The EPA announced the measures last week, saying the proposal was “a path forward for new technologies” that would allow them to be deployed at future facilities to burn coal with less carbon pollution.
One of the nation’s largest producers, Peabody Energy, called the move a failure “on both legal and policy grounds” and noted the move underscored the agency’s track record of not understanding energy basics.
Additionally, the operator said, with automobile fuel currently hovering around $US5 per gallon, the EPA was likely to put Americans under even more price pressure.
“The rule takes an unprecedented and legally suspect move of treating two classes of generating plants – gas and coal – as one class,” Peabody officials said in a statement.
“The rule also ignores the fact that carbon capture and storage technologies are promising but not yet commercially available … and it fails to recognize the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas generation, which studies show may be greater than coal generation.”
Because coal is a backbone of American energy in many regions, the producer said the EPA’s proposal also fails to recognize the “outstanding positive externalities” brought by coal-fueled electricity that create subsequent benefits for US health, jobs and economic benefits from low-cost power.
Peabody officials have called for the rejection or overturning of the proposed rule to “prevent further damage” to the nation’s energy economy and consumers.
“EPA is mandated to protect the health and welfare of the American people through the Clean Air Act. In fact, by making electricity expensive, EPA threatens the health and welfare of our citizens.”
Wyoming governor Matt Mead, leader of the largest coal producing state in the US, said the proposal could have a negative impact on the state’s coal industry as well as the nation’s industry.
“It could be very hurtful to Wyoming and other states, and to the country as a whole,” he said.
“What I think consumers need to recognize is we need energy in this country and oil, gas and coal are the main three…[ and] what [our] mission should be is, how do we continue to develop those and use them in a more clean fashion? In order to have the opportunity to do that you can’t just shut them down.”
Mead’s comments follow last week’s reaction by coal advocacy group the National Mining Association, which said the regulations would “crush jobs and destroy [the] economic recovery” the nation is working to achieve.
“EPA’s proposal for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from about half the nation’s electric power supply is a poorly disguised cap-and-tax scheme that represents energy and economic policy at its worst,” president and chief executive officer Hal Quinn said.
“Requiring coal-based power plants to meet an emissions standard based on natural gas technology is a policy overtly calculated to destroy a significant portion of America’s electricity supply.”
He called the move “the latest convoy in EPA’s regulatory train wreck” that is eliminating US jobs and arresting the recovery of the nation’s economy.
“It is not an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, it does not create jobs, and it does not make it easier for Americans to pay their mortgages,” Quinn said.
“Instead, the proposed new source performance standards would deliberately push America to abandon coal, its most abundant and reliable energy source in favor of costlier fuels – even though Congress has repeatedly rejected this policy.
“NMA urges Congress to assert its authority over an agency that disregards the public need for affordable electricity and ignores the overwhelming costs of its regulations.”
