Southeast Leaders Voice Concerns with EPA’s Proposed Carbon Emissions Regulations
Atlanta, GA – Leaders from key consumer groups, businesses, seniors, and labor and public officials from the nation’s southeast region today convened a press conference with Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) at The Glenn Hotel to voice concerns with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently proposed Clean Power Plan. If enacted, EPA’s proposed rules would significantly squeeze the nation’s energy infrastructure, cause substantial reliability concerns and ensure higher electricity prices across the board.
The proposed rules could cost Americans $17 billion a year more to pay their electricity bill, and hit the economy with $50 billion a year in new costs. These alarming figures are at the center of debate as the EPA continues to host a two-day public hearing on the proposed policies that began today at the Omni Hotel at CNN Center.
Commissioner Chuck Eaton, Chairman, Georgia Public Service Commission:
“Today’s proposed rule will significantly impact not only the operation of existing power plants in Georgia, but also the operation of the electric system as a whole. As Chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, I am deeply concerned that this rule intrudes on the state’s electric regulatory authority. This rule also ignores the thorough process that the PSC undertakes to accomplish its mission. As a result, I am concerned that this rule, in combination with EPA’s proposed rule for new power plants, will increase the cost of power to our citizens and unnecessarily strand investments we have made in the existing generation fleet.”
Commissioner Tim Echols, Georgia Public Service Commission:
“In Georgia, we have made great progress at reducing carbon without a greenhouse gas rule from the EPA,” said Georgia Commissioner Tim Echols. “I’m asking the EPA to slow down and give utilities a chance to retire coal plants at the end of their useful life so we can be better stewards of the ratepayers’ money.”
Michael Whatley, Executive Vice President, Consumer Energy Alliance:
“These proposed regulations would force states to enact policies which would require utilities and electric cooperatives to prematurely shut down coal-fired power plants – either through the implementation of fuel switching requirements or renewable fuel mandates – which will likely lead to higher electricity prices for energy consumers. Additional plant closures will continue to have a real and negative impact on state and local economies. For the most vulnerable among us, including low-income families and seniors living on a fixed budget, higher electricity costs cannot easily be absorbed.”
Lance Brown, Executive Director, PACE:
“EPA’s new carbon dioxide mandate represents the worst possible bargain for America’s power customers – higher electricity prices and an endangered grid with no identifiable impact on global climate. It is a blatant power grab at the expense of the nation’s families and businesses.”
Chris Clark, President and CEO, Georgia Chamber of Commerce:
“Our state is a prime example of what can be done when providers have the opportunity to identify the solutions that make the most sense – not only for them but for the communities they serve. This is something they will no longer be able to do should the EPA’s one-size-fits-all regulations be implemented next year. What the federal government is proposing will force our providers to implement costly solutions that will significantly raise energy prices for both businesses and families throughout our state, our region and our nation, and potentially destroy our global competitiveness and our quality of life.”
Brian Thompson, International Representative, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers:
“Everyone is in favor of a cleaner environment, and to present the issue as being for or against this basic principle is misleading to say the least. The issue is how far and how fast we go to achieve clean air without disrupting our entire economy and devastating an industry and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that go along with it as well as the tax base and economic wellbeing of communities across the land.”
Bryan Tolar, President, Georgia Agribusiness Council:
“Pushing regulations that drive up the cost of agribusiness production is effectively making our country dependent on foreign sources for the food and fiber sectors that built America. These regulations are stripping away our competitive edge and handing it to China and Brazil on a silver platter. We strongly urge the Administration not to lose sight of its stated commitment to an “all of the above” energy strategy which is designed not to favor one fuel source over another. Let technology and the market play a role in energy production and get the heavy hands of government out of the way.”
Jim Martin, Founder and Chairman, 60 Plus Association:
“President Obama’s War on Coal is an unmitigated War on seniors. If implemented, EPA’s radical regulations – aimed at shutting down coal fired power plants – the cheapest and most reliable source of electricity – will ‘necessarily skyrocket’ (as Candidate Obama once said) the cost of electricity and the power bills of senior citizens. To the elderly, especially those on fixed incomes, such an increase would be an economic disaster for them. Coal provides the reliable and affordable electricity America needs. America’s economy runs on coal, senior’s lives literally depend on coal.”
