Economy Derailed: State-by-State Impacts of the EPA Regulatory Train Wreck
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Economy Derailed: State-by-State Impacts of the EPA Regulatory Train Wreck



Economy Derailed details the most onerous EPA regulations and their specific consequences on state economies. The report highlights the environmental quality improvements made over the past few ...

Economy Derailed details the most onerous EPA regulations and their specific consequences on state economies. The report highlights the environmental quality improvements made over the past few decades, provides an exhaustive reference list of organizations and groups that oppose the EPA overreach, and makes recommendations on how state legislators can play a role in maintaining state sovereignty over environmental protection.

For more information, please visit



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Economy Derailed: State-by-State Impacts of the EPA Regulatory Train Wreck Economy Derailed: State-by-State Impacts of the EPA Regulatory Train Wreck Presentation Transcript

  • iiiAPRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMABOUT THE AMERICAN LEGISLATION EXCHANGE COUNCILThe American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of statelegislators, with more than 2,000 members across the nation. ALEC is committed to advancing the Jeffersonian principles of freemarkets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty. ALEC is classified by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, public policy, and educational organization. Individuals, philanthropic foundations, corporations, companies, orassociations are eligible to support ALEC’s work through tax-deductible gifts.ABOUT ALEC’S ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND AGRICULTURE TASK FORCEALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture (EEA) Task Force promotes the mutually beneficial link between a robust economyand a healthy environment, and seeks to enhance the quality and use of our natural and agricultural resources for the benefit ofhuman health and well-being. The Task Force works with more than 250 public- and private-sector members to develop model bestpractices legislation on issues such as climate change, agriculture, environmental health, regulatory reform, federalism, chemicalregulation, property rights, waste management, and public lands. Rep. David Wolkins of Indiana serves as the Task Force’s public-sector chairman, and Martin Shultz of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck serves as private-sector co-chairman. Todd Wynn is the taskforce director, and can be reached at or 202.742.8542.Economy Derailed: State-by-State Impacts of the EPA Regulatory Train Wreck© 2012 American Legislative Exchange CouncilAll rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproducedor distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system without the prior permission of the publisher.Published byAmerican Legislative Exchange Council1101 Vermont Ave., NW, 11th FloorWashington, DC 20005Phone: 202.466.3800Fax: 202.466.3901www.alec.orgDesigned for ALEC byJason Keisling
  • ivECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKEXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................... vOVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................................................... 1SECTION 1: THE CAUSES OF ECONOMIC DERAILMENT...................................................................................................... 10Utility MACT Rule........................................................................................................................................................ 10Boiler MACT Rule........................................................................................................................................................ 13Cross-State Air Pollution Rule...................................................................................................................................... 15Regulation of Coal Combustion Residues..................................................................................................................... 17Cooling Water Intake Regulation................................................................................................................................. 19Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing............................................................................................................................... 22Ozone Regulation........................................................................................................................................................ 25Mining Restrictions and Regulation............................................................................................................................. 26Greenhouse Gas Regulations....................................................................................................................................... 29SECTION 2: ECONOMY DERAILED: STATE-BY-STATE IMPACT PROFILES.............................................................................. 34SECTION 3: BROAD AND DIVERSE COALITION OPPOSING THE EPA................................................................................... 60SECTION 4: TOOLS FOR STATE LEGISLATORS..................................................................................................................... 