SEN. INHOFE CRITICIZES EPA ADMINISTRATOR’S RECENT REMARKS ON COAL

Tamar Hallerman and Farris Willingham

GHG Monitor

06/15/12

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) sharply criticized remarks made earlier this week by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson that coal’s decline as a power source in recent years has been purely economic and not due to the agency’s rulemakings limiting emissions. In a letter sent to Jackson this week, Inhofe said that the Administrator’s remarks were out of touch. “Although there is little doubt that the appearance of shale gas on the American energy scene has been revolutionary, your statement distorts economic realities in a manner equivalent to President Obama’s recent conclusion that ‘the private sector is doing fine’ in the midst of one of the most severe and prolonged economic declines in recent history,” he said in the June 13 letter. Inhofe said Jackson’s comments fail to take into consideration recent announcements from utilities such as First Energy and American Electric Power that said they are prematurely shuttering some of their coal capacity in order to comply with EPA’s emissions regulations.

Inhofe’s letter came two days after the newspaper The Guardian published an interview with Jackson in which the Administrator commented on the decline of coal-fired power. “In my opinion the problem for coal right now is entirely economic,” Jackson said. “The natural gas that this country has and is continuing to develop is cheaper right now on average. And so people who are making investment decisions are not unmindful of that—how could you expect them to be? It just happens that at the same time, these rules are coming in place that make it clear that you cannot continue to operate a 30-, 40-, or 50-year-old plant and not control the pollution that comes with it.” Jackson added that EPA’s controversial regulations limiting emissions from coal plants are “long overdue” and that coal should not be exempt from regulations. “I always tell people, it’s not about coal, it’s about the pollution that for too long has been associated with coal,” she said. 

Inhofe Compares Jackson, Spalding Remarks

Inhofe contrasted Jackson’s remarks to a recent speech by EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding. In a video highly publicized by Inhofe’s office, Spalding says that recently-proposed standards limiting greenhouse gas emissions at new coal-fired power plants would be “painful” for many coal-heavy rich states to adapt to. In his letter, Inhofe said Spalding’s remarks are akin to “openly admit[ing] that EPA regulations are, in fact, killing coal and that EPA consciously and deliberately made the decision to do so.” “This is a top EPA official saying that because of EPA’s rules, you can forget about ever building a coal plant. Yet, you have said publically that coal plants are closing because of natural market forces—how would you respond to what Administrator Spalding said when he was apparently with a group from the environmental community and likely did not expect his admission to go public?” Inhofe said.

He said EPA has “consistently misinformed” the public on the economic impact of its rules. He particularly highlighted the agency’s recently-finalized Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS), which he filed a resolution of disapproval on earlier this spring. A vote on the measure was expected as early as this week (see related story). “EPA’s cost assessments disingenuously refer to job creation, while failing to inform the public of the millions of direct and indirect jobs placed in jeopardy by the rule,” the letter reads. Inhofe said EPA’s analyses of its rulemakings, particularly for MATS, “inflate” projected health benefits by double-listing benefits gained from other rulemakings. EPA’s regulatory impact analysis of the rulemaking says that the majority of economic benefits from MATS come from reducing particulate pollution even though the main focus of the regulations is mercury and air toxics. That admission caused some critics to say that regulating those pollutants is subsequently unjustified. In his letter, Inhofe asked Jackson to re-open the negotiation of MATS to help develop “more realistic economic and technological assumptions.”