Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
10/9/2015
The Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized carbon emissions standard for existing coal-fired power plants and the associated proposed federal implementation plan are no more than a backdoor way for the agency to institute a cap and trade program, Republican members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Energy and Power Subcommittee charged during a hearing on the rules Wednesday.
The EPA regulation, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, requires states to develop action plans to meet federally set carbon emissions reduction goals. If a state does not submit a state implementation plan (SIP), or provides a plan the EPA deems insufficient, the agency holds the authority to enforce a federal implementation plan (FIP). A proposed FIP was released alongside the final version of the Clean Power Plan and has been met with scorn from the right as it takes the form of a market-based emissions trading program.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) referenced many portions of the proposal that refer to it as a model trading plan. “The problem is, it looks like a cap and trade plan, you call it a model trading plan and you say that if states don’t come up with an appropriate plan, the federal government will be committed to help them develop a plan, perhaps a cap and trade type plan,” Griffith said.
Regardless of the fact that Congress rejected a proposed cap and trade bill, Waxman-Markey, in 2009, the administration continues to attempt to enact such a program, Griffith said. He added that following Waxman-Markey, he unseated 28-year incumbent Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) who had supported the bill. This is a clear indicator voters do not support cap and trade, Griffith said.
Several other committee members echoed Griffith’s comments, while Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, the sole witness at the hearing, asserted several times that “the Clean Power Plan does not set in place a cap and trade program.”
The language is clear, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) countered. “You’re trying to literally create in a regulatory fashion what Congress has refused to do in a legislative fashion,” he said. “I think that’s just wrong.”
Failure of Congress to Act Led to CPP, Lawmakers Says
On the other side of the aisle, Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) challenged the Republicans’ assertions about Waxman-Markey, noting the bill passed the House and received a majority of the vote in the Senate, but was short of the 60 votes needed for approval. This was due to a failure to compromise, Yarmuth said, who noted that he and Boucher had been willing to negotiate on the legislation and eventually a bill that could be agreed upon by the coal state Democrats was developed. “The reason we did that was because we didn’t want to be here today because we didn’t want EPA to have a plan that might unduly impact our states,” Yarmuth said. “We had a way to guarantee that wouldn’t happen. … We’re here today because Republicans stopped Waxman-Markey, that’s why we’re here.”
