Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
8/1/2014
Environmental Protection Agency officials heard from a wide range of individuals this week during a series of four, two-day-long public hearings on the agency’s proposed carbon pollution standards for existing coal-fired power plants. The hearings took place in Washington, Pittsburgh, Atlanta and Denver. Comments ranged from those calling for the EPA to withdraw the proposed regulations to those who applauded the agency for taking steps to combat climate change. The proposed regulations, released in June, set emission reduction targets for each state and require that the states develop implementation plans to meet these targets. Should a state not develop a plan, under the regulations, the EPA will develop one for them.
While EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy did not attend the hearings, an action she told press during a call early in the week would be unprecedented, Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation did attend the hearing in Washington. Both McCabe and McCarthy stressed the importance of the hearings during the press call. “The public comment period is an incredibly valuable time for us. We did a lot of work beforehand, but this is just a second level of engagement for us. Since June 2 we’ve been really focused on these activities. We haven’t let up at all in terms of doing outreach,” McCarthy said of the hearings. McCarthy also said that comments submitted in all forms will receive the same amount of attention from the agency. “Any comment we receive by October 16, no matter how it gets to us, will be equally accepted and equally analyzed and equally considered. There are no special comments and there are no special groups,” she said. EPA has received more than 27,000 on-line comments at this time.
Lawmakers Speak at Hearing
In Washington, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), an adamant opponent to the regulations, testified before a panel of EPA officials that that the rules were unfair to coal states and not transparent. “The effect of reaching this goal treats states differently, and plays favorites. Kentucky’s assigned target is to reduce carbon emissions in 2030 by 18 percent, while Washington State has been assigned a target over 70 percent. These targets paint an illusion by using percentages rather than real numbers—an illusion that Kentucky is getting off easy, but this is not the case,” McConnell said.
He went on to say, “Kentucky will have to cut much more emissions than Washington to meet its target. This is because Washington does not utilize low-cost, efficient and reliable coal-fired generation and Kentucky does. Washington will only have to close one coal-fired power plant to meet its goal of reducing emissions by over 70 percent. However, Kentucky, with 20 coal-fired power plants that provide our state with 90 percent of its electricity, will have to cut significantly more jobs and reliable income for thousands of families across the state in order to meet its goal.”
Proposed Regs. Needed Because Congress Won’t Act, Dem. Senator Says
Senate Democrats hosted their own press conference in support of the regulations this week and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) testified at the public hearing in Washington. “It took rivers catching fire before we acted on clean water. It took people breathing toxic air before we got to the Clean Air Act. We don’t want see the Smith Island vanish before we act on climate change, the last habitable island on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. We don’t want to see dust bowls be the norm in our bread-basket areas of this country in order for us to take action against climate change. We don’t want to see the everglades disappear,” Cardin said at the press conference. “That’s what’s at risk here. Inaction will cost greatly, there’s no question about it.”
Cardin further stated that EPA’s had to develop the regulations due to inaction in Congress. “Let me make this clear, Congress should have passed a market driven approach to dealing with carbon emissions. It would have been more prescriptive and greater tools available to deal with it. … The Republican filibuster ended that opportunity for us to act. EPA has not only the legal authority, which they clearly do as determined by Supreme Court cases, three cases, they have the legal responsibility to act.”
