176 



Mr. FRAMPTON. That is correct. 



Mr. Synar. As a result of the Park Service action, the State and 

 the power plant have agreed that an existing uncontrolled unit at 

 the plant will be controlled which will help offset the new emis- 

 sions and the impact of the plant should be greatly reduced. But 

 2 weeks ago the Park Service sent a letter to the State of Alaska 

 indicating that the State may not be following all its agreed on con- 

 ditions for that plant. 



Explain for the subcommittee on the record, if you would, how 

 the Department intends to deal with Alaska to ensure that this 

 park is protected. 



Mr. Frampton. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me answer that question 

 by describing how we got to where we are. 



The Congress made a decision about the Clean Coal Demonstra- 

 tion Program, and the previous administration made the decision 

 to have one of those demonstrations, largely significantly federally 

 subsidized clean coal demonstration projects 4 miles from the bor- 

 der of Denali National Park. Some fairly significant amounts of pri- 

 vate money as well as some public money had been spent in the 

 last administration in reliance upon that decision. 



We became involved and were prepared to fight the permit, ap- 

 peal the permit on the grounds that the new plant with the old 

 plant would impact the air quality in Denali National Park. How- 

 ever, the chances of winning that case on air quality through the 

 State court system obviously were somewhat problematic. 



There were those who wanted us to fight this issue because they 

 don't like the Clean Coal Program, and there were those who 

 thought that this plant should not have been selected near Denali 

 or selected in Alaska at all, but those were issues ultimately for the 

 Secretary of Energy. 



Our concern was to protect air quality, and we went into this 

 saying we will fight this, but if you are prepared to come to the 

 table with a plan to basically cap over a long period of time the 

 emissions from both the old 25-megawatt plant and the proposed 

 50-megawatt clean coal plant at the same level or roughly the same 

 level as the existing plant is putting out now, and we get that com- 

 mitment over a very long period of time, then we will be satisfied. 

 That is the sort of offer you can't refuse. We will be satisfied with 

 the air quality issues. And that looked to us like a much better 

 deal than we might get by litigating. Because by litigating, we 

 would probably end up with nothing on air quality issues. 



There are some other issues in the case, but those are our issues. 

 And we reached an agreement that got, I think, not all the way but 

 95 percent of the way to that goal; basically, maintaining existing 

 emissions and, in fact, bringing the State permit level down about 

 50 or 60 percent from what it is today just on the existing 25-mega- 

 watt plant, plus some post-construction reopeners, some precedent- 

 setting things that looked very good to us. So the Healy deal was 

 negotiated under somewhat unusual circumstances. 



The negotiations required a good partnership with the State of 

 Alaska. But also, the Secretary of Energy standing there saying, if 

 you can't meet the air quality problems, we just might throw over 

 this whole project. So that was a very important element. 



