Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe slammed a Republican draft bill that gives states the upper hand in complying with strict emissions rules at the heart of the president’s climate agenda.
“Although the administration does not have an official position on the discussion draft, I would like to make several basic points that I hope will assist the committee in its consideration of a draft bill that EPA views as premature, unnecessary and ultimately harmful,” McCabe said in opening remarks at a Tuesday House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing.
McCabe’s comments represent one of the first administration responses to the GOP draft bill that she said could delay the emission rules indefinitely. The rules are at the center of the president’s plan to enact strict emission limits on power plants to combat global warming.
The assistant administrator said the draft legislation is “premature” because the emission rules are not final. The draft bill is “unnecessary” because the EPA provides enough flexibility in the proposed rule to overcome any harm that would befall states in complying. Finally, the draft is “harmful” because it would impede progress in fighting climate change — which is a threat to public health.
The draft began being circulated last month by Energy and Commerce Committee energy and power panel Chairman Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., with the support of the full committee’s leadership.
The draft allows states to defer compliance with EPA’s emission rules, also known as the Clean Power Plan, until all litigation opposing the rules has gone through the courts.
The hearing comes just two days ahead of oral arguments in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit challenging the climate plan. Whitfield’s home state is a principal plaintiff in the suit along with West Virginia, Ohio and about a dozen other states.
The draft bill also provides a “safe harbor” for states if governors determine the rules will harm reliability or drive up electric rates for consumers. McCabe argued that the climate rules are flexible enough for states to comply, and saw no need for the legislation.
Whitfield challenged her, calling the Clean Power Plan a “bold move on EPA’s part” that gives states “no flexibility” on setting the emission reduction goals that EPA requires them to meet.
The targets are “unreasonable,” Whitfield said. He said the calculations EPA used to set the targets applied an efficiency improvement to coal plants that no one in the industry says they can meet.
“Did you assume that every coal plant could be improved” when there is “no way they can get a 6 percent” improvement in efficiency, he said.
McCabe responded by saying, “EPA sets the target.”
The emissions rules set state-specific emission reduction targets based on an energy resource mix. The rules seek to curb greenhouse gases from power plants that scientists say are the root cause of manmade climate change. But the way the rule is designed, Whitfield said, it targets states for emission reductions instead of power plants.
He called the structure of the Clean Power Plan an unprecedented use of EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act, and the first time a power plant rule targeted states as emission sources.
In the lawsuits, states argue that the EPA is exceeding its authority to regulate power plants by applying emission reduction targets to entire states. Whitfield asked McCabe “why would anyone object” to the draft bill, especially “with lawsuits filed [and more coming],” to give states additional flexibility by awaiting judicial review before states are asked to comply.
“It’s not radical,” McCabe said, defending against Whitfield’s argument that the rules are unprecedented. “There is a system in place … to test out those legal concerns” under the Clean Air Act, but the draft bill “could lead to an unlimited delay” in implementation, McCabe said.
