Members on the House Committee for Energy and Commerce sent a letter on Monday to Michael Regan, Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, requesting an extension on the agency’s proposals on gas and fossil fuels after they failed to provide ample review time.
The EPA’s proposal, titled Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants, would increase standards for combustion turbines, require power plants using fossil fuels to switch to technology that reduced carbon emissions, and have states send and implement plans to transition to cleaner energy sources.
Committee members said in a press release that the standards on gas and coal generators were “strict, costly, and untested,” arguing that the quick compliance requirement would increase chances of energy failures.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a nonprofit centered on the reliability and security of the power gird, has reportedly warned for the past year that over half the U.S. had an “elevated risk” of forced blackouts over the summer.
Committee Chair Cathy Rodgers, R-Wash., and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, said that the EPA’s plans would greatly harm energy reliability for Americans and that the EPA exceeded Congress’ mandated authority.
“The Clean Power Plan has already been the subject of a Supreme Court decision – West Virginia v. EPA – in which the Court found that EPA failed to adhere to Congressional intent,” Rodgers and Johnson wrote in the letter. “By contravening Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act requirements here, the EPA appears to be heading down a similar path.”
West Virginia v. EPA, a case decided in June of last year, stated that the EPA did not have Congressional authority to limit power plant emissions “at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal,” but could still regulate emissions as they have done in the past.
The EPA originally offered only 60 days for initial review of the rule, “despite unprecedented complexity and impacts across a range of states, stakeholders, and communities.” Committee members asked for at least a 60-day extension on the comment period of the proposal in June 2023.
According to members, the EPA initially responded in June 2023 by extending the period by 15 days. They then modified the proposal in early July, three weeks after the extension.
“[The modified proposal contained] new modeling, new factual assertions, and other analyses that change EPA’s original analysis and compliance considerations concerning the Proposal,” Rodgers and Johnson wrote. “This adds substantially to the burden on the public to evaluate and develop fulsome comments.”
These changes caused the committee to reissue their request for a 60-day extension.
Rodgers and Johnson called out the EPA not only for giving an inadequate extension time, but also for announcing the short extension with the potential knowledge that the proposal would change a few weeks later.
“This decision raises serious concerns about your adherence to your Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act responsibilities,” they wrote.
Rodgers and Johnson requested a response from the EPA by August 7.