Candidates who engage voters on energy issues will win in November
Consumer Energy Alliance President David Holt explains in an op-ed penned in the Midland Reporter-Telegram how candidates who engage voters on energy issues will win in November.
Polling conducted for Consumer Energy Alliance this spring in key U.S. Senate races found that energy issues, including the Keystone XL Pipeline, are very important in terms of how someone will vote. Support in the nine states ranged from 67 percent of voters in Kentucky to 84 percent in Colorado, with the other seven states seeing support above 70 percent.
Keystone XL is not the only energy issue startling voters.
Control of the U.S. Senate could hinge on the outcome of two sleeper races in Iowa and New Hampshire. Voters in these states are connecting the cost of their electricity and home heating bills with who they will vote for in November. In Iowa, 55 percent of voters said they support generating electricity using coal-fired power plants. In New Hampshire, 72 percent of voters said they support expanding existing natural gas pipelines or building new ones to increase natural gas supplies for electricity generation and home heating.
When it comes to a debate over the cost of basic necessities such as heat or electricity, voters will not give candidates much wiggle room. The candidate who can make the case that their vote will support policies that make prices affordable is going to win over their electorate.
Energy is an issue on the mind of voters as they head into the voting booth.
In Colorado, 52 percent of voters said they would be less likely to support incumbent Democrat Mark Udall if the president denied Keystone XL. In North Carolina, where Kay Hagan faces Republican Thom Tillis, 49 percent of voters say they would be less likely to support Hagan if Keystone XL is denied.
Polling shows energy issues are important to voters. The campaigns for U.S. Senate will show which candidates are capable of communicating to energy consumers.
Keystone XL’s southern leg pumped billions into Texas and Oklahoma, so what’s Obama waiting for on the northern link?
Citing a study backed by the Consumer Energy Alliance, the Washington Examiner reports on the numerous economic benefits the Keystone XL’s southern leg has pumped into Texas and Oklahoma.
President Obama has delayed making a decision on whether to approve construction of the northern leg of the proposed Keystone XLpipeline for nearly six years.
Meanwhile, the recently completed southern leg of the pipeline, which connects the huge pipeline storage hub in Cushing, Okla., with Gulf Coast refineries in Texas and Louisiana, has pumped billions of dollars into the regional economy.
That flow of investment has also sparked creation of thousands of new jobs, especially in Oklahoma and Texas, according to an economic impact study.
Wide and deep
The study by the Consumer Energy Alliance found completion of the southern leg of Keystone involved:
- $2.3 billion in private-sector investment.
- Six modern pump stations.
- More than 11 million hours of labor completed by 4,844 workers in the United States of America — heavy equipment operators, welders, laborers, transportation operators and supervisory personnel (including environment, safety and quality control inspectors).
- More than 50 contracts with U.S. manufacturers and companies building the pipeline and equipment in locations that include: Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.
- The manufacturing of more than 485 miles of high-strength, advanced oil pipeline (36-inch diameter); hundreds of large valves; thousands of fittings; thousands of pieces of equipment used to build transformers, meters, electric motors, cabling and electrical equipment; and piping assembling and structural steel for supports.
- About 2.25 million barrels of new oil storage capacity at Cushing, Okla.
Beaucoup bucks
An estimated $5.7 billion was pumped into the Oklahoma ($2.1 billion) and Texas ($3.6 billion) economies by the construction, according to the study.
That included significant spending in 24 counties in the two states that are considered low-income areas, as well as some $72 million in new tax revenues.
“Building the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline can do the same for the northern states if only the president would approve the permit which he has delayed for almost 6 years for political reasons,” the Institute for Energy Research said.
EPA mandate puts Pennsylvania’s energy supply, consumers at risk
Consumer Energy Alliance Mid-Atlantic Director Mike Butler penned a blog for ShaleReporter.com about how new regulations proposed by the Obama Administration’s EPA threaten Pennsylvania’s energy supply landscape and the consumers who depend on it.
In 2008, then Sen. Barack Obama boldly told the San Francisco Chronicle, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
It’s a statement we immediately wished he’d take back after being elected president, or at least one he wouldn’t follow through on.
Unfortunately, he’s sticking to his word. Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed a plan to set a national target of lowering carbon-dioxide emissions — from 2005 levels — by 25 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030.
