Dec 1, 2014 7 min read

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan has taken a hit from Pennsylvania lawmakers and residents, according to a survey taken by a state coal industry group.

According to a news release issued Monday by the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, during a comment period that ended Monday on the EPA’s proposed CPP, 47 state lawmakers, as well as thousands of business owners, electric ratepayers and laborers submitted comments opposing the plan.

PCA spokeswoman Abby Foster said later Monday that state lawmakers opposing the plan included state Sen. Tim Solobay, D-Canonsburg, and state Reps. Pam Snyder, D-Jefferson, and John Maher, R-Upper St. Clair.

Snyder stated in the PCA release that “this plan will affect the coal companies who directly employ the residents in my district and provide a strong tax base that our communities rely on, but it will also have the compounded effect on my entire constituent base and residents statewide who can barely afford the already-increasing electric rates.”

Snyder sponsored House Bill 2354 (now Act 175), also referred to as Pennsylvania’s “look before you leap” legislation. It allows for the inclusion of the state Legislature and educated parties to ensure all aspects and outcomes are considered before Pennsylvania adopts the Clean Power Plan.

The opposition was summarized in a statement by PCA Chief Executive Officer John Pippy.

“We see the Clean Power Plan as dramatic overstepping of EPA’s legal authority under the Clean Air Act,” Pippy said. “It will have dire consequences on state, regional and national economies if enacted. This is not just environmental regulation; it is a forced state energy policy.”

He noted the coal industry and its utility customers have been actively developing advancements in generation efficiencies and pollution reductions, particularly with the development of clean coal technologies in recent years.

“Because of marketplace uncertainty, new development is coming to a standstill and power-producing plants are prematurely closing as the industry and investors await the CPP reveal in June 2015,” PCA said in its release.

It noted eight Pennsylvania power plants – Hatfield’s Ferry, Mitchell, Elrama, Armstrong, New Castle, Portland, Titus and Shawville – already have been deactivated or designated for retirements because of pending air quality rules.

According to PCA, the decommissioned units total more than 5,000 megawatts, enough to power nearly five million homes.

According to the Energy Information Administration, coal accounts for 40 percent of Pennsylvania’s electricity and 39 percent of the electricity generated nationally, making it the top fuel source in the country.

Beyond concerns being expressed by many Pennsylvanians, the EPA’s plan also drew comment from the North American Electric Reliability Corp., whose job is to evaluate and improve the reliability of the bulk power system in the U.S., Canada and parts of Mexico.

While it did no take a stand on the CPP, NERC pointed out that under the proposal, CPP aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, noting that under the EPA proposal, substantial CO2 reductions are required under State Implementation Plans as early as 2020.

“According to the EPA’s Regulatory Impact Assessment, generation capacity would be reduced by between 108 and 134 gigawatts by 2020,” NERC wrote in its initial reliability review published last month. “The number of estimated retirements identified in the EPA’s proposed rule may be conservative if the assumptions prove to be unachieveable. Developing suitable replacement generation resources to maintain adequate reserve margin levels may represent a significant reliability challenge, given the constrained time period for implementation.”

NERC also said it is “concerned that the assumed improvements may not be realized across the entire generation fleet since many plant efficiencies have already been realized and economic heat rate improvements have been achieved.” It said site-specific engineering analyses would be required to determine any remaining opportunities for improvement.

The group also noted that the CPP will accelerate the ongoing shift toward greater use of natural-gas-fired generation and variable energy resources (renewables). It said increased dependence on renewable energy generation will require additional transmission to access areas that have higher-grade wind and solar resources, which are generally located in remote areas. It added that increased natural gas use will require pipeline expansion to maintain a reliable source of fuel, particularly during the peak winter heating season.

NERC also suggested that more time for CPP implementation may be needed to accommodate reliability enhancements.

With regard to fossil fuel-fired plant retirements, NERC recommended that the power-generating regions and states should perform further analyses to examine potential resource adequacy concerns, and said that the EPA and states, along with industry, “should consider the time required to integrate potential transmission enhancements and additions necessary to address impacts to reliability from the proposed CPP.”

The state Department of Environmental Protection has also taken a position on the proposed CPP.

While stating that it recognizes EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, and supports federal efforts to reduce carbon pollution, DEP said in a Nov. 26 letter to EPA that it “believes that there is a credible argument that EPA may not regulate CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired (electric generating units) under CAA section 111(d) because these EGUs are regulated under Section 112, the Mercury Air Toxics regulation.

“Nonetheless, if EPA does have the authority to regulate CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired EGUs under Section 111(d), it must be done in a lawful fashion, and we offer that as proposed the Clean Power Plan will pre-empt states’ authority to establish performance measures for emissions reduction in state plans and inappropriately directs national energy policy.”

DEP said the CO2 emission targets that have been proposed for Pennsylvania “can only be achieved by establishing a state energy plan that regulates the electric energy market, including both generation and end usage, which are both beyond the authority of EPA.”

While PCA was able to track opposing comments in Pennsylvania, the EPA’s CPP also received strong support from environmental groups during hearings this summer in Pittsburgh and other cities around the country.

During the two-day hearings in Pittsburgh, Erie County Executive Kathy Dahlkemper praised the health benefits of reducing carbon pollution, and said her county was working with adjacent counties in Ohio at opportunities to create offshore wind farms on Lake Erie.

“The Clean Power Plan is an important first step in addressing climate change,” she said.

Patrick Grenter, executive director for the Center for Coalfield Justice, also testified during the August hearings, stating that the EPA should strengthen its standard “by prioritizing renewable energy and energy efficiency.

“Communities like those in the Southwestern Pennsylvania coalfields should have a significant role to play in this process now and in the future because they are the ones thatstand to be among the most impacted through this transition to a coal-free generation.”

The EPA is to release the CPP in June.