Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
11/20/2015
The Environmental Protection Agency this week heard public comment, from a generally agreeable crowd, during a two-day public hearing to examine the agency’s proposed federal implementation plan for its Clean Power Plan, carbon emissions standards for existing coal-fired power plants. EPA headquarters in Washington D.C. hosted the hearing on Nov. 18-19. Other such hearings were also held in Denver and Atlanta this week, following a session last week in Pittsburgh.
The Clean Power Plan (CPP), finalized in early August, requires states to develop action plans to meet federally set, state-specific carbon emissions reduction goals. If a state cannot, or does not, submit a state implementation plan (SIP), the EPA holds the authority to enforce a federal implementation plan (FIP). Such a plan was rolled out in its proposed form alongside the final CPP. The FIP presents two options: a mass- or rate-based emissions trading system.
The comment period on the proposed FIP opened Oct. 23 and will close Jan. 21, 2016. Comments are being accepted online, via mail, by fax, and in person at EPA’s Washington, D.C., headquarters. At this time, only 20 comments have been submitted to the online public comment portal. In comparison, the Clean Power Plan in its proposed version received more than 4.3 million comments during its open comment period.
Commenters present at the Washington public hearing early Wednesday afternoon were largely in favor of the proposed FIP and the Clean Power Plan as a whole. Many commenters, such as Sierra Club member Amanda Hurowitz, represented environmental groups. Hurowitz stressed the importance of government action to reduce carbon emissions. “I’m not naive enough to think that our actions in our communities alone will stop the problem of global warming,” Hurowitz, said, also noting that “regulating CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gasses is the proper role of government. Individual action, while important, is not enough.”
Others, such as Sara Chieffo, a member of the League of Conservation Voters, noted the importance of having a federal option in the face of campaigns calling for states to refuse to submit a SIP in the face of what they see as EPA overreach. “If states fail to act, as we know many will, the EPA has the responsibility and the authority under the Clean Air Act to step in and that’s why this proposed federal implementation plan … is so important. It’s a critical backstop to make sure that all communities are protected regardless of what their governors do or do not do,” she said.
A strong FIP will encourage states to act on their own, Kate Adelson, speaking on behalf of Richard Ball of Virginia, who had signed up to testify at the hearing, but was unable to attend, explained. “The federal implementation [plan] should … be as strong as possible to provide a good model for state development of implementation plans. It especially should not reward states that fail to submit a satisfactory SIP or encourage states to fall back on the federal implementation plan as a less stringent plan for reducing carbon pollution emissions. If the FIP is not strong, it will tempt many political forces within the states to torpedo preparation of a state implementation plan if it appears that they can achieve their goals of doing the least possible through a federal implementation plan. It is often easier politically to kill a program than to create one,” she said.
