Concerns regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon regulations on existing power plants poured in ahead of the December 1 comment deadline. States from Alabama to Wyoming made their voices heard on the many concerns with EPA’s overreaching plan. In addition to higher electricity rates, weakened grid reliability and negligible environmental benefits, comments from state leaders emphasized the legal flaws associated with the plan and stressed the fact that EPA lacks the authority to do what it has proposed.
See what your state leaders have to say about EPA’s costly proposed regulations and learn more about the specific consequences your state could face.
- “If the United States is to offer a high-cost, low-impact, symbolic [carbon] reduction program to spark similar actions world-wide, Congress is the appropriate body to do so.” Submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
- “EPA does not possess the authority to promulgate this Proposed Rule under the Clean Air Act (CAA).” Submitted by the State of Alaska
- “The Agencies urge changes in the Proposed Rule to avoid unreasonable and inequitable results that may include disruptions to electric service and significant cost impacts in Arkansas and in neighboring states.” Submitted by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and the Arkansas Public Service Commission
- “The CPP has the potential to put Georgia at a competitive disadvantage relative to other southeastern states.” Submitted by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
- “…Idaho believes that the EPA lacks the legal jurisdiction to regulate carbon emissions in the overly broad fashion it is proposing.” Submitted by Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter
- “The proposed rules are ill-conceived and poorly constructed. They exceed the legal authority granted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. They seek to fundamentally restructure how our electricity grid functions while making our electricity less reliable. They will contribute to higher electricity prices at a time when our economy can least afford it. They will drive investment to other countries instead of creating jobs here at home. In short, the proposed rules will hurt Indiana and the rest of the country.” Submitted by Governor Mike Pence
- “It is a widely held belief that this rule could initiate unintended consequences and jeopardize price stability and power reliability.” Submitted by Governor Steve Beshear
- “[The proposed rule] jeopardizes the reliability of the electrical grid, unfairly imposes vastly different requirements on states, overestimates purported health benefits, attempts to supplant the sovereign authority of Louisiana by establishing a de facto renewable portfolio standard, and contains numerous other deficiencies.” Submitted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
- “EPA’s proposed final [emissions] goal for Mississippi… is overly aggressive and unachievable.” Submitted by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
- “I feel strongly that this administration has not done enough to advance clean coal technologies… If this administration is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is time that it becomes equally serious about making investments in cleaner coal technology.” Submitted by Governor Steve Bullock
- “EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan does not afford the flexibility for Nebraska to comply as advocated by EPA.” Submitted by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
- “The Clean Power Plan threatens the long-standing authority that states have over energy and resource planning.” Submitted by the State of Nevada.
- “NCDENR believes EPA’s proposed rule … is legally and technically flawed… In defining a specific rate for each state and then mandating each state meet that predetermined rate, EPA runs counter to the U.S. Constitution.” Submitted by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- “If finalized EPA’s Proposed Rule would substantially increase rates North Dakota consumers pay for their electricity, and could significantly impact the reliability of the electrical services they receive . . . the Commission believes that the Proposed Rule is flawed and should not be finalized.” Submitted by the North Dakota Public Service Commission
- “Some of the organizations that have actual responsibility for maintaining grid stability and reliability have warned of ‘cascading outages’ and ‘voltage collapse’ if this plan is implemented as proposed…” Submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
- “For numerous reasons, it is the position of the ODEQ that EPA’s Proposed Rule is fundamentally flawed and unworkable.” Submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
- “Proposed state-specific emission reduction targets for affected [power plants] and the use of ‘outside-the-fence’ measures to establish and achieve the targets are a major concern.” Submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- EPA has set mandatory emissions reductions “with no analysis by EPA as to whether that actually makes sense or is economically reasonable for each state.” Submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
- “EPA’s attempt to control the nation’s electricity markets through the adoption of Rule 111(d) is an unlawful intrusion into areas it has neither the authority nor the expertise to regulate.” Submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
- “As you may know, coal is the dominant source of generating electricity in Utah… Any transition away from this historically low-cost electricity source will have economic repercussions not just for the communities of those employed in the industry but throughout the state in the form of higher electricity prices.” Submitted by Governor Gary R. Herbert and Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox
- “With the finesse of a bull in a china shop, EPA intends to assert itself broadly into new regulatory arenas that impact all areas of the nation’s economy.” Submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
- “[W]e are very concerned the costs of EPA’s proposal will threaten our most reliable energy source and damage our ability to provide affordable energy to our citizens and manufacturing-based economy.” Submitted by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
- “WDEQ’s review finds that the Proposed Rule is fundamentally flawed and should be withdrawn principally because EPA lacks statutory authority to proceed with this rulemaking.” Submitted by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality