6.1a ERMUSR 03-13-2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

introduced by Senators Shelley Moore Capito(R-WV)and rate improvements at fossil fuel-fired electric generating units Heidi Heitkamp(D-ND),that would nullify the existing rule. (the affected source),its rule would be on solid legal ground. Unfortunately,the disapproval resolution did not receive the Instead,the agency chose to finalize a rule that imposes emis- number of votes needed to override a presidential veto.On sions reductions that cannot be achieved by affected sources and December 18,2015,President Obama vetoed the disapproval requires the owner or operator of those sources to take actions resolution,as well as another one on the new plant rule.APPA to reduce CO2 emissions that are separate and apart from the supported both disapproval resolutions. source.Thus,APPA challenged EPAs new and existing power plant rules in the U.S.Court of Appeals for the D.C.Circuit. The Association also supported legislation in the 114th American Public Power Association Position Congress to put the CPP on hold until the courts decide on While EPA improved the final rule from its proposed rule,the its legality.APPA also supported disapproval resolutions in the Association believes the final rule goes well beyond what is last Congress under the Congressional Review Act to overturn permissible under Section 111(d) of the CAA,and is strongly EPAs rules for CO2 emissions from new and existing power concerned about its potential impacts on some public power plants and the strong oversight conducted by the House Energy utilities and their customers.APPA believes the agency exceed- &Commerce and Senate Environment&Public Works ed its authority under the CAA when it established standards Committees. of performance for any existing source in the fossil fuel-fired category that are not achieved in practice by an existing EGU through either technological or operational measures that limit APPA Contacts the rate at which CO2 is emitted by that source.The Associa- Desmarie Waterhouse,Vice President,Government Relations, tion is not aware of any precedent under Section 111 whereby &Counsel,202-467-2930/dwaterhouse@publicpower.org EPA has required the owner or operator of a source to take actions separate and apart from the source. Furthermore,the Carolyn Slaughter,Director of Environmental Polity, final rule sets standards that will result in the curtailment or 202-467-2943/cslaughter@publicpower.org closure of some affected facilities and the replacement of their generation by EPA-preferred sources such as wind and solar. EPA has the authority to require existing EGUs to make feasible The American Public Power Association is the voice of improvements in their performance.Nothing in the CAA gives not-for-profit,community-owned utilities that power EPA the authority to tell EGU owners and operators to limit 2,000 towns and cities nationwide.We represent pub operation or shutdown their units and instead generate electrici- lie power before the federal government to protect the ty from other types of sources. interests of the more than 49 million people that public The Association believes we need to address climate change, power utilities serve,and the 93,000 people they em- but not through the existing CAA,which was enacted to address ploy. Our association advocates and advises on electricity criteria pollutants for human health protection and not CO2 policy,technology,trends,training,and operations. Our or other GHG emissions. In spite of the obvious problems with members strengthen their communities by providing regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act,EPA has decided to superior service,engaging citizens,and instilling pride in go forward with its efforts to regulate such gases from existing communityowned power, fossil fuel-fired power plants under Section 111(d). Had EPA proposed a rule that sought to reduce emissions through heat PubLicPower.org 41 223