The rule will not be finalized until next year, but then Pennsylvania coal-fired power plants will have only until June 2016 to develop and submit plans for cutting CO2 emissions by nearly 32 percent. That’s very little time to prepare a sensible plan.
This proposal puts the Commonwealth’s energy sector – and the economic security and stability that it supports – at risk. It’s a major blow to Pennsylvania, which theU.S. Energy Information Administration says was the fourth largest coal-producing state in the nation in 2012. It is also the only state producing anthracite coal, which has a higher heat value than other kinds of coal.
These new rules could require coal-fired power plants with the tough choice to either upgrade or shut down. Since Pennsylvania generated 40% of its net electricity from coal in 2013, both choices will likely mean higher electricity prices for consumers. The president said so himself just last month.
If coal-fired utilities close prematurely, how will Pennsylvania fill the gap while meeting growing consumer energy demands? And how will hardworking consumers afford the projected increases in energy costs? A report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce projects that American consumers’ disposable income would decrease by $200 next year and by nearly $400 within a decade.
In addition to higher electricity prices, expect to pay more for everyday goods and economic growth to be stagnant. One of the main components of a growing economy is the creation of good-paying jobs. It’s hard to imagine that will happen when nearly 63,000 men and women, including 8,100 miners, work in jobs supported by the coal industry in Pennsylvania.
Indirectly, other industries and businesses will be impacted. When employers pay more for energy costs, something has to give. That’s traditionally money to spend on employees. The Chamber of Commerce says that the mid-Atlantic region, which includes my home state of Pennsylvania, could lose nearly 14,000 jobs every year between now and 2030. Additionally, the EPA claims that the region could suffer economic losses of $7.5 billion every year until 2030.
Instead of eliminating energy sources, Pennsylvania needs to have all options on the table – including nuclear, natural gas, renewables and coal – to ensure that utilities and electric cooperatives can deliver affordable and reliable electricity to families, factories and farms without damaging the economy.
That’s why Consumer Energy Alliance continues to support an all-of-the-above approach that will prove itself as a successful path for the future, allowing energy supplies to be more secure and affordable for consumers.
And an all-of-the-above approach means that all energy sources, even coal, must remain strongly in the equation.
Southwestern Louisiana booming thanks to natural gas
David Holt, president of Consumer Energy Alliance, describes in the American Press how new shale energy production has triggered a wave of economic prosperity throughout Louisiana, thanks to an uptick in capital investment from global companies, particularly in the state’s southwestern region.
It’s no secret that Louisiana is a titan in the refining and petrochemical manufacturing sector.
But some Louisianans may not be aware of how new domestic production of cheaper oil and natural gas — particularly in the southwestern region of the state — has triggered a wave of economic prosperity thanks to an uptick in capital investment from global companies.
“The economy here is real good in Southwest Louisiana because the backbone of Southwest Louisiana is the industries,” said Calcasieu Parish Police Jury President and District 14 representative Hal McMillin. “We have petrochemical industries and refining industries. We have the best of both worlds.”
According to state officials, Louisiana’s supremacy throughout these sectors — and the ample economic benefits that stem directly and indirectly from them — is multiplying.
Take, for instance, plans that are underway by Sasol to invest between $16 billion and $21 billion in an integrated gas-to-liquids (GTL) and ethane cracker complex in Westlake, a manufacturing multiplex that will generate 1,253 jobs that will pay, at full employment, nearly $88,000 annually, plus benefits. In addition, the project will produce almost 6,000 new jobs.
According to the state Economic Development office, this one-of-a-kind GTL facility — the largest foreign manufacturing investment in state history — will produce high-quality transportation fuels and numerous other value-added chemical products that not only burn cleaner but also perform at higher levels, two traits that significantly reduce emissions.
The ethane cracker will manufacture 1.5 million tons per annum of ethylene, a chemical building block for alcohol — and plastics-based products that is used in everyday consumer goods.
What does this project mean for Southwest Louisiana? In addition to the 6,000 jobs, the project is anticipated to have a total economic impact of $46.2 billion over the next 20 years, leading to thousands of other employment opportunities.
“You think about the jobs that are going to be created at the plant, but there will also be jobs created outside the plant to these different contractors and vendors who will be supplying the plant,” McMillin said.
