Karen Frantz
GHG Monitor
1/17/14
A subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a measure this week that seeks to roll back the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed regulation setting CO2 emissions standards for new power plants, and while debating the bill at markup, Republicans took aim at carbon capture and storage technology, essentially mandated for new coal plants by the EPA rule. “Under the EPA’s proposal, when it becomes final, it will be impossible to build a new coal-fired plant in America because [CCS] technology is not available,” said Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who introduced the bill in the House. “The EPA testified before our subcommittee that their proposal that they had is based on four demonstration projects. All of those rely on heavy government subsidies. And only one of them in the United States is even in the process of being built today. But those emissions standards set the guidelines for future new coal-fired plants.”
The Electricity Security and Affordability Act would render EPA’s new source performance standards for fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units of no effect and set various requirements for any future regulations establishing emission standards for new plants, including requiring any future standards to have also been achieved by at least six units at different U.S. commercial power plants over a one-year period. It also targets forthcoming EPA regulations for existing plants by stating that any such rules would not go into effect unless Congress first passes legislation setting an enactment date. Although the bill faces an uphill climb in the Democrat-controlled Senate, Whitfield said he hopes the bill will “start a national debate, because up until now this has been unilateral action on the part of the executive branch.”
Waxman Amendment
Although the bill easily passed the subcommittee, Democrats—and especially Rep. Henry Waxman from California—launched an impassioned campaign against it, with Waxman introducing an ultimately unsuccessful amendment to undercut the bill, which he called “a recipe for disaster.” The amendment would prohibit the act from taking effect until the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration certifies that a federal program is in place to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants in at least equivalent quantities to the EPA’s rules. “When we had our hearing on this bill last November, I turned to the Republicans and I said, what is your plan to deal with climate change? We haven’t heard of anything,” Waxman said. “My message to my Republican colleagues is simple: If you don’t like what the EPA is doing, tell us what your plan is.”
At one point Waxman and Whitfield argued back and forth, with Waxman questioning the intention of the bill. “So, as I understand what you’re saying, you want a debate and you want Congress to pass a law before we take action on climate change, is that correct?” he said. Whitfield responded: “I think we’ve taken a lot of action on climate change already, and that’s why our CO2 emissions are the lowest they’ve been in 20 years.” “I question that,” Waxman responded, and demanded to know what Whitfield’s alternative solution was. “We have alternatives,” Whitfield said. “They are to use the best available technology, and that’s what this bill is about. No one expects that new coal power plants will be built immediately because the natural gas prices are too low. But five years down the road someone decides this technology is there, we have good technology, cleaner emissions, and we need it to strengthen our economy and create jobs and be more competitive in the global market place. That’s what we’re trying to do.”
