Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
9/18/2015
The Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized carbon emissions standards for existing coal-fired power plants, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, picks winners and losers, leaving many states in a lurch while others will have do very little, Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) said during a recent hearing of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Under the rule, states are required to develop action plans to meet federally set emissions reductions targets. Because some states are well on their way to meeting or exceeding their individual goals without having to take additional action while others will have to make drastic changes, the rule is unfair, Bridenstine said. “When [the rule] goes into effect it’s going to establish winners and losers,” the lawmaker added during the Sept. 11 hearing, further suggesting that the rule acts as a transfer of wealth from fossil fuel-reliant states to a handful of others.
While the rule has been a topic of contention in Congress since it was proposed in 2014, compliance will fall not to the members of Congress, but to state agencies. Environment department officials from Texas, Ohio, and Oregon were present at the hearing. Two of these states, Texas and Ohio, fall into the “losers” category under the rule, according to Bridenstine.
Mixed Messages From Oregon and Texas
One of the “winners” Bridenstine noted is the state of Oregon, represented at the hearing both in the committee and on the witness panel. Oregon is well positioned to meet its goals because it foresaw the possibility of such a rule and took preemptive steps to ensure it was on the right path, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) said. “Thankfully Oregon is a state that has been proactive in efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change,” Bonamici said, noting efforts such as setting state-level goals to reduce emissions and increase renewables. “These efforts and others have put Oregon in a position to not only meet, but likely surpass its Clean Power Plan carbon reduction goal.”
However, Jason Eisdorfer, utility program director for the Oregon Public Utility Commission, explained that the rule’s effect on the state is not that cut and dried. The state itself will meet its individual goal, Eisdorfer said. However, many of the state’s ratepayers use electricity imported from other states, much of which is generated at coal plants. “Oregon is not an island. It is not enough for Oregon to comply with the Clean Power Plan within its own borders,” he said. “We are more than interested in how other Western states comply with the clean power plan since our electricity rates depend on how those states comply.”
Bridenstine’s home state of Oklahoma was not represented on the panel, though the state attorney general has already attempted to take legal action against the rule, both in its proposed and finalized versions. Because the rule has yet to be published in the Federal Register in its final version, as is required by the Clean Air Act before legal challenge can be legitimate, these suits have been thus far been dismissed.
Perspectives from Texas, also represented both on the panel and in the committee, varied during the hearing. Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) railed against the rule and the effect it might have on the state. “It is well documented that the final plan will shut down power plants across the country, increase electricity prices, and cost thousands of Americans their jobs,” Smith said. “My home state of Texas would be one of the hardest hit. The state would be forced to close affordable coal fired power plants which also provide affordable electricity during peak usage times in the summer.”
This opinion was echoed by Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, who said the rule is one-sided and only takes into consideration the environmental impact and not the economic impact of implementation. “When you look at the fact that Texas’ rate will have to be reduced by about 33 percent that is going to come at a cost,” Shaw said.
On the other side of the aisle, Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) praised the rule for its potential health co-benefits such as a decrease in the instance of asthma attacks. The EPA estimates these co-benefits to be between $14 billion and $34 billion. She also criticized Shaw for not taking these benefits into account in his own analysis of the cost of the rule.
These benefits are of little consequence, Shaw said, because they are not directly attributed to a reduction in carbon itself, which alone cannot be linked to the health problems EPA references. Instead, these benefits are due to reductions in smog and particulates, which are tied to reductions in carbon emissions.
Opposition Does Not Mean Inaction in Arkansas
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) also noted the rule’s potential economic effect. Westerman mentioned a coal plant in his district already slated for retirement due in part to a different EPA regulation, the Regional Haze Rule. “Our rates will increase from 20-60 percent because of this closure. The obvious negative effects are direct loss of several hundred high-wage jobs and an economic loss of $500 to $600 million per year. The higher rates will put a disproportional burden on low and fixed income residents in my district,” Westerman said.
Westerman’s opinion on the rule is shared by the administration of Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R). Following the rule’s finalization, Hutchinson vowed that his administration would “do everything it can to protect ratepayers. This includes continuing to work with the Attorney General and urging Congress to act to protect ratepayers and to continue to pursue litigation in opposition to the burdensome regulation.”
However, while in opposition to the rule, the state has begun to take steps toward developing a compliance plan. The Arkansas Department on Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the Arkansas Public Service Commission (PCS) recently held a joint press conference to discuss the state’s next steps. “We are here today to reinforce our commitment to work with each other and other state agencies, as well as our commitment to work with ratepayers and stakeholders as we develop a roadmap and ultimately a state strategy for Arkansas,” Becky Keogh, ADEQ director, said at the event. ADEQ has also scheduled an Oct. 1 stakeholder meeting to discuss compliance options.