This project is just one of several developments happening throughout Southwest Louisiana. Altogether, about $65 billion in investments are underway, all thanks to abundant domestically produced natural gas that is made possible because of the shale revolution created by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.
“That’s awesome,” McMillin said. “Those kinds of numbers are unheard of. And a lot of this is coming from the technology of being able to frack the gas now and the low prices of natural gas have really made an economic book for Southwest Louisiana.”
Simply put, this growing resource makes it attractive for companies and manufacturers — foreign and domestic — to set up operations in Southwest Louisiana, situated along the Gulf Coast.
“We have seen local industries that have been here that want to expand. That’s tremendous for Southwest Louisiana,” McMillin said. “We’re even going to boom more. It’s really a golden era for us in economic development.”
The benefits are almost too good to believe — but they are real, and other parts of Louisiana and the nation have greatly benefited.
“I don’t know if the people of the nation know what’s going on here, but wake up guys, this is the place to be,” McMillin said
CEA could not agree more. However, some anti-energy groups are intent on misleading American consumers about the benefits of our energy renaissance — and the lower energy costs and prosperity that come with it — in an attempt to stop fracking — as well as power generation, nuclear production, wind and solar installation, to name but a few. The economic effects in Southwest Louisiana prove we can bring forth new jobs and new tax revenues to fund schools and local initiatives. And we can produce and use this energy in an environmentally sound manner.
That is why it is vital that we continue to educate Louisianans — and all Americans — about the many opportunities that shale energy offers. Today’s energy renaissance is the latest chapter in our pursuit of the American dream.
CEA discusses electrical grid amid carbon rules
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review interviewed David Holt, president of Consumer Energy Alliance, for a story detailing what problems might await electrical power grids in the coming years, and how delaying action now could lead to long-term troubles in the future.
If the electrical grid that powers the United States encounters a supply problem, the easiest solution takes five years.
That’s the minimum time it takes to build a large, natural gas-fired generation station, from siting to lining up investors, permitting and constructing.
“If you wait until you have a power problem, you’ve got a five-year problem,” said Bill Pentak, a vice president at Dallas-based Panda Power Funds.
The company is building seven gas-fired plants, including the Liberty and Patriot projects in the Marcellus shale fields of Bradford and Lycoming counties, because it believes the ever-increasing amount of gas from shale will become the grid’s backbone.
Not everyone agrees.
“Natural gas cannot replace nuclear, it cannot replace coal,” U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, said during a Department of Energy hearing in Pittsburgh.
Some leaders and observers worry that a spike in demand, accelerated retirements of coal-fired plants pinched by new carbon rules, and the shuttering of more nuclear reactors could lead to grid failures and expensive utility bills in the next five to 10 years.
“There is a coming storm as demand keeps going up,” said David Holt, president of the Houston-based Consumer Energy Alliance, which advocates for energy users.
Some of the disagreement about what should power the grid comes from economic and regulatory uncertainties. Experts assume more coal plants will close — and almost none will be built — because of Environmental Protection Agency emissions rules such as those opening to public comment this week in Pittsburgh.
Low natural gas prices are muscling more expensive coal plants out of contention when regional grid operators select long-term capacity providers, observers say.
But it’s unclear when or how carbon rules will affect cleaner-burning coal plants. The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups said last week they would challenge the rules.
“They’re throwing it back to the states without funding,” Holt said. “It’s a poorly conceived plan that will create more confusion.”
The EPA said electric rates will increase, and it assumes that demand for electricity will drop because of energy efficiency. Others say demand will increase as the economy improves.
The Energy Information Administration predicts natural gas will fuel nearly three-quarters of capacity added to the grid during the next 25 years and eventually overtake coal as the dominant source, with increased support from renewables such as solar and wind.
“We think natural gas is the only thing that’s left for people to rely on,” Pentak said.
That concerns observers who worry about too much reliance on one volatile source.
“We can expect more blackouts and brownouts and much higher prices,” Murphy said.
POLAR VORTEX
Murphy, chairman of oversight and investigations for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, joined others at the energy hearing last week raising concerns about a chronic lack of pipelines and other infrastructure required to deliver gas from shale fields to metro areas.
In addition to the five years required to build a plant, pipeline builders such as the Williams Cos. report taking seven years to navigate a regulatory morass to connect the gas.
