News | energyfairness.org

Poll Shows Shifting Landscape on Energy Issues

Are public opinions about alternative energy and fossil fuel development shifting? Maybe so according to a Pew Research Center poll released this past Monday. The telephone poll gauged the opinions of 1,503 adults in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Among other conclusions, the poll found that support for “developing alternative energy sources” has dropped from almost two-thirds of all respondents to just 52% since last year, while support for “expanding exploration and production of oil, coal, and natural gas” rose 10% from its 2011 mark of just 29%. In other words, the wide margin between those preferring new sources of energy over old ones has narrowed significantly.

“Whether it is attributable to higher gas prices or a general disillusionment with renewable sources of power that haven’t delivered as promised, Americans seem to be moving back towards sources of energy they know and trust to work,” explained PACE Executive Director Lance Brown. “This is demonstrated, as well, by increased public support for nuclear power projects.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, respondents who identified themselves as Republicans or Democrats had starkly different views of the way forward for American energy. For example, 89% of Republican respondents favor more offshore drilling for oil and gas, while only half of Democratic respondents support such policies. Most Democrats (81%) support increased funding for alternative energy research, while only about half of Republicans (52%) do so.

The greatest gains in support for traditional fossil energy sources such as oil, gas, and coal came from three demographic groups: Westerners, conservatives, and men. These groups showed double digit increases for traditional energy sources over 2011 poll figures.

“While there are deep partisan divides over the vision for American energy,” Brown says, “It does appear that Americans are starting to recognize the value of exploring and using the domestic power sources we have on hand.”

Utility MACT Raises National Security Concerns

Could EPA’s new Utility MACT rule pose a threat to national security? At least one U.S. utility believes it might. In a recent report from the National Journal, Thomas Farrell, CEO of Virginia-based Dominion, stated that his company might ask the Obama Administration to exempt one of its coal-fired plants from EPA’s latest regulation restricting emissions from coal-fired power generation.

While EPA’s Utility MACT rule allows a brief three-year window for compliance, a little known provision in the Clean Air Act would allow the president, through an executive order, to exempt a company or facility from any EPA rule for two years, or even longer if necessary. The president may grant such a reprieve if he “determines that the technology to implement such standard is not available and that it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so.”

In this case, the facility in question is the Chesapeake Energy Center on the Virginia coast, a coal-fired power plant that provides electricity to southeast Virginia, home to a number of major military installations, including the largest naval complex in the world. According to Farrell, the timelines imposed by Utility MACT could result in the shuttering of significant power capacity, potentially causing shortages in areas with military bases. Endangering the reliable flow of power to military bases, Dominion reasons, could pose real threats to national security.

For now, Dominion is not certain it will seek the exemption. For now, the utility plans to replace the current coal-fired plant with a natural gas facility, although the company’s leaders are not certain it can meet the EPA deadline.

“Dominion’s concern over reliability typifies the concerns that PACE and many others have about the effects of Utility MACT. I live in a congressional district with three major military bases. Will this regulation threaten the operation of those bases?,” asked Lance Brown, PACE Executive Director. “We believe it is time for policy makers, especially our leaders in Congress, to start demanding answers from EPA on those kinds of questions.”

Groups Fight Back in EPA Greenhouse Gas Case

Over the past two weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has heard oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Chief among the concerns expressed in the lawsuit is EPA’s decision to exempt smaller stationary sources such as schools from the GHG rule, instead “tailoring” its rule to target facilities whose emissions exceed 250 tons per year. If implemented, the rule would have its greatest impact on power plants. Pursuant to a 2007 court finding in Massachusetts v EPA, the EPA is scheduled to finalize a GHG regulation for power plants in 2012.

According to a report from Reuters, Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell argued that EPA “rewrote rather than reinterpreted the rule, a move he called arbitrary and not reflective of Congress’ intent for the Clean Air Act.”

“We are asking the court to hold the EPA’s feet to the fire and force them, if they are going to regulate stationary source greenhouse gas emissions, to do so based on what the statute says,” Mitchell said.

Among business groups presenting to the court was the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), whose President and CEO Jay Timmons argued that “EPA’s decision to move forward with the regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources is one of the most costly, complex and far-reaching regulatory issues facing manufacturers and harms their ability to compete globally.”

PACE has argued that EPA’s approach to GHG regulation presents a threat to the American economy, calling the strategy “extremely costly.” In addition, last April a number of attorneys general from across the U.S. called on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to defer her agency’s GHG regulation program, allowing Congress an opportunity to fully debate the matter through legislative forums. NAM’s Timmons echoed that feeling before the court.

