If you are unfamiliar with the EPAs overreaching and likely-underachieving Clean Power Plan, you might want to bring it up on your radar -- and quickly. Public comments on this bureaucratic "answer" to climate change are due by Dec. 1.
The Clean Power Plan is a major goal of the Obama administration. The Environmental Protection Agency has been "crafting" it for the best part of six years.
It's a set of EPA rules meant to slow down climate change. And it is one of the largest, most expensive regulations in American history.
Its overall goal sounds simple enough: Force the states to reduce carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030, from whatever they were in 2005.
The Clean Power Plan is built on four building blocks, which vary from state to state: 1) improve the efficiency of coal-fired power plants; 2) keep natural gas plants running at 70 percent (which will encourage an expansion of fracking); 3) bring renewables -- solar, hydro, wind -- to 10 percent generation in Florida (it is now at 2 percent); and 4) improve energy efficiency of consumers through best practices (firming up doors and windows, controlling adjusting home temperature, etc.).
As it happens, it's not remotely as easy as it sounds, as Forbes describes in its story, "Why Environmentalists Should Worry about the EPA's New Clean Energy Plan." It's plain not going to solve the problem.
The problem is, not just critics, but even those working hard to counter the effects of greenhouse gases, have gone from wary to skeptical to downright anti. The closer they work out the plan's details, the more they maintain these rules will adversely impact our entire economy, hurt Americas diverse energy portfolio, and here's the part that bothers them most: result in higher electricity rates while having little benefit to the environment.
The EPAs proposal implements a convoluted new maze of government hoops and red tape for consumers, utility providers, state legislatures and regulators to decipher, said Jo Ann Emerson, CEO of the National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association (NRECA).
More than any other law on the books, the EPAs proposal will dictate exactly how American families and businesses use electricity," she said. "These new layers of bureaucratic red tape jeopardize the ability of electric co-ops to provide affordable, reliable electricity to our more than 42 million members across the country.
The EPA proposal requires every state to file compliance plans to achieve specific emissions targets. As NRECA illustrates in the graphic on this page, state compliance plans will involve many more regulators, legislators, regulated entities of all descriptions than any other environmental regulation to date.
It started with just a smattering of criticism.
In June, when EPA first released the plan,Ted Kury, the director of energy studies at the University of Floridas Public Utility Research Center, took a look and told the Sun-Sentinel, The proposed rule will definitely result in higher rates. The EPA is imposing greater restrictions on the way utilities produce electricity; it is sure to increase costs. The impact on bills, however, will depend on how much less consumers use. And the EPA is assuming that consumers will use less electricity.
The criticism has grown to a full-blown backlash.
A poll of 1,127 likely Florida voters conducted in October by Paragon Insights and supported by the Partnership for a Better Energy Future highlights some of the public reaction to this proposed plan. (Detailed poll results are in the attachment below this commentary.) Close to 50 percent of Florida voters in this poll said they were not willing to pay even one dollar more for energy under the EPA regulations. Not only that, a majority of Florida voters believe that the United States cant afford new costs and potential job losses resulting from the EPA regulations.
In a written statement Florida Retail Federation's Samantha Stratton said, Florida retailers have become energy savvy by devoting resources to ongoing sustainability efforts in order to protect our states treasured beaches, waters, and thriving tourism industry." But, she said, "These poll results demonstrate, once again, Florida voters are wary of another federal government-led overreach.
The poll came on the heels of an economic analysis released by NERA Economic Consulting. Analysts found that compliance with the EPAs plan to regulate emissions from existing power plants would cost more than $366 billion and would drive electricity rates up by 18 percent in Florida.
Mike Murtha, president of the Florida Concrete and Products Association, told Sunshine State News Tuesday, "Instead of hitting Florida with higher energy costs to reach an unreachable goal, the EPA should dump this proposal and come up with one that does less harm to the economy and to consumers and is more realistic."
There was a time, Murtha said, when reasonable people who disagreed could sit down together and work out sensible, workable solutions to difficult problems. He hopes that can happen again.
Ned Bowman, executive director of Florida Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, agreed with Murtha. "Look at ethanol," he said. "That was supposed to save us from foreign oil. But all it did is destroy our equipment because of the humidity.
"One policy won't work for Florida," he told SSN. "We need a mixture, a balance, including coal, nuclear, gas and renewables."
The EPA itself has admitted its power plant rule will cause nationwide electricity price increases of between 6 and 7 percent in 2020, and up to 12 percent in some locations. That's considered by most economists an underestimate.
The EPA projects annual compliance costs between $5.4 billion and $7.4 billion in 2020, rising to $8.8 billion in 2030. These costs dont even factor in economy-wide impacts of more expensive electricity.
Says the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, because American businesses compete on a global scale, rising electricity rates resulting from EPAs rule will place us at a disadvantage. Another big fear -- adding insult to injury, claims the U.S. Chamber -- is that impacted businesses will choose to move overseas, taking their emissions and their jobs with them. America will have fewer jobs, but global emissions wont decrease.
The Chamber also points out energy prices disproportionately harm low-income and middle-income families. Since 2001, energy costs for middle-income and lower-income families have increased by 27 percent, while their incomes have declined by 22 percent. The EPA rules will only exacerbate the trend.
It's true, the Republicans have an easier push-back job against this nightmare of a plan now that they control all of Congress.
The most direct line of attack is a legislative broadside, advanced through the House and Senate to the president's desk, according to a story in Scientific American.Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist at Bracewell & Giuliani, said he expects Republicans to challenge the rule through tailored legislation and also attempt to nullify it through the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overrule federal regulations.
But don't take anything for granted. Your participation is critical and the Dec. 1 comment deadline is only two weeks away. Click here for instructions on how to comment. Make your voice heard.
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: @NancyLBSmith
