products industry.
After receiving thousands of comments that raised technical and cost concerns that the agency had not originally considered, EPA requested 15 months to analyze and implement new rules, noting that the public interest would be best served if it could obtain additional input from the public on these complex rules. Unfortunately, a court rejected this plea, and the agency was forced to re-propose the rule in a mere 30 days.
The stakes are too high for the EPA to be forced to rush a complex, multi-step process that could cost thousands of American jobs. That is why I have introduced bipartisan, common-sense legislation that would allow the EPA the time it needs -- by its own estimate -- to adequately consider and propose a reasonable, workable rule that affects boilers.
My bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), includes four key provisions. First, it would provide the EPA with the 15 months it requested to properly analyze the best methods for implementing the application of the Clean Air Act to certain boilers. Second, it would give businesses adequate time to comply with any requirements the EPA adopts by extending the compliance deadline. Third, our bill would direct the EPA, when developing the new rules, to ensure that renewable and carbon-neutral materials remain classified as fuel and not solid waste. Fourth, it would help ensure that the rules are achievable by real-world standards consistent with the President's directive to improve federal regulations.
Our bill would provide a balance that will help the EPA protect the environment and public health while ensuring that manufacturers in Maine and throughout the country are not faced with needlessly onerous burdens at a time when many are struggling to maintain jobs.
The EPA is making progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a more practical approach to the boiler MACT rules, and I believe we can achieve the health benefits that we desire without putting thousands of people out of work. Our bill would ensure that the EPA has sufficient time to propose a well thought-out rule that will protect public health, the environment and our economy.
###
