Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
6/20/2014
Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency, fielded an onslaught of questions from House Republicans this week during the first of what is sure to be many hearings on the EPA’s recently proposed carbon emissions regulations for existing coal fired power plants. McCabe defended the rule, attempting to clarify EPA claims of positive environmental impact, economic growth, health benefits and job creation. The rule, developed under Clean Air Act section 111(d), sets emissions reductions targets for each state and requires them to develop a plan to reach the targets by 2030. Republicans, and some coal state Democrats, have said the rules are extreme, would cause energy prices to skyrocket, cost American jobs and kill the coal industry, for little to no global environmental impact.
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.V.) challenged McCabe during the hearing held by the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, to justify the EPA’s proposal, which he said would have unsubstantial effects on global climate change. “With these regulations we’re ignoring the global reality that the rest of the world is not following us. We’re going to affect our American economy. We’re going to put it at risk with, already the numbers are predicted anywhere from 9 [billion dollars] to $40 billion annually we’re going to pay for this experiment. We’re going to be increasing our utility bills, we’re going to be putting Americans out of work, we’re going to disrupt our manufacturing base,” McKinley said. He went on to ask if EPA would be willing to withdraw the rule should it become clear that the effects were negative. “Will you agree to insert metrics into this? Engineers, we deal with metrics. We want to see how you measure success. So will you put into the final bill a metric that says that if America’s economy is tanking because of this, or the world isn’t following and they’re continuing to increase their CO2 emissions that this will void this rule?” Such a measure would not be appropriate under the Clean Air Act McCabe responded. McKinley has been outspoken in opposition of the rule and last week introduced a bill coauthored by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.) to nullify the regulations.
Given an opportunity to address the effects of the regulation on global CO2 emissions McCabe said the U.S. is in a position to act. “There’s no question it’s a global issue. There’s no question that countries beyond the United States are going to have to take action. This has been the case with other environmental problems in the past,” she said. “I also agree and the president agrees that the United States has a responsibility to act here, both because we are a significant contributor — we’re the second largest, I believe, contributor — and because we are a world leader. And we work in the international community with other countries, with China, with India, with other countries and are working with them to get them to look at similar sorts of approaches so that we can together address this global environmental problem.”
Questions Over Proposal’s Potential Economic Impacts
Through the course of the hearing, McCabe was asked about the economic effects of the regulations and she replied by saying it would be up to the states as they are tasked with developing the plans. She said that it was the conclusion of the EPA that in regard to electricity bills it is likely that electricity prices will go up, but with improvements in efficiency, consumption will decrease and thus bills will go down. Several Republicans expressed doubt, though, over such claims. “Let’s not mislead. The reality is poor people, those who are lower income are less able to invest in those conservation measures,” Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said. “This is just going to be a bullseye on other families’ ability to do things such as keep their homes. Now … this Administration has raised to an art level misleading the American people by doing certain things, manipulating statistics. But let’s at least be honest about it.”
McCabe also sought to address concerns that the regulations would spell the end for the coal industry by saying that with or without the regulations, the nation would transition from coal. “The coal-fired fleet in this country is aging, as I’m sure you know. Right now half of the plants are in their 40s, I think, and 10 percent or so are 60 years old or older. So there’s a transition going on in the industry already quite apart from that and quite apart from this rule. And the flexibility that this rule provides will allow states to focus on and utilities to focus on investing in the plants that have a long life ahead of them and make the most sense in order to continue to be key parts of the portfolio and perhaps not to invest in the oldest plants, the ones where it doesn’t make as much sense economically to put investments into them,” she said. However, under the regulations, McCabe said, EPA still assumes coal will account for 30 percent of energy generation. “We know that coal and natural gas play a significant role in a diverse national energy mix. This plan does not change that,” she said.