“Policies to address climate change deserve full debate in the U.S. Congress and should foster economic growth, not impose additional burdens on businesses,” Timmons said.

PACE to Co-Host Energy Conference in Mississippi

On April 4^th, 2012, PACE will join with Mississippi State University’s Bagley College of Engineering and the Mississippi Chapter of the Air & Waste Management Association to host a conference on energy issues. The conference will be held at the Colvard Student Union on the campus of Mississippi State University in Starkville and is tentatively scheduled for 10:00 AM to 2:30 PM, including a luncheon.

Focused entirely on current issues in energy, the conference will highlight major themes of American energy policy with a focus on the consequences for Mississippi businesses and families. Scheduled speakers include former EPA Region 4 Administrator James Palmer, Jr., who also headed the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for more than a decade; Chuck Barlow, Associate General Counsel for Environment at Entergy and former General Counsel for MDEQ; former TVA Chairman and Advance Mississippi Chairman Glenn McCullough, Jr.; and PACE Executive Director Lance Brown.

Sponsorship opportunities for the conference remain available. Interested businesses or organizations should contact Dallas Baker at 601.961.5670 or e-mail dbaker@deq.state.ms.us. For professional engineers and attorneys, CE and CLE credits are pending approval with more information to come.

Click Here to Download a Registration Form.
Deadline is April 1st

EPA Rulemaking Shutters More Capacity

According to a report from Reuters, GenOn Energy will be forced to shutter eight plants in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey by 2015 due to “more stringent federal environmental regulations.” The move will deactivate 3,140 megawatts of mostly coal-fired generating capacity, beginning with the company’s Elrama coal-fired plant in Pennsylvania in June 2012 and concluding with its Glen Gardner gas-fired plant in New Jersey in May 2015.

The announcement by GenOn comes just weeks after FirstEnergy Corp. said it would close three coal-fired plants in West Virginia by September of this year. According to information provided by GenOn to lawmakers in Pennsylvania, the cost of compliance with new EPA regulations, particularly Utility MACT, is the main driver behind the plant closures.

“Pragmatic energy policies should not guillotine coal from the nation’s energy grid,” said Pennsylvania State Rep. Camille “Bud” George, (D-Houtzdale). “Unfortunately, reasonable policies that would address valid health concerns while keeping coal and the Shawville plant in the long-term mix for energy viability were not pursued.”

“This is devastating news for Clearfield County that impacts not only the 80 plus workers at the Shawville plant but also has a huge ripple effect…,” said Clearfield County (PA) Commissioner Mark McCracken. “The Shawville plant alone has an annual impact on the regional economy of $100 million per year.”

PACE reported recently that efforts to repeal EPA’s Utility MACT rule have begun in the U.S. Congress, with Senator Jim Inhofe introducing a disapproval resolution to nullify the regulation, estimated to be the most expensive in the agency’s history.

“It is becoming increasingly clear that Utility MACT is a serious threat to reliability and to jobs,” said PACE Executive Director Lance Brown. “To the hundreds of families affected by these recent plant closures, the administration’s official line that EPA regulations will create jobs must seem especially hollow.”

Groups React to Utility MACT Disapproval Resolution

Following last week’s introduction by Senator Jim Inhofe of a disapproval resolution regarding EPA’s Utility MACT rule, a number of groups have stepped forward to offer comments on the senator’s efforts. Among these are organizations are the US Chamber of Commerce, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Western Business Roundtable, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, and the 60 Plus Association. PACE published its own statement late last week.

“This may be our only opportunity to secure meaningful Senate debate on Utility MACT and to upend EPA’s unreasonable compliance deadline,” said U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President for Government Affairs Bruce Josten. ”A successful Resolution of Disapproval is a strong remedy but would nonetheless allow EPA to issue new mercury-only emissions standards for power plants, and would allow Congress to address power plant mercury emissions through reasonable legislation.”

“Manufacturers are looking to Washington for policies to enable investment, growth and job creation, not more burdensome regulations from the EPA and other agencies,” said the National Association of Manufacturers in a written statement. “Sen. Inhofe’s effort to repeal the Utility MACT rule will help give manufacturers more certainty while stopping an extremely harmful regulation.”

“Utility MACT will have massive impacts on the nation’s economy and could negatively impact electricity reliability,” said Holly Propst, Executive Director of the Western Business Roundtable. “We are grateful for Senator Inhofe’s leadership on this issue and urge his Senate colleagues to join him in formally disapproving EPA’s action.”

