[Senate Report 115-379]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 576
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 115-379
======================================================================
ALASKA REMOTE GENERATOR RELIABILITY AND PROTECTION ACT
_______
November 26, 2018.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Barrasso, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1934]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1934) to prevent catastrophic failure or
shutdown of remote diesel power engines due to emission control
devices, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND
Of the more than 200 remote Alaskan villages, a majority
are powered either primarily by diesel generators or by back-up
diesel generators where renewable energy is available. Because
these generators are not linked to a major road or highway
system, diesel generators in these remote villages rely on fuel
that must be barged in at high cost--up to $10 per gallon in
some areas. Many of these isolated communities are located in
Arctic and Sub-Arctic climates. These diesel generators provide
vital heat and light that is necessary for human health,
safety, and basic necessities. During fall, winter, and spring,
temperatures can fall below freezing and daylight is limited.
Many villages rely on generators that are between 10 and 30
years old and are looking to purchase new generators to improve
efficiency and reduce the maintenance costs associated with
worn out engines.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recognized
``that the circumstances in remote Alaska required special
rules.''\1\ Under EPA's New Source Performance Standards for
compression ignition internal combustion engines (CI ICE)
(i.e., diesel generators), EPA gives special considerations for
``remote areas of Alaska.''\2\ Under 40 CFR 60.4216, remote
areas of Alaska can use stationary CI ICE that are certified to
marine engine standards rather than land-based non-road
engines. In addition, stationary CI ICE in remote areas of
Alaska do not need to meet Tier 4 nitrogen oxide
(NOX) emission standards that require an after-
treatment NOX pollution control device, in
particular selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology,
because of the difficulties associated with using these devices
in extreme cold and remote areas. Tier 4 particulate matter
(PM) emission requirements are also not required for remote
Alaskan stationary CI ICE that are older than model year 2014.
However, all non-emergency stationary CI ICE in remote areas of
Alaska that are model year 2014 or later must either be
certified to meet Tier 4 PM emissions standards or must ``meet
the applicable requirements for [particulate matter (PM)] in
Sec. Sec. 60.4201 and 60.4204 or install a PM emission control
device that achieves PM emission reductions of 85 percent, or
60 percent for engines with a displacement of greater than or
equal to 30 liters per cylinder, compared to engine-out
emissions.'' This requirement in effect mandates the
installation of after-treatment PM control devices such as
Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) on model year 2014 and newer
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\80 Fed. Reg. 68808, 68811 (Nov. 6, 2015).
\2\81 Fed. Reg. 44212, 44215 (July 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on recent information from EPA and Alaska state
officials, there are credible reports that Tier 4 CI ICE
emission control technologies for PM emissions--as well as Tier
4 NOX emissions controls--are having difficulties
working in remote areas of Alaska. Similar to SCR technology,
the extreme weather and remoteness of some Alaskan villages do
not allow DPFs to perform as intended. The few CI ICE in remote
areas of Alaska that have DPFs have shown a decrease in
reliability of these engines as well as their fuel efficiency,
an increase in maintenance requirements and an increase in
maintenance costs.
The additional cost of maintaining a DPF can affect a
remote area's economic and public health. If anything goes
wrong with the DPF, the generator shuts down. Only a factory-
trained service technician with the proper codes can fix the
problem. In remote Alaska, these technicians are at least one
to two days of travel time away, which adds to delays and
costs. Especially in the fall and winter, further repair delays
are likely because weather or extreme cold can shut down
airplane access for multiple days or weeks. If a failure in the
powerhouse occurs during one of these times, the village could
suffer significant damage to its infrastructure or
circumstances that could lead to the potential loss of life.
The marine industry was able to avoid the DPF restrictions
under that industry's EPA standards specifically because DPF
systems are expensive and unreliable. Generators in rural
Alaska did not receive the same type of exemption despite
requests.\3\ As a result, remote Alaskan villages that want to
replace old CI ICE must find engines that are model year 2013
or older to get around the Tier 4 PM requirement. Not
surprisingly, villages are having a hard time finding these
older engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id. at 44217 (citing comments of the Alaska Energy Authority
(Dec. 21, 2015), available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0866-0019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1934, as amended, addresses these concerns and allows CI
ICE in remote areas of Alaska to meet existing Tier 3 standards
without the need to install additional PM control devices.
Narrow in scope, S. 1934, as amended, addresses only those
diesel fuel generators located in remote Alaska to ensure that
EPA standards for CI ICE in these areas do not decrease
reliability, increase costs, or threaten people's health and
welfare. The legislation, as amended, also requires EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Energy, to provide Congress
with policy options to help the people living in remote areas
of Alaska have affordable and reliable energy while also
addressing air emissions.
OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION
Current Tier 4 PM emission control technologies have
difficulty performing adequately in remote areas of Alaska. S.
1934 directs the EPA Administrator to revise 40 CFR 60.4216(c).
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the ``Alaska Remote Generator
Reliability and Protection Act''.
Section 2. Revision of regulations required
As amended, this section changes the standards under 40 CFR
60.4216(c) from Tier 4 PM standards to Tier 3 PM standards. The
section also instructs the Environmental Protection Agency, in
consultation with the Department of Energy, to submit a report
assessing options for the Federal Government to meet the energy
needs of remote areas in the state of Alaska in an affordable
and reliable manner while addressing air emissions.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On October 5, 2017, Senator Sullivan introduced S. 1934,
the Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and Protection Act,
with Senator Murkowski as an original cosponsor. Senator Inhofe
is also a cosponsor. The bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
HEARINGS
A legislative hearing was held on November 14, 2017 in the
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and
Nuclear Safety.
ROLLCALL VOTES
On September 18, 2018, the Committee on Environment and
Public Works met to consider S. 1934. A substitute amendment
offered by Senators Sullivan and Carper was ordered favorably
reported by voice vote. No rollcall votes were taken.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee makes evaluation of
the regulatory impact of the reported bill.
The bill does not create any additional regulatory burdens,
nor will it cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of
individuals.
MANDATES ASSESSMENT
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that S. 1934 would
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State,
local, or tribal governments.
S. 1934 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
COST OF LEGISLATION
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be
included in the report. That statement follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 3, 2018.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1934, the Alaska
Remote Generator Reliability and Protection 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.
S. 1934--Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and Protection Act
S. 1934 would require the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to revise regulations for certain internal combustion
engines used in remote areas of Alaska to allow those engines
to emit higher levels of particulate matter compared to current
standards. The bill also would require EPA to report to the
Congress on options for the federal government to assist remote
areas in Alaska with meeting their energy needs in an
affordable and reliable manner.
Using information from EPA about current activities related
to emissions standards for those engines, CBO estimates that
the costs of implementing the bill would be less than $500,000.
That amount includes costs for personnel and contracts required
to develop and issue a proposal, to receive and respond to
public comments, to issue a final rule for the revision, and to
produce the report required by the bill.
Enacting S. 1934 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 1934 would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
S. 1934 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 reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made
by the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no
changes to existing law.
[all]