“Was seven years really in the best general interest of the public?” said Rory Miller, a senior vice president at the Tulsa-based Williams, describing the time it took to get approvals for its Rockaway pipeline project in New York.
The polar vortex that brought harsh weather in January and February highlighted pipeline shortcomings when utilities couldn’t get enough gas to the Northeast.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said it showed what low supply diversity can do, when more than half of generators in New England rely on a fuel that suddenly wasn’t available.
“Another polar vortex could cause issues,” Moniz told the Tribune-Review.
NOT THERE YET
“A lot of challenges” await the grid, including the integration of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, Moniz said. The Energy Information Administration predicts a big increase in that sector, but its low efficiency means it can’t be a baseload provider.
“Wind and solar aren’t there yet,” Holt said.
Baseload power refers to the amount of electricity that utility or distribution company customers require each day to meet minimum demands.
Liberty and Patriot, the gas-fired plants Panda Power Funds is building in Pennsylvania, each will have capacity to produce 829 megawatts of electricity from plants covering 34 and 85 acres, respectively. Compare that to the company’s 20-megawatt solar array on 134 acres in Pilesgrove, N.J., or the proposed $1 billion, 1,600-acre Crescent Dunes solar project in Nevada that will have a capacity of 110 megawatts.
“We would need 5,000 acres of solar panels to do what we’re going to do on 34 acres,” Pentak said.
Nuclear power offers base-load potential with little greenhouse effect impact, advocates note. But concern about nuclear waste and disasters such as the Fukushima meltdown in Japan make it politically unpopular.
“There’s a misunderstanding among consumers about the economics of the nuclear fleet, not to mention its reliability,” said former U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, part of the leadership team at Nuclear Matters, a Washington group seeking to maintain that fleet of about 100 reactors.
The Energy Information Administration says two reactors will retire by 2019 and predicts more will follow. The World Nuclear Association expects six reactors to come online by 2020.
If more are decommissioned, construction of replacements would take at least 10 years, Holt said.
PROTECTING THE GRID
That leaves coal as the most reliable source, Murphy and others say. He said the United States should invest more money in finding ways to burn it more efficiently to meet emissions standards.
The Energy Information Administration predicts reliance on coal to produce electricity will decrease about 16 percent by 2020, but it will remain the dominant fuel until at least 2034.
During that downturn, regional grid operators such as PJM Interconnection in Valley Forge can maintain reliability by requiring generators to give a 90-day notice before retiring a power plant on the grid. It can ask a generator to remain in business longer if a study determines the retirement will harm the grid, said PJM spokesman Ray Dotter.
PJM contracts with generators three years in advance to provide capacity. If one of those generators decides to shut down before that contract expires, “they’re on the hook to either supply it or provide a replacement.”
Five Things You Should Know About What the EPA is Doing to Electricity Prices
The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan sets a national target for lowering CO2 emissions, a 25% reduction compared to 2005 levels by the year 2020 and 30% reduction by the year 2030.
Consumers Urge Offshore Energy Expansion
More than 125,000 US consumers support a robust offshore energy development program. Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) and its partner organizations have submitted these comments to the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) just before the end of the comment period on a new five-year offshore energy leasing plan. The current plan expires in 2017; the new plan would cover 2017 to 2022.
American consumers overwhelmingly support a commonsense energy policy that includes expanding access to offshore areas where responsible exploration for oil and natural gas can be done. In all, 128,042 comments were garnered on behalf of CEA, including:
- 31,325 from consumers in the Gulf Coast states
- 41,753 from consumers along the Atlantic Coast
In the federal government’s current leasing program, only the western and central portions of the Gulf of Mexico and some limited areas off the Alaskan coast are available for leasing. Altogether, 87% of offshore areas have been closed off from energy development.
“Just imagine the economic benefits that hardworking consumers would get if other areas off the Atlantic coast or eastern region of the Gulf of Mexico were open for energy production too,” says David Holt, President of Consumer Energy Alliance.
“CEA and our 400,000 members from every sector of the US economy strongly value the contributions that domestic energy production has had for our nation’s consumers,” Holt says. “CEA has long advocated for expanded access to responsible offshore energy production as a means to grow our economy and lower energy prices. We urge the BOEM to listen to the more than 125,000 consumers and 150 companies and organizations who have joined CEA in calling on the federal government to allow access to our resources. We can protect our environment AND develop our domestic energy resources. Those who argue this is the environment vs energy production do nothing more than hurt consumers, limit jobs and stifle economic growth.”
