SENATORS TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION EXTENDING COMPLIANCE TIMELINE FOR EPA’S MATS RULE

Measure Seen as Alternative to Inhofe’s Disapproval Resolution

Farris Willingham
GHG Monitor
06/15/12

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) announced plans this week to introduce legislation that would grant utilities six years to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently-finalized Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), offering an alternative to GOP-led efforts to block the rule altogether and rekindling arguments about its compliance timeline and costs. The proposed legislation, which was not formally introduced as of press time, would nearly double the rulemaking’s compliance period, the senators said. Finalized in December, MATS aims to cut down on mercury and other toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants by enforcing technological standards for roughly 1,400 fossil fuel-fired units. Owners of those units are required to install pollution-control equipment like scrubbers, baghouses, dry sorbent injection technology or electrostatic precipitators within the next three to four years in order to comply, with a possible fifth-year extension if the local reliability of the power grid is threatened. The Alexander-Pryor legislation would uniformly extend the compliance timeline for all units. In an op-ed in the newspaper The Tennessean, Alexander said upholding MATS would help the state’s tourism industry and automobile plants. “While some have said this rule is anti-coal, I say that it is pro-coal, because pollution control equipment guarantees coal a future in our clean energy mix,” he said.

Legislation Challenges Inhofe’s Proposal

The legislation is widely seen as an alternative to a resolution of disapproval on MATS being championed by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). The senior Oklahoma Senator criticized the Alexander-Pryor legislation in a floor speech June 12, arguing that the measure acts as political cover for coal-state Democrats and moderate Republicans. “The counter measure is a cover bill, pure and simple,” he said. “The American people are pretty smart and they know that there is only one real solution and that’s to stop, not just delay, EPA’s war on coal.” In a June 4 floor speech, Inhofe encouraged colleagues to endorse his resolution of disapproval, which aims to halt MATS and would require EPA to formulate a more flexible rulemaking. “By voting for my resolution, members of the Senate can prevent the Obama EPA from causing so much economic pain for American families,” he said.

Inhofe introduced his resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, a procedure that allows Congress to invalidate federal rules pending they receive a simple majority of votes in both chambers. While the Republican-controlled House would likely vote in favor of Inhofe’s resolution, Inhofe must gain the support of 50 senators by June 18 for the resolution to pass. While reports this week indicated that Inhofe was unlikely to gain that level of support, Inhofe said he remains confident that the measure could clear both chambers of Congress. “It requires only a majority vote in the Senate and House and then would have to be signed by the President. I don’t believe President Obama would veto it right before an election,” he said. It’s unlikely, though, that Obama would sign the resolution given that it undermines a rulemaking his administration promulgated.

Congress has only successfully utilized the CRA once. Most recently, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) attempted to kill EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule via the CRA, but the upper chamber thwarted that effort last November with a 41 to 56 vote. Inhofe, who is the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said he expects different results this time around.

Interest Groups Lobby in Favor of Resolution

Throughout the week, many interest groups lobbied in favor of Inhofe’s resolution of disapproval. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy is using radio advertisements to encourage its supporters to contact their senators to urge them to vote in favor of the disapproval resolution, said Evan Tracey, senior vice president of communications for ACCCE. “We’ve done statewide radio in up to 14 states as well as on some national radio platforms specifically about the Inhofe resolution,” he said. ACCCE hopes the vote will prompt EPA to attempt “a more commonsense approach” to regulating coal-fired power plants. “The crux of the message is just that this is a bad regulation and that there’s a chance to get it right, but not unless the Senate acts. The position on [MATS] from our standpoint is that it’s just not enough time for compliance and the costs involved in the compliance are going to have very adverse effects on utility rates because they’re going have to get passed on to somebody.”

MATS’ critics argue that the measure forces a costly financial burden onto utilities, citing  EPA’s estimated $9.6 billion price tag for the rulemaking. Other opponents have said that three years is not an adequate enough time period for compliance. At a February House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, opponents said the rulemaking will make it effectively impossible to construct new coal-fired power plants. “With this rule, not one new coal-fired plant can be built and meet these standards because no one can get a warranty, which is necessary to get the financing, to build new coal because of the frank standard EPA is using,” said Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) during the hearing.

MATS Supporters Say Health Benefits are Needed

Meanwhile, MATS supporters spoke out in favor of the standards, arguing that they will help improve public health. “This long overdue public health measure will help ensure our nation’s utilities are doing their very best to keep our air and water clean—allowing Americans to live better, healthier and, in some cases, longer lives,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said in a statement this week. He added that he plans to oppose any efforts to stymie EPA air quality regulations.

In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson sent earlier this week, mayors from 91 cities nationwide said they were supportive of the rulemaking. “As local elected officials representing big cities and small towns, we want to express our strong support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently issued Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants. Mayors are on the front lines of protecting public health and this long overdue safeguard will reap tremendous benefits for our communities,” the letter states.