IBJNews

U.S. House backs bill to block EPA power plant rule

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Republican-controlled U.S. House moved Thursday to block President Barack Obama's plan to limit carbon emissions from new power plants, an election-year strike at the White House aimed at portraying Obama as a job killer.

Ten coal-state or Southern Democrats joined with Republicans to approve the bill, 229-183. Supporters said the measure was part of a strategy to fight back against what they call the Obama administration's "war on coal."

Obama's proposal, a key part of his plan to fight climate change, would set the first national limits on heat-trapping pollution from future power plants.

A measure sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., would require the Environmental Protection Agency to set carbon emissions standards based on technology that has been in use for at least a year. Republicans and some coal-state Democrats say the EPA rule is based on carbon-capturing technology that does not currently exist and wouldn't make a difference in climate change even it it did.

Many states count on coal for most of their power needs, Indiana, which gets more than 80 percent of its electricity from coal-fired plants.

Whitfield, chairman of a House subcommittee on energy and power, called the power plant proposal "one of the most extreme regulations of the Obama administration," adding that it would "make it impossible to build a new coal-fired power plant in America."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., denounced the measure as "a science-denial bill" that would strip the EPA of its ability to block carbon pollution. Waxman and other Democrats said the bill was a blatant attempt to thwart the EPA and villify the Obama administration in an election year.

The White House has threatened to veto the measure, saying it would "undermine public health protections of the Clean Air Act and stop U.S. progress in cutting dangerous carbon pollution from power plants." Power plants account for about one-third of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, the EPA says.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and other officials have said the proposed rule — the first of two major regulations aimed at limiting carbon pollution from power plants — is based on carbon reduction methods that are "technically feasible" and under development in at least four sites. The rule affecting future plants is a prelude to a more ambitious plan, expected later this year, to control carbon pollution at existing power plants.

In January, McCarthy told the Senate Environment Committee: "We looked at the data available. We looked at the technologies. We made a determination that (carbon capture and storage technology) was the best system for emission reductions for coal facilities moving forward, because it was technically feasible and it would lead to significant emission reductions."

Whitfield and other critics dispute that, saying carbon capture technology is years away from being commercially viable.

The EPA rule would "mandate (emission) control technologies for power plants that are not yet commercially available, effectively banning new coal-fired power plants ... and setting a dangerous precedent that could cascade to other fuels," the National Association of Manufacturers said in a letter supporting Whitfield's bill.

But environmental groups said the bill would gut the EPA's authority to reduce carbon pollution.

"The bill sets up impossible tests for any EPA standard reducing carbon pollution to meet and allows utilities to decide what regulations will be for new power plants — effectively delaying the best emissions reductions technology for years or even decades," the League of Conservation Voters said in a letter urging lawmakers to oppose the bill.

While Whitfield's bill easily cleared the Republican-controlled House, the fate of a companion measure sponsored by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., is less certain.

Manchin has said his bill would ensure that pollution standards imposed by the EPA are realistic, calling the current proposal "unattainable under today's technology."

A spokesman for Manchin said Thursday that the senator plans to meet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats to discuss a path forward for the bill.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • What happened to clean coal???
    It was many election cycles ago that the coal industry was promoting its "Clean Coal" technology. Now that their hand is being called, they say no such technology exists. In the mean time, thousands of jobs are being created in the renewable energy field. Imagine how many more we would create if utilities began to add more of these installations.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

ADVERTISEMENT