73APPENDIX: ....................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Glossary of Terms........................................................................................................................................................ 79 References.................................................................................................................................................................. 81TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • vAPRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun a waron the American standard of living. During the past couple ofyears, the Agency has undertaken the most expansive regulatoryassaultinhistoryontheproductionanddistributionofaffordableand reliable energy. As of 2010, EPA regulations promulgatedunder the Obama Administration had already surpassed theAgency’s regulatory output in the entire first term of Bill Clinton,which, as the Wall Street Journal notes, was a period in which“the EPA had just been handed broad new powers” under the1990 revisions to the Clean Air Act. With 30 major regulationsand more than 170 policy rules still being finalized in the nextfive years, the extent of EPA actions could surpass its entire 40-year history of regulation.Numerous regulations, all proposed within a short timeframe,have created regulatory chaos and uncertainty, stagnatinginvestment as the economy attempts to recover from recession.These regulations are causing the shutdown of power plantsacross the nation, forcing electricity generation off of coal,destroying jobs, raising energy costs, and decreasing reliability.Economy Derailed:State-by-StateImpacts of theEPA’s RegulatoryTrain Wreck sheds light on a few of the more onerous regulationsthat will hit all Americans in the next few years, and on some ofthe impacts that the nation is already experiencing. This reportcovers the economic effects of the Utility MACT Rule (also knownas the MATS Rule), the Boiler MACT Rule, the Cross-State AirPollution Rule, coal ash residuals regulation, cooling water intakeregulation, potential EPA regulation of hydraulic fracturing,ozone regulation, restrictions and regulations on mining, andgreenhouse gas regulations.Major findings in the report include:• Environmental quality in the United States continues toimprove, despite the doomsday rhetoric coming from theEPA and environmental groups. Mercury, carbon monoxide,ozone, lead, nitrogen oxide, particulates, fine particulates,and sulfur dioxide have all decreased in both ambientconcentrations in the atmosphere and in total emissions.• Affordableandreliableenergyhasdirectlyledtoahighstandardof living by allowing Americans to devote more resources tohealth-promoting activities such as diet, health care, andexercise rather than heating, cooling, and transportation costs.By contrast, unnecessary and burdensome environmentalregulations do have negative health impacts that resultfrom income being diverted away from health-promotingexpenditures toward energy costs. These impacts are farworse for lower-income populations, because energy makesup a larger proportion of their budget.• The Utility MACT (MATS) Rule could require retrofits for upto 753 electricity-generating units, and up to 15 gigawattsof electricity could be forced into early retirement. Thestandards are so stringent that even recently permittedplants employing the best available technology cannot meetthem, and no new coal plants are likely to be built. Althoughat odds with just about every independent cost estimate, theEPA’s estimate of annual cost is approximately $11 billion,and its estimate of annual health benefits from the reductionin mercury is only $6 million.• The Boiler MACT Rule risks nearly 800,000 jobs nationwide,EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  • viECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKand the EPA has not estimated a single health benefit forreducing the pollutants that this rule was intended to address.• The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule could threaten up to 7gigawatts of electricity generation with early retirement,affecting reliability and affordability of electricity. The EPAestimates that the rule could cost $2.4 billion annually, yet thenewestdatarevealsthattheCSAPRmaynotevenbenecessary,because emissions have declined during the past few years.• Theregulationofcoalcombustionresidueswillhavesignificantconsequences on electricity generation and a robust recyclingindustry in the United States. The EPA estimates the averageregulatory cost, for the next 50 years, to be almost $1.5 billionper year. Other estimates have found that the price tag couldrun up to $20 billion annually. In addition, states themselvesalready have regulatory structures in place, meaning that EPAaction would be a redundant, burdensome layer of regulation.• Cooling water intake regulation could affect more than 1,000coal, oil steam, and gas steam generating units (totaling 252gigawatts) as well as roughly one third of all installed nuclearcapacity (approximately 60 gigawatts). This could threaten upto 41 gigawatts with early retirement, and would also affectelectric reliability across the country.• The further tightening of ozone standards could mean thatapproximately 85 percent of the nation would be in non-attainment of a strict standard that has already been deemedunnecessary. By 2020, the standard could threaten up to 7.3million jobs.