Utility MACT is the Wrong Policy at the Worst Time
WASHINGTON – The United States Senate today took the first step in setting aside a new EPA regulation on America’s coal-fueled electricity industry that would unnecessarily drive up energy costs for millions of American families and businesses. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, filed a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s Utility MACT Rule. EPA also calls the rule the MATS rule.
“Congressional action is essential to stop this heavy-handed new regulation by EPA that will needlessly drive up energy prices for all Americans and destroy jobs,” said Steve Miller, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “With half of Americans now devoting more than 20 percent of their family budget to energy costs, EPA is making energy much more expensive with the most costly regulation ever imposed by the agency on the coal-fueled electricity industry. Given the fragility of America’s economic recovery, that’s the wrong policy, at the worst possible time.”
The effects of rising energy costs are the subject of a recently released report, “Energy Cost Impacts on American Families.” Some of the major findings are that –
- Energy costs have almost doubled for the average family and are eating up a disproportionate share of low- and fixed-income families’ budgets.
- Energy cost burdens are greatest on the poorest families.
- Minority families are particularly burdened by higher energy costs.
- Lower- and fixed-income senior households are among those most vulnerable to energy price increases.
- Electricity is a relative bargain among energy products. This is due, in part, to the utility industry’s reliance on affordable coal.
- EPA regulations drive up electricity prices. Electricity price increases over the past two decades are due in part to costs associated with meeting clean air and other environmental standards.
The full study is available at: http://www.americaspower.org/sites/default/files/Energy_Cost_Impacts_2012_FINAL.pdf
EPA’s Utility MACT regulation, which was finalized in late December 2011, would lead to the closure of many coal-fueled power plants. A comprehensive analysis by National Economic Research Associates found that the proposed Utility MACT Rule and other finalized and pending EPA regulations for power plants using coal could destroy an average of 183,000 jobs every year from 2012- 2020 and increase electricity and other energy prices by $170 billion.
“America’s coal-based electricity industry is grateful to Senator Inhofe and other Members of Congress who understand coal’s importance to the American economy now and well into the future,” said Miller. “We urge strong, bipartisan support for this resolution in order to protect consumers and jobs.”
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) is committed to the idea that America can have the affordable, reliable electricity we need, with the clean environment we want. ACCCE’s Behind the Plug blog is the place for up-to-date news and analysis on clean coal technology developments and energy policy progress.
A few things to keep in mind when reading this statement:
1) James Inhofe received $484K in campaign contributions from the oil and gas lobby, and $177K from the electric utilities lobby. These industries are his #1 and #5 bankrollers, respectively. (via opensecrets.org)
2) The EPA’s own estimates of the economic benefits of reducing mercury emissions ignore one of the most destructive effects of mercury in the environment: its effect on developing brains. While it’s clear that lowering childhood IQs is costly to the economy, the economic benefits of preventing this damage won’t show up until these healthier children enter the workforce, and are hard to estimate in any case.
What’s the economic value of five IQ points? Fifteen? Because of the way the EPA is forced to measure the economic effects of its regulations, they have to assign the absurd value of $0.
3) While the study tries to drum up sympathy for low-income households, these are the same households that will disproportionately benefit from the improved air quality stemming from these same rules. They’re the ones most likely to live in areas with poor air quality. They’re the ones hit hardest when they have to take an unpaid sick day because their kid has an asthma attack, and the ones least able to afford a doctor’s visit.
If we are truly concerned about the disproportionate effects of increased energy prices on the poor, the proper approach would be to help them pay for energy at the existing price, not to make everyone live with the externalities caused by air pollution in order to drive the price down.
4) NERA has a long and consistent history of producing industry-funded studies that just happen to always oppose more regulation of the industry funding the studies. They often use false assumptions. For example, when coming up with the costs of the MACT regulations, they assumed that every coal plant would have to install new equipment, even though about half are already in compliance with the new regulations. See http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/ to see a long-running war against their iffy, industry-friendly studies.
bryce, you are obviously a liberal fool….we have been using coal for years and years. Where do you think the electric comes from when you plug in your chevy volt????? from coal. We are in deep trouble in the USA and O man wants it that way. Start reading up on the truth about this climate change, and other things. OPEN your mind before it is too late.