Articles

Today Congressman Kevin Cramer requested Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secretary Gina McCarthy rescind her agency’s proposed restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions for existing power plants. The plan announced last week by the EPA would force states to comply with specific restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions for existing power plants determined by the agency.

“Your proposed rules would only stifle the progress North Dakota and other states are making toward cleaner, safer, and more reliable energy production while harming the American ratepayer. The United States Chamber of Commerce estimates that regulations with similar goals will cost the American economy more than $50 billion per year for the next 15 years. The questionable interpretation of the Clean Air Act used to promulgate these rules is also very concerning to me, and I suspect many states including North Dakota will be forced to consider costly litigation against this regulation,” wrote Cramer in a letter to McCarthy sent this afternoon.

Earlier this year Cramer helped introduce the Electricity Security and Affordability Act, which would prevent the Obama Administration from going forward with such regulations by requiring Congressional approval. The legislation passed the House of Representatives on March 6, but has not been considered by the Senate.

Cramer is also an original cosponsor of H.R. 4813, which would terminate both the proposed rule for existing power plants and an earlier proposal for new power plants, and prevent the EPA from issuing a similar rule for five years, and require authorization by Congress to do so. This legislation was introduced yesterday in the House of Representatives.

The signed copy of the letter from Congressman Cramer to Secretary McCarthy can be viewed here. A copy of the text is below:

When the current Administration controlled both chambers of Congress five years ago, both parties came together in the U.S. Senate to reject cap-and-trade. Now your agency is seeking to subvert Congress by forcing states to reduce carbon emissions. The draft rule published on Monday, June 2, 2014, entitled “Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” pushes the American energy consumer to the wayside in pursuit of questionable climate science.

Prior to serving North Dakota in the House of Representatives, I was a Public Service Commissioner for ten years, overseeing coal mining and electric utility operations in our state. The lignite coal industry in North Dakota, a state of approximately 700,000 citizens, contributes to the employment of more than 17,000, and has an annual economic impact in our state of more than three billion dollars while contributing to some of the lowest electric rates in the country year after year.

We use our lignite to generate electricity for more than two million citizens in the Upper Midwest, to generate synthetic natural gas for over 400,000 homes in the east, and to generate fertilizer for agriculture. We capture carbon for re-injection into old oil wells for further recovery. We truly embrace conservation by reutilizing coal ash to enhance a long list of products including concrete, paint, and lumber.

At the same time, we are one of very few states that meets all ambient air quality standards as prescribed by your agency for actual air pollutants and have returned thousands of surface coal mine acres back into other productive land uses. North Dakota is proof you do not have to compromise the environment for fossil fuel development.

Yet your proposed rules would only stifle the progress North Dakota and other states are making toward cleaner, safer, and more reliable energy production while harming the American ratepayer. The United States Chamber of Commerce estimates that regulations with similar goals will cost the American economy more than $50 billion per year for the next 15 years. The questionable interpretation of the Clean Air Act used to promulgate these rules is also very concerning to me, and I suspect many states including North Dakota will be forced to consider costly litigation against this regulation.

For these and many other reasons, I respectfully ask you rescind the proposed rule and instead allow states, researchers, and industry to lead the way towards cleaner energy, just as they have successfully done in the past.