Click below to read statements and letters regarding the disapproval resolution (listed alphabetically).

Statement from 60 Plus Association
Statement from American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
Letter from Caterpillar
Letter from Industrial Energy Consumers of America
Statement from National Association of Manufacturers
Petition for Review from National Black Chamber of Commerce
Statement from US Chamber of Commerce
Statement from Western Business Roundtable

Inhofe Set To Introduce Utility MACT Disapproval Resolution

According to a number of reports, Senator Jim Inhofe (OK) on Thursday, February 16th, will introduce a Resolution of Disapproval regarding EPA’s Utility MACT rule, finalized in December 2011. Under the Congressional Review Act, a resolution needs 30 supporters to be placed on the Senate calendar. If the resolution receives a simple majority in both chambers and is signed by the President, the joint resolution would nullify the Utility MACT rule.

As PACE has written about extensively, EPA’s Utility MACT rule is the agency’s most expensive regulation ever for power plants, imposing steep costs to the economy and endangering hundreds of thousands of jobs. The rule also threatens the reliability of U.S. electricity by resulting in the closure of a predicted 68 coal-fired plants that provide baseload power to American homes and businesses.

On December 21^st, Senator Inhofe announced his intention to file the disapproval resolution, issuing a statement that read, “Sadly, this rule isn’t about public health. It is a thinly veiled electricity tax that continues the Obama Administration’s war on affordable energy and is the latest in an unprecedented barrage of regulations that make up EPA’s job-killing regulatory agenda.”

Inhofe alludes to the fact that, although EPA refers to Utility MACT as a mercury rule, 99.98% of the Utility MACT benefits calculated by EPA are not a result of mercury reductions. Almost all of the $90 billion in benefits estimated by EPA by 2016 are generated by reductions in particulate matter already governed by agency rules.

“Utility MACT, as it has been designed by EPA, poses great burdens on our power generation sector with very questionable benefits,” explains Lance Brown, PACE Executive Director. “This resolution, if passed by Congress and signed by the president, can’t stop EPA from regulating mercury, but it can stop a bad piece of regulation from hurting the American people.”

Study Shows EPA Rules Will Cause Power Rate Hikes

A recent study by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) predicts what many, including PACE, have been saying for months: that new EPA rules will cause significant hikes in the price of electricity. The study, released in September 2011, finds that four major EPA rules will come with a total price tag of $127 billion through the year 2020.

The NERA study considers the cost of the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Utility MACT, proposed coal ash regulations, and a new rule governing cooling water intake structures. The $21 billion annual price tag makes these rules the most expensive EPA has ever written for the electricity sector. The total cost includes an estimated $104 billion in capital costs to implement new environmental controls and replace lost capacity.

In addition to studying total costs from the rules, NERA also calculated retail electricity price increases in twenty-two regions of the country, finding that some regions could see price increases of as much as 16%.

The NERA study also found a pronounced impact of the EPA rules on the American economy, with the four rules costing an estimated 183,000 American jobs per year.

“While presidential candidates are engaging in rich debate about how to kick-start the American economy, it is becoming clear that one of the first steps must be to make sure EPA rules aren’t destroying jobs faster than U.S. businesses can create them,” said Lance Brown, PACE Executive Director. “We need national leaders to act quickly before energy consumers are saddled with double digit price increases on electricity.”

PACE Responds to State of the Union

In response to the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday evening, the Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy released an official statement detailing its concerns regarding energy affordability and reliability. An excerpt of that statement appears below.

“In his State of the Union preview, President Obama indicated his plans to lay out a ‘blueprint for an American economy that’s built to last.’ But unless that blueprint includes overturning recent regulations implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency, our economy will continue to suffer. While President Obama and the EPA continue to defend new rules – like Utility MACT – consumers can look forward to higher costs and less reliability.”

“Media reporting and commentary on environmental progress has overlooked glaring improvements in power sector emissions, leading the public to believe that American air is dirtier than ever when the exact opposite is true. If the president is truly serious about boosting the economy, his administration should reconsider implementing rules that will raise energy prices and cost millions of hard-working Americans their jobs.”

The president’s State of the Union address also included a number of soundbites on energy, including pledges to install renewable power on federal lands and to launch new initiatives to boost renewable power use in the military branch.

“Instead of focusing on common-sense initiatives that will lower the price of energy for Americans, the administration stubbornly continues to pursue renewable power experiments that make little sense in the current economic reality,” states PACE Executive Director Lance Brown. “If we’re going to move forward, we need energy policy based on reality rather than focus groups.”