Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
10/2/2015
Refusing to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon emissions standards for existing coal-fired power plants is nothing more than a cry for attention by states, Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), said this week.
Under the rule, the Clean Power Plan, states are required to develop state implementation plans (SIPs), a program of action to meet federally set emissions reduction goals. States that do not comply with the rule will be subject to a federal implementation plan. “There is nothing to be gained by implementing or being subject to a federal plan other than calling attention to one’s self,” Becker said at an event hosted by the Environment and Energy Studies Institute. “Given the purpose of this program I don’t think that’s really a good alternative.”
The rule, which EPA finalized in early August, sets state-specific carbon emissions reductions goals and requires states to meet those targets by 2030. EPA does not mandate any specific course of action to meet those goals.
However, a campaign led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) launched even before the rule was finalized, calls on states to refuse to comply. McConnell argues that the EPA is acting beyond its authority in the Clean Power Plan, and the rule will not survive legal challenge. For this reason, McConnell is urging states to “just say no” to the regulation, thus saving time and resources that would otherwise be expended on developing a plan that would never be enforced.
So far, five states – Indiana, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and Mississippi – have said they will not submit SIPs.
Becker advised against this course of action, however. “I can only tell you that from our experience there is nothing to gain from doing that and here’s why,” he said, “If a state wanted a federal plan, or someone else wants a federal plan, it’s by definition going to be less flexible than a state program and by being less flexible it will be more costly, it will be less cost effective.”
Furthermore, Becker mentioned, the entities most affected by the decision to fall back on the FIP don’t want to do that. “From what we’ve heard from the utilities, who are directly affected by the federal plan, they don’t want it. They would prefer having states develop the plan than having a federally imposed plan that restricts their flexibility,” he said.
