Press Launch | Press Releases | Newsroom

06.09.23

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and 27 colleagues called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend the public comment period on EPA’s latest set of proposed power plant regulations which will force the closure of coal and gas power plants.

Senators expressed concern about the limited opportunities the EPO offers for public input, particularly given the far-reaching nature and implications of the proposals.

“Through the rulemaking process currently announced, the EPA has provided minimal opportunity for public input,” the senators wrote. “The agency’s decision to severely limit opportunities for public participation compared to previous regulations is particularly worrying given that the Clean Power Plan 2.0 is a much broader endeavor with far-reaching implications.”

“The American people and the communities we represent must have adequate time to consider, reflect and comment on the proposal and its wider implications,” the senators continued.

Cassidy and Capito were co-signed by US Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), John Boozman (R-AR), Katie Britt (R-AL), Ted Budd (R-NC) and John Cornyn (R-TX). ), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Hoeven (R-ND), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Jim Risch (R-ID), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Tim Scott (R-SC), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Tommy Tuberville (R -AL), JD Vance (R-OH) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Read the full letter here or below:

Dear Administrator Regan:

With this letter, we are raising serious concerns about the limited ability for public participation in the rulemaking process for the Clean Power Plan 2.0 that the EPA announced in the Federal Register last month. In the proposal, EPA announces new legal interpretations and presents sweeping claims about the future availability of technologies and infrastructure used to power our electrical grid. As drafted, the proposal violates statutory limitations on EPA’s powers under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which were clearly articulated by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA. And even if EPA had the authority to enforce EPA’s proposed generational change, which it doesn’t, the records the agency relies on to justify its “best emissions reduction system” determinations are speculative and unfounded.

Despite the size of the proposal and the novel legal and factual foundations it lays out, the EPO has offered little opportunity for public input. EPA must at least extend the comment period by 60 days and establish a more extensive schedule of in-person public hearings in the hardest-hit areas of the country to fully comment on the proposal.

Through the currently announced rulemaking process, the EPA has provided minimal opportunity for public input. The latest proposal only announced a virtual public hearing and a 60-day public comment. EPA’s commitment to the Clean Power Plan 2.0 stands in stark contrast to previous regulations governing the energy sector under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. For example, there have always been several public hearings related to regulation in the energy sector, and comment periods were up to 165 days in 2014 for the proposed Section 111(d) rule and 192 days for the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan in 2018 EPA held public hearings in Chicago, Illinois and Charleston, West Virginia, respectively, and public hearings in Kansas City, Missouri, on the Affordable Clean Energy regulation and the associated repeal of the Clean Power Plan. Gillette, Wyoming; and San Francisco, California. Hearings should also take place in the areas most affected by this proposal.

The agency’s decision to severely limit opportunities for public participation compared to previous regulations is particularly worrying given that the Clean Power Plan 2.0 is a much broader endeavor with far-reaching implications. It is actually five regulations in one. In the agency’s summary of the proposal, EPA indicated that five separate proposals were included in this gargantuan Federal Register notice: a repeal of the affordable clean energy rule; two new proposed regulations under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act covering new and modified power plants; and two different proposed Section 111(d) regulations to cover existing power plants. In addition, the direct costs and impacts far exceed the values ​​reported by the agency. The EPA has tried to attribute almost all of the proposal’s economic and transformative energy impacts to the partisan, disastrous Inflation Act alone. The American people and the communities we represent must have adequate time to consider, ponder, and comment on the proposal and its wider implications.

Please respond to this request no later than June 30, 2023.

###