The most expensive energy regulation in the history of the United States quietly took effect on April 16th, as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Utility MACT rule, formally known as Mercury and Air Toxics Standards began its implementation phase. The formal implementation of Utility MACT starts the clock on a three-year compliance period mandated under the Clean Air Act.
Utility MACT will affect approximately 1,400 units at almost 600 power plants nationwide, including about 1,100 coal-fired units and some 300 that use oil. These units will be required to install technology to reduce emissions of mercury and other substances.
One of the EPA’s most unpopular rules, Utility MACT last year drew a legal challenge from attorneys general of twenty-five states and one territory (Guam), who argued that the rule’s compliance timelines were too short and that the rule could significantly harm the affordability and reliability of American power. Prior to the April 16th implementation date for Utility MACT, a number of new groups filed suit against the EPA to challenge the rule. These groups include the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), Colorado’s Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, and the American Public Power Association (APPA), according to a report by POWER Magazine.
Those affected by the rule are not the only ones upset. Late last month, a contingent of fourteen members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee sent a letter to the White House questioning the EPA’s refusal to answer the committee’s concerns over the cost of Utility MACT. Specifically, the members believe that the EPA is calculating only a fraction of the costs that the regulation poses.
“While EPA moves ahead with what could ultimately be the costliest energy regulation in American history, it is good to see that a number of groups and elected leaders continue to ask important questions about the cost and total impact of Utility MACT,” said PACE Executive Director Lance Brown.
The Houston Chronicle yesterday published an opinion piece from PACE entitled “Time for the EPA to Stop Putting Politics Before Facts.” An excerpt from that piece appears below.
It’s not too often that a government agency compares its own tactics to that of the ancient Romans – especially when it comes to the practice of crucifying several residents of a village in order to gain control over its entire population. Yet that is exactly how Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator Al Armendariz described his agency’s strategy of targeting oil and gas producers.
Armendariz, who resigned Monday, was the head of the Dallas-based region 6 offices, which is in charge of EPA oversight in Texas and surrounding states. In a discussion two years ago with colleagues that recently surfaced, Armendariz said, “The Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
Armendariz’s rhetoric is not only shocking, it clearly validates what the EPA’s critics have been saying all along about the agency’s attitude toward energy companies.
In fact, in 2009 Armendariz told his colleagues to “find people who are not compliant with the law and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them.”
It’s time for the agency to stop invoking strategies of the Roman Empire and start working on policies that are appropriate for the 21st century.
According to a recent press release from leaders of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, the Obama Administration has yet to respond to requests for an official cost estimate for the Environmental Protection Agency’s new Utility MACT rule. Many, including PACE, have estimated the new rule to be the most expensive rule ever for the purpose of limiting emissions from the nation’s power sector.
On January 24th of this year, fourteen members of the House Energy & Commerce led by Rep. Fred Upton (MI) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking the agency to calculate the total cost of Utility MACT, as EPA’s initial project included “only a share of those costs assigned to three select years from costs that are amortized over 30 to 40 years.” Receiving no reply to their request, on February 22nd, the same authors of the initial letter sent a follow-up letter to White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew asking the president to force EPA to provide answers to their committee.
Having received no response to date from the Administration, Rep. Upton and others on his committee last week sent yet another letter on the issue, again to Mr. Lew, expressing their concern over the potential high costs of the Utility MACT rule. The letter also highlights the lack of response from EPA and the White House on the question of the rule’s true cost.