This is why opening up new offshore areas for responsible energy development is a welcome initiative for Americans interested in energy security, advocates suggest:
From Louisiana Chemical Association’s Dan Borné:
“Continued and expanded access to all areas of the Gulf of Mexico will increase these economic gains for Gulf Coast residents and ensure that the Gulf Coast continues to supply American consumers across the country with reliable crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas. As a Louisiana trade association consisting of more than 60 chemical manufacturers, we depend on natural gas and petroleum products for feed stocks, intermediates, boiler fuels and other production uses.”
From Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA) President & CEO Brett Vassey:
“VMA has long been an advocate for developing domestic energy resources. Sustainable economic growth in manufacturing is contingent upon reliable and affordable energy and fuels. VMA supports responsible evaluation, leasing and drilling activities in the OCS. Not only would manufacturers benefit from the additional energy resources, the increase in energy reliability and security but we would also benefit from the increased economic activity.”
From South Carolina Palmetto AgriBusiness Council Executive Director Cathy Novinger:
“South Carolina, like other states located along the Atlantic coast, has an opportunity to contribute to our nation’s energy supply stability as well as increase our state’s revenues…All businesses, consumers and agriculture would benefit from a greater supply of domestically produced fuel, strengthening America’s energy security and keeping energy costs under control.”
Alaska Trucking Association’s Executive Director Aves Thompson: “Off Alaska, it is vital that the United States maintain and accelerate opportunities to develop offshore oil and gas, particularly in the resource-rich Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. In addition to boosting U.S. economic growth, Alaskan offshore development will help extend the longevity of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).”
The U.S. Outer Continental Shelf has more than 6,200 active oil and gas leases covering approximately 34 million acres. These leases produce 18 percent of domestic oil production and 5 percent of domestic natural gas production. But these areas hold an estimated 89.93 billion barrels of oil and 404.52 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that have yet to be tapped.
Western Leaders Voice Concerns with EPA’s Proposed Carbon Emissions Regulations
Denver, Co. – Leaders from key consumer groups, businesses, seniors, and labor and public officials from the nation’s western region today convened a press conference with Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) at The Oxford Hotel to voice concerns with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently proposed Clean Power Plan.
If enacted, EPA’s proposed rules would significantly squeeze the nation’s energy infrastructure, cause substantial reliability concerns and ensure higher electricity prices across the board.
The proposed rules could cost Americans $17 billion a year more to pay their electricity bill, and hit the economy with $50 billion a year in new costs. These alarming figures are at the center of debate as the EPA continues to host a two-day public hearing on the proposed policies that began today at the EPA Region 8 Building in Denver.
Sean McCarville, Business Manager, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers- Local 111:
“In an environment where Colorado and the nation continues to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression, EPA’s Clean Power Plan would have a major effect on urban areas while negatively impacting fragile rural communities who receive their energy through electric co-ops. In addition, the approximately 3,500 Local 111 members who work for electric association/co-ops, generation/transmission companies, and investor-owned utilities will see a substantial threat to their middle-class careers; careers that include health and retirement benefits.”
Andrew Browning, Executive Vice President, Consumer Energy Alliance:
“EPA’s aggressive timeline allows states only one year to develop a very complex plan that will need to address a series of adjustments to their electricity generation, consumption and energy infrastructure. Forcing through regulations of this magnitude in such a short timeframe will limit the ability of states and stakeholders to thoughtfully prepare for the drastic changes that this rule will cause. If this Administration is comfortable spending more than five years evaluating the Keystone XL pipeline, it should feel comfortable taking its time to craft a thoughtful rule that fully evaluates the consequences of its proposed actions.”
Brent Boydston, Vice President of Public Policy, Colorado Farm Bureau:
“Agriculture relies heavily on energy for day-to-day operations. Energy is required to run irrigation systems, feed livestock, plant fields, and harvest, transport and process food. The current proposal by EPA will make daily operations more expensive and unfairly burden farmers and ranchers.”
Shawn Taylor, Executive Director, Wyoming Rural Electric Association:
“It doesn’t take a study to see what the impact if this rule will be. When power plants close, we lose jobs.”
