Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
3/13/2015
If finalized, the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon emissions standards for existing coal-fired power plants could push manufacturers overseas where they would rely on dirtier energy resulting in higher global carbon emissions, Thomas Easterly, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, said during a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing this week. In the United States, utilities have long been working to improve efficiency, resulting in coal-fired electricity generation being less carbon intensive than elsewhere, Easterly said. If the regulations result in higher energy costs, businesses may be tempted to relocate to countries with less expensive, but dirtier, energy. “When these businesses close, U.S. emissions will decrease, but worldwide greenhouse gas emissions will increase as our businesses move to areas with less efficient and more carbon intensive energy supplies,” Easterly told the committee.
This position was supported by Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), an ardent opponent of the regulations, which would require states to develop action plans to meet EPA set emissions reduction goals. “This is a position that I’ve held ever since [former EPA Administrator] Lisa Jackson, said that no, doing something unilaterally in the United States is not going to affect it because this isn’t where the problems are,” Inhofe said. He went on to note that China, not the United States, is the largest emitter of carbon globally and that the country is doing little in comparison to the United States to decrease its emissions.
Easterly said that if the EPA rule were to go into effect, even those countries that have made commitments to decrease or cap their carbon emissions would hold a competitive advantage, as these commitments are not as broad or immediate as the EPA proposal. “I understand China signed an agreement to consider stopping the growth of their emissions by about 2030, but between now and 2030, those emissions, they’re still much higher per unit of production than we have here, so as our businesses have to stay in business by being internationally competitive, I’m very concerned that total emissions will go up,” he said.
Manufacturing Exodus Does Not Ring True in Early Action States, Sen. Says.
Sen. Barbra Boxer (D-Calif.), the committee’s ranking member, noted that economic growth has been positive in her home state since the implementation of a carbon market. “What I’m stunned by is some of the states’ attitudes of gloom and doom when we have states that are doing this, prospering far more than your states and that’s what kind of stuns me,” Boxer said. “Have we found companies running away from California? Last I checked Silicon Valley was booming, we have increases in manufacturing.”
Mary Nichols, Chairman of the California Air Resources Board, said that many of the same concerns were heard within California during the implementation of its carbon market, but the economy is growing. “We have experienced growth across the board but particularly in the clean energy sector in California because of our energy policies. …. I think it is important to say that there needs to be transition time for all industries and all states,” Nichols said. “When we implemented our cap on carbon emissions with a trading program, there were many who were concerned about the rising cost of electricity to our manufacturing sector. It’s a critical concern for everybody, along with reliability. No state, no governor can afford to take risks with the lights going out in their state.”