• TheEPAhasbegunawaragainstcoalminingbyhaltingalreadyapproved permits, holding back and unnecessarily delayingpermits, and even revoking previously issued permits. Theclosure of coal plants resulting merely from EPA air qualityregulations puts 27,000 coal mining jobs at risk.• Estimates show that the regulation of greenhouse gases willlead to significant increases in energy costs, with increases of50 percent for gasoline and residential electricity prices, 75percent for industrial electricity prices and residential naturalgas prices, and 600 percent for electric utility coal prices.These costs come with little to no environmental benefit.• StateeconomicimpactsoftheEPAtrainwreckvarydependingupon the percentage of the state’s electricity derived fromcoal, whether coal mining operations exist within the state,and the makeup of the state’s industries. The top ten statesimpacted by the EPA regulatory train wreck are Illinois, WestVirginia, Ohio, Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania,Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina.• A broad and diverse coalition opposes EPA overreach. In sum,32 current and former governors and lieutenant governors,27 groups of state and local officials, 16 labor unions, 17 statelegislative bodies, 10 state agencies, and 57 trade associationshave openly voiced opposition to the escalating EPA expansion.This coalition represents millions of workers, thousands ofstate officials, tens of thousands of companies, more than3,000 counties, more than 19,000 cities, villages, and towns,and thousands of state legislators across the country.Given all of this EPA regulatory activity, it is essential forconcerned state legislators to get involved and stop theeconomic derailment. This report outlines some of the availablecomprehensive and issue-specific legislative tools, which includeexpressing strong opposition to the EPA’s regulatory onslaught,enhancing regulatory review, introducing bills to assert statesovereignty, and providing guidelines for getting states on theright side of the ongoing legal and public relations battles.While this report offers a snapshot of EPA regulatory activityand the ensuing economic damage, the regulatory landscape isconstantly shifting. Ongoing updates to the regulations detailedin this report are available at
  • 1APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMOVERVIEWThe United States is under attack from within. In the past coupleof years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hasbegun a war on the American standard of living, promulgatingand finalizing the most onerous regulatory assault on theAmerican economy since its inception more than 40 years ago.Although talks of a national cap-and-trade program are a politicalnon-starter, the attack on affordable and reliable energy hascontinued through the numerous regulations being imposed inthe next few years. This report reveals a dangerous picture ofregulatory overreach trampling on state sovereignty, with noregard to cost or implications within the states.America’s True Clean Air and WaterSuccess StoryItisanamazingtimetobealiveintheUnitedStates.Technologicalimprovements, sensible regulations protecting property rights,and efficiency improvements advanced by the competitivepressures of free markets have led to some of the cleanest airand water in the world. These improvements, coupled witheconomic development advanced by access to affordableenergy during the past century, are the reasons for the greatestadvancement of standards of living in humankind’s history. Butthis story is not often told.The EPA and environmental activists continue to cast adiscouraging and alarmist image of the state of the environmentand health in the nation. If one only read press releases from theEPA or talking points from the major U.S. environmental groups,one would be depressed, fearful of imminent environmentaldisaster, and most likely demand that the government takeaction. Doomsday stories are told continuously, and create anemotionally driven response to justify additional regulations onindustry and businesses.Just before the end of 2011, EPA Administrator Lisa Jacksonstrategically unveiled one of the most comprehensive andcontroversial regulations on the electric power industry at theNational Children’s Hospital in Washington, D.C. Exploitingchildren in order to create an emotional justification foran economy-killing regulation is obvious propaganda, anddemonstrates the shameless tactics used by the Agency.Because of these tactics, it is not surprising that public opinionregarding the environment is pessimistic, with polls showingthat large majorities of Americans think environmental qualityis getting worse, not better. Propaganda from governmentalagencies and environmental advocacy groups fuel thissentiment. The doomsday picture is unfortunately a necessaryelement for these groups, because it is hard to raise money foran environmental organization or justify the next regulationand round of taxpayer funding when the air and water arecleaner every day. The media is also to blame, in some respect,because one would never see a headline stating, “Our air isclean and our water is pure. No need for alarm” — not manynewspapers would be sold. Unfortunately, alarmism, regardlessof the lack of data or facts, can have a profound effect bothon Americans and on the political leaders that represent thepublic. This translates into the basing of policy and regulatorychange on misguided agendas and depressing and inaccurateviews of environmental trends.
