Karen Frantz
GHG Monitor
2/07/2014
Opponents of President Obama’s efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants ramped up their efforts last week, with several prominent industry groups announcing a new initiative to fight the Environmental Protection Agency’s GHG regulations and a number of legislators arguing that the rules could be damaging to the economy. More than 80 industry groups announced last week that they have banded together to launch a campaign against the EPA’s draft and anticipated regulations targeting both new and existing power plants—which the groups called “poorly crafted”—in favor of a more “commonsense approach” to GHGs that they say would include efforts to ensure affordable and reliable energy. The Partnership for a Better Energy Future is advocating for regulations that that are cost-effective, technologically achievable and that support an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.
The new group is co-chaired by the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, and includes several groups representing the coal and natural gas industries. “Unfortunately, this Administration seems to believe that the only way to reduce GHG emissions is to eliminate fossil fuels from our economy,” said National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons. “Manufacturers believe we can use these and other fuels while reducing our emissions. We must convince the Administration to make better choices as it begins to regulate GHGs. Through this coalition we hope to do so.” President and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Mike Duncan, said that removing coal from the country’s energy portfolio will result in higher prices for a range of items, such as groceries and electric bills. “The pain won’t stop there, however,” he continued. “It will spread to the economy at large in the form of hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, energy insecurity and an unreliable electric grid subject to rolling brownouts and blackouts when energy is needed most.”
Group Says CCS is ‘Prohibitively Expensive’
The coalition also takes issue with a provision of the EPA’s draft rule for new power plants, which essentially mandates the use of carbon capture and storage technology for new-build coal-fired plants in order to meet the emission limits set by the rule. “The proposed regulation bans the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they are equipped with a technology known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS),” the group’s website says in a section devoted to the rule’s background. “CCS is a promising system that would capture, transport and then store carbon underground. However, CCS is prohibitively expensive and not in use at a single commercial-scale power plant in the country. In addition, even though the Clean Air Act prohibits the EPA from mandating technologies that have not been adequately demonstrated, the agency is aggressively attempting to require the use of CCS. Given this restriction, the practical impact of the EPA’s proposed regulation for new power plants will be to block construction of coal-fired power plants in this country.”
Senators Ask Obama to Hold Off on GHG Rule
Meanwhile, nearly two dozen senators asked Obama to hold off on moving forward with his anticipated regulations targeting existing power plants in order to first “consider the burden to ratepayers” in a letter sent to the President last week. “Whatever our disagreements might be on how best to approach a changing climate, we think we can all agree that whatever we do should not burden ratepayers and consumers, especially middle and low-income families, with new costs,” the letter said. “We therefore implore you to avoid any actions which damage ratepayers throughout this country, especially when those actions result in no measurable benefits and no measurable effects on the very thing that the actions are designed to address.”
The senators also pointed to the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, better known as the Waxman-Markey bill, which would have placed a cap on GHG emissions, saying that a huge reason the bill was ultimately unsuccessful was because the costs to the economy would have been too great and the benefits too small—citing one study that found the bill would have raised electricity rates by 90 percent after adjusting for inflation. The letter contends that the President’s Climate Action Plan, which it said resembles Waxman-Markey in its emissions reduction goal, would be similarly damaging and ineffective. It said the goal will “cost consumers in the form of increased prices for energy and anything made, grown or transported using energy. These new costs will result in less disposable income in families’ pockets. That means less money to spend on groceries, doctors’ visits and education. In short, low cost energy is critical to human health and welfare.” The letter’s co-signers were almost all Republicans, but a single Democrat, Joe Manchin from West Virginia, also signed on.
