Karen Frantz
GHG Monitor
1/31/2014
A bill taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency’s controversial draft regulation that sets CO2 emission standards for new power plants and forces new coal plants to be equipped with carbon capture and storage technology passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week, paving the way for a potential vote by the full House of Representatives. The bill would render the EPA’s draft new source performance standards rule for fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units of no effect, and would instead require that any future emission limits for coal-fired plants to have been achieved by at least six units at different U.S. commercial power plants over a one-year period. Debate over the bill settled in predictable patterns, with Democrats arguing that industry would not voluntarily install CCS on its own without the EPA rule and that action is needed in order to reign in drastic climate change and Republicans arguing the rule, unimpeded, would prevent any new coal power plants from being built because CCS is not yet viable on a commercial scale.
At a committee hearing to markup the bill this week, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said, “This bill would condition EPA’s authority on conditions that will simply never be met, at least not as long as it’s cheaper to dump pollution into the air rather than clean it up. Under this bill, EPA could not require new power plants to control their pollution until six power plants in different parts of the country voluntarily install emissions controls. That’s just not what for-profit enterprises do. This bill would create a further disincentive for such voluntary actions.”
But Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) argued that CCS is unviable not only because it is economically unfeasible but because, he argued, it was legally tangled as well. “There [are] legal issues that are going to take years and years to get resolved,” he said, pointing to issues such as mineral rights. “So for people to believe that we are imminently close to being able to do what our friends on the left would like us to do, we’re not even close. We’re not close technologically, we’re not close legally and we’re not close financially.”
Bill Could Be Amended to Consider Foreign Plants
Although several amendments were offered to the bill during its markup, none of them passed. But the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), said he was open to working on one amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) for possible introduction if and when the bill is brought to the House floor. The amendment would expand the scope of the bill to also allow the EPA to consider emission limits achieved by plants outside of the U.S. rather than only within. “Surely the bill’s proponents can agree with me that technologies being installed and used in other countries … at least should provide evidence that such technologies exist and could be used here too,” Capps said. “This amendment won’t make this a sensible or reasonable bill and it wont make the bill something I could support. But at least this amendment would avoid having the U.S. Congress require a science-based agency to pretend that technology operating in other countries simply doesn’t exist.”
Whitfield argued back that the amendment was not necessary because the EPA already was looking at technology in other countries when it determined CCS was adequately demonstrated. “Despite the lady’s best intentions, EPA is already referring to a technology developed in Canada,” he said, meaning SaskPower’s Boundary Dam project. “So I don’t think this is necessary.”
But Waxman argued back that Whitfield was misreading the amendment. “As I understand it, the bill prohibits looking at technology as being feasible if it were developed outside the country,” he said. “So this amendment would say if it’s in Canada or any other country you could keep that in deciding the question of whether the technology has been adequately demonstrated.” “I wouldn’t mind accepting this amendment if you vote for the bill,” Whitfield replied. “I’m just trying to improve your bill, it’s not improved enough,” Waxman retorted, prompting laughter. Whitfield, though ultimately voting against the amendment, conceded that he would be happy to talk with Democrats about bringing the amendment to the House floor.
