Latest Update on Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and EPA Regulations
The recent hearings, conferences and lawsuits regarding EPA regulations continued last week and even into the weekend.
U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
On Sept. 22, during a U.S. Congressional hearing EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson fought back at statements which claim EPA regulations are job killing. “It is misleading to say that enforcement of our nation’s environmental laws is bad for the economy and employment. It isn’t,” said Jackson during the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing.
Jackson further stated that her agency must regulate sensibly, “in a manner that does not create undue burdens and that carefully considers both the benefits and the costs. However, in doing so, we must not lose sight of the reasons for implementation of environmental regulations. These regulations are necessary to ensure that Americans have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Americans are no less entitled to a safe, clean environment during difficult economic times than they are in a more prosperous economy.”
US Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) during the hearing noted concern after reviewing EPA studies and data; he asked if the EPA was overstating health benefits and understating economic risk to the economy with certain EPA regulations.
More details on the hearing can be found by visiting: Majority site of committee and Minority site of committee.
Texas House on State Affairs
On September 22 the Texas House Committee on State Affairs heard from five panels regarding CSAPR. Donna Nelson, Chair of the Public Utilities Commission(PUC) , spoke of her recent meeting with the EPA the previous week which she characterized as cordial but not productive. As the committee discussed CSAPR and the rule making process, Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), was critical of the notice given to Texas and the EPA rules process. There is some contention on the notification Texas actually received since Texas was not included in certain parts of the proposed rules in August 2010 but included in certain parts of the final published rule. Additionally, the modeling data used by EPA and the linkage to air quality monitors around the nation have also caused some consternation for Shaw and other Texas officials.
Railroad Commissioner Barry Smiterman stated there are nuances to the Texas market that require EPA officials to meet with ERCOT and individual generation owners at each plant to obtain a full understanding of what the EPA rule will impact. Smitherman said he had told federal officials, “this rule will cause reliability problems in Texas.” Rep. Pete Gallego said the rule is a “real issue and a real problem” but also suggested that EPA has put forward rules previously that were not as harmful to the economy as some originally predicted. Gallego cautioned that rather than editorial comments he would like to see a focus on the facts.
Trip Doggett, CEO and President of ERCOT, also presented the ERCOT CSAPR report to the committee that indicated electric reliability will be significantly impacted by the rule. The PUC will be hosting a workshop in the future to gather insight to an increase in cost to the consumer due to CSAPR, said Nelson in response a request from Rep. Rene Oliveira. ERCOT is also working on a related study of how CSAPR may impact electric prices to the consumer.
Tom “Smitty” Smith with Public Citizen said as the regulatory process evolved that some mistakes may have been made on both sides. In regards to impact on the economy, Smith argued that air pollution also affects the economy, citing pollution from plants costing $1.9 billion annually in health care.
“EPA vs Texas” Tribune Festival Panel
During the Tribune Festival panel “The EPA vs. Texas” last weekend, panel members Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen; Commissioner Bryan Shaw, TCEQ; “Tripp” Doggett, President/CEO of ERCOT; and James Marston, director of National Energy Program at the Environmental Defense Fund were engaged in a lively discussion.
The discussion was similar to those heard previously in the recent state and federal hearings. Shaw argued that Texas has made significant progress in air quality and they are working on developing regulations that make sense with science. Shaw pointed to TERP as a Texas program that makes progress toward cleaner air. Marston countered that air quality is better all over the country and Texas has better air due to the federal government and federal regulations.
Timelines in regards to CSAPR also became a focus of the conversation. Since ERCOT requires a 90 day notice for changes at plants called “advanced notice,” the January 1, 2012 deadline is actually pushed up to October 3, 2011. However, it was also pointed out that companies will have until March 2013 to either prove they have met the lower standards or purchase emissions credits, if they are available. Shaw counters that not only will credits not be available, but is too late to wait, by that time, if Texas exceeded emission rates they would not only be subject to fines but would lose twice that much in allowable emissions the following year.
Both Marston and Smith argue that for some time utilities/plants have known that further regulation will take place. Smith says many utilities made investments but some chose not to; the ones who chose to invest now are at a competitive advantage.
For a complete blog of the panel and all energy & environment panel discussions: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-energy/energy/energy-and-environment-texas-tribune-festival/
CSAPR Lawsuits
Last week, the Attorney General of Texas and the Attorney General of Kansas filed separate lawsuits to stop the implementation of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), designed to reduce emissions from power plants and other sources that cross state lines. Kansas disputes the EPA’s analysis of Kansas emissions levels, overestimating the state’s contribution to downwind air quality, and that the “rushed implementation” of the new rule will needlessly add millions of dollars of costs to Kansas utilities.
Texas argued EPA violated federal law and relied upon flawed data to impose its CSAPR. Furthermore, Texas expounded on harms that could be caused by the regulations such as rolling blackouts, job losses, and additional harm to Texas families and communities.
Texas’ motion to stay the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Texas’ petition for review of the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Entities in other states as well as Luminant from Texas have also filed suit against the EPA in regards to the regulations.
EPA Federal Legislation
The U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act, or TRAIN Act, on September 23 with a vote of 249 to 169.
The TRAIN Act, introduced by Reps. John Sullivan (R-OK) and Jim Matheson (D-UT), requires an interagency committee to analyze the cumulative economic impacts of certain EPA rules to better understand how EPA regulations affect jobs, energy prices, electric reliability and America’s overall global competitiveness.
The bill passed with an amendment offered by Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) relating to two new rules —the Utility MACT rule and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. These two rules have been estimated, by proponents of the amendment, to cost $17.8 billion annually and 1.4 million job-years by 2020.
By repealing or blocking certain new and pending clean air safeguards or regulations, according to EPA estimates, such regulations would save 140,000 lives over the five or more years of proposed delays.
“It is simply outrageous that in this century we have to protect a law that has been in place since 1970 and has proven itself over and over again in its health benefits and its benefits to this economy,” said Sen Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, during a press conference on Wednesday. “If you can’t breathe, you can’t work.”
The proposed TRAIN ACT is not expected to pass the U.S. Senate.