  • 2ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKThis trend is not confined only to mercury emissions. Otherpollutants, such as carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, nitrogenoxide, particulates, fine particulates, and sulfur dioxide have alldecreased both in ambient concentrations in the atmosphereand in total emissions.The long-term trend of the EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) alsoreveals a similar success story. The AQI is a metric used fordeclaring days on which the air is “unhealthy” for sensitivepeople (children, the elderly, and people with respiratoryailments) in metropolitan areas. In just 10 years (1999–2008),the AQI declined almost 63 percent, meaning that thereare 63 percent fewer days that air quality is unhealthy forsensitive populations.1POLLUTANT AMBIENT EMISSIONSCarbon Monoxide (CO)Lead (Pb)Ozone** (O3)Nitrogen OxideSulfur DioxideParticulates (PM10), 1985-2008Fine Particulates (PM2.5),1985-2008Source: EPA and Regulatory Trainwreck Publication*Except for PM10 and PM2.5**The emission measure here is volatile organic compounds (VOCs), aprincipal ozone precursor-79%-92%-25%-46%-71%-31%-31%-58%-96%-49%-40%-56%-46%-46%Change in National Average Ambient Levelsand Emissions 1980-2008*Much to the contrary of propaganda fostered by the EPAand others, traditional pollutants have been on the declinefor decades, and continue to decline. The success story ofenvironmental quality improvement in the United States isone that is often forgotten or never told, yet it may be one ofthe greatest success stories of our modern age. Specifically,when Lisa Jackson unveiled the Utility MACT regulation at theChildren’s Hospital, she was focusing on the main pollutant to bereduced by the regulation: mercury. On the surface, this soundslike a worthy cause. What is conveniently left out is that the trendfor mercury emissions is already declining, and this regulationwould have little to no effect whatsoever on ambient mercurylevels. Between the early 1990s and 2005, annual nationwidemercury emissions decreased from 246 tons per year to 103tons per year, a decrease of 58 percent.U.S. MERCURY EMISSIONS (Tons/Year)YEARTONS300250200150100500246.4117.9 101.61990 1995 2000 2005 2010
  • 3APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMAVERAGECONCENTRATION(ppb)SULFUR DIOXIDE LEVELS IN THE U.S., 1980-2010SOURCE: EPA1980-19821983-19851986-19881989-19911992-19941995-19971998-20002001-20032004-20062007-2009201012108642
  • 4ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKAVERAGEMICROGRAMSPERCUBICMETER(µg/m3)PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10) CONCENTRATIONS IN THE U.S., 1990-20101990-19911992-19931994-19951996-19971998-19992000-20012002-20032004-20052006-20072008-2009201080706050SOURCE: EPA
  • 6ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKAVERAGECONCENTRATION(ppm)OZONE LEVELS IN THE U.S., 1980-2010SOURCE: EPA1980-19821983-19851986-19881989-19911992-19941995-19971998-20002001-20032004-20062007-200920100.
  • 7APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMAVERAGECONCENTRATION(ppb)NITROGEN DIOXIDE LEVELS IN THE U.S., 1980-2010SOURCE: EPA1980-19821983-19851986-19881989-19911992-19941995-19971998-20002001-20032004-20062007-200920103028262422201816141210
  • 8ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKThese environmental quality improvements mean that U.S.citizens are living healthier, longer lives, and this is evident inincreasing life expectancies. At the turn of the century, lifeexpectancy was considerably shorter than it was today. Around1900, an average American could expect to live 49.2 years.2Inthis century, an average American can be expected to live almost78 years — an increase of almost 37 percent in just 100 years.3Ever-Increasing Regulations ThreatenStandards of LivingOne of the major reasons why we see higher life expectanciestoday than 100 years ago is the increasing access to affordableand reliable energy. Energy is the lifeblood of the economyand our standard of living. Everything Americans buy,consume, produce, and transport requires energy. The abilityto develop energy resources within a state’s borders, to useenergy resources efficiently and effectively, and to be free ofoverbearing regulations and policies that constrict consumerchoice all play a role in the economic position of a state.Access to affordable and reliable energy leads to economicdevelopment, which is intricately tied to the standard of livingand health of citizens. The Annapolis Center for Science-BasedPublic Policy has found that inexpensive energy has directly ledto a high standard of living and longevity by allowing individualsto devote more resources to health-promoting activities suchas diet, health care, and exercise, rather than to heating,cooling, and transportation costs.4Because of its low cost and abundance, coal is used to generateabout half of the electricity consumed in the United States. TheEPA’s recent