Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
1/23/2015
Leaders from nearly all sectors of the U.S. energy industry spoke in opposition of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon emissions standards for existing coal fired power plants during the United States Energy Association’s 11th Annual State of the Energy Industry Forum this week. The proposed regulations would set state specific carbon emissions targets and require states to develop action plans to meet those targets. Since being announced in June 2014, the proposed rules have been controversial, drawing millions of public comments from organizations and individuals across the country, including many of the organizations in attendance at this week’s event. Thomas Kuhn, President of Edison Eclectic Institute, defined the regulations as “the most far reaching rule, I think, that EPA has ever ever done,” going on to state that the rule is “largely going to impact our business, our industry and our customers.”
The regulations drew discord from even those from industries not directly affected by the proposed rule, who fear that this is just a first step. “Unfortunately when it comes to energy and climate, this administration likes to ignore facts when they don’t support his objectives,” said Charles Drevna, President of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. “For example, EPA has proposed carbon dioxide reductions of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, initially placed on coal fired plants. … This will stand to be the most expensive in our nation’s history … and will provide little to no health or environmental benefits. It will also drive up consumer electricity rates,” he said. “The air quality of the United States has, and will continue to improve significantly without this extreme proposal. Although this rule at this time does not specifically impact my industry, it concerns me greatly. If EPA succeeds in finalizing this rule, mark my words, refiners are close behind.”
Feasibility of Interim Goals Questioned
Some speakers highlighted specific sections of the proposed rule they said would pose difficulties for their industries. One cited example was the interim goals included in the regulations which require a certain level of the state’s target emissions reduction to be completed by 2020. “We don’t think they can be attained and I’ll give you a few reasons. Number one, if anybody’s been associated with the energy business, the electricity business, we know that 2020 is right around the corner and that basically what we have to do once this rule is in place, every state … is going to have to go back and figure out their energy plans,” Kuhn said. “They’re going to have to get together energy, environmental folks and other people in the industry and people in the public policy arena and figure out how they’re going to put together a plan that’s going to meet the requirements for this rule. They’re going to have to get that through a state legislature. … They’re going to have to get it through their state regulatory utilities commissions and other things. A lot of states are saying that they can’t even put their plans in place by 2020, much less meet those interim targets,” Kuhn said.
Rules Cause Uncertain Future for Mining Industry
Hal Quinn, President and CEO of the National Mining Association, said that due to the uncertainty of the regulation, it is difficult for his industry to project what the market might be like for their products and services into the future. “The forecast beyond 2020 is clouded by the pending EPA carbon dioxide emission rules for power plants. … Power sector emissions have dropped by 15 percent from 2005 levels, this plan looks for another 15 percent, up to 30 between now and 2030, a tall order, an order that’s pretty pricey and pretty risky,” Quinn said. “I think it raises a serious issue about the diversity of our power system. Basically what this rule is really doing, in case there’s any mistake about that, it’s really assigning EPA the task of nothing [less] than the total wholesale transformation of our electric grid.”
Some officials noted, though, the challenges the proposed rule is set to face from Congress and in potential lawsuits. “The 114th Congress, we think, will serve as an effective counterweight,” Quinn said. “These executive policies are restricting America’s choice of energy sources. The House was quite active in the 113th Congress, conducting very robust oversight of EPA’s plan. … We fully expect the Senate under new leadership to join the House in doing so.” Quinn also noted additional legal challenges to the rule, which are likely once the rule becomes finalized. “When that happens later this summer, you will all probably be able to visibly see the dust from the stamped to the court house,” he said.