regulatory onslaught is a direct attack on affordableand reliable power in the country, and coal is its major target.Instead of eliminating the use of coal with a cap-and-tradescheme or a carbon tax, the EPA has initiated a number of rulesthat will effectively end the use of coal. The regulations discussedin the next section are only some of the EPA’s actions aimed ateliminating coal and thus increasing energy costs.Electricity generation is the first industry to be affected by theEPA onslaught. The Agency is moving forward with additionalregulations that will increase the cost of electricity throughunnecessary retrofits, increase the cost and reduce the supplyof coal through additional mining restrictions, and force powerplants to retire—affecting both the reliability and affordabilityof electricity. Opponents of overbearing regulation often citestudies that show significant increases in electricity rates andthe number of job losses resulting from a power plant closure.These are the direct impacts of EPA actions. What is not seenis the myriad of negative consequences that touch every singleAmerican. Overreaching regulations impact more than justyour electricity bill. Electricity is the major input to industry, so“Prosperity depends upon reliable,affordable access to energy…” — StevenChu, Secretary of Energy, 2009“Electricity ushered in a transformation ofAmerican Society at the end of the 19thcentury. Suddenly, the backbreaking work thatconsumed dawn to dusk for most Americanswas alleviated by electric motors, dynamos andgenerators. Electric household appliances madeit possible to heat homes, cook food, storemeat and perishable items and wash clotheswithout the drudgery and fear of disease thathad haunted previous generations.” — OhioDepartment of Public Utilities
  • 9APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMand water regulations. The vast expansion of federal regulationsis illustrated by the trend of the size of the Federal Register,the main source for rules and regulations on the economy. In1936, the pages in the Register totaled just 2,620. In 2011, thisnumber topped 80,000, representing more than a 3,000 percentincrease.6In addition, at the end of 2010, there were more than270,000 federal regulatory employees focused on proposing,implementing, and enforcing regulations.7Good public policy and sensible environmental regulation weighthe costs and benefits of regulatory action. The costs of therecent EPA regulations are well documented by both the EPAand independent research studies, and although they vary, theyall show significant costs. It is unfortunate that many regulatorsand policymakers alike do not understand the unintendedconsequences of ignoring a thoughtful consideration of costsversus benefits. If a regulation’s cost outweighs the benefit,that regulation could be causing more harm than good. Insteadof a citizen spending money on access to better health care,improving his or her health, it would be spent on an inefficientand costly regulation. There is a point of diminishing returns atwhich the continuing regulatory burden, by increasing the costof energy, will have dangerous unintended consequences for thehealth and standard of living of Americans. A study released byJohns Hopkins University noted that “predicted mortality trendsassociated with air quality regulations that increase energy costsshow trends an order of magnitude greater than the estimatedbenefits.”8Another study cautions that the economic costs ofregulations “tend to worsen individual health or safety and canshorten lifetimes.”9The state impact profiles in this report are just the tip of theeconomic destruction iceberg. Affordable and reliable energyis being attacked, and thus the American way of life, standardof living, and even public health is being threatened. The EPA’sregulatory impacts will be felt for generations to come if nothingis done to stop runs the factories that manufacture the products you need.Industry uses 30 percent of the nation’s energy, which meansthat electricity prices have a large effect on the cost of theproducts produced. These factories will pass cost increases ontoconsumers or go out of business. A hospital that sees a spike inthe cost of electricity will integrate a portion of that cost intothe bill the next time a patient visits the doctor. Electricity is aninput to refining oil, and the EPA has proposed new regulationson refineries, so the next gallon of gasoline needed to transportfresh fruits and vegetables to the local grocery store will increasein cost as well.The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that a family withannual income of $50,000 or less takes a significant hit whenenergy prices increase. Nearly 50 percent of U.S. householdsearn less than $50,000 per year, and these households spendmore on energy than on food, spend twice as much on energythan on health care, and spend more on energy than on anythingelse except for housing.5The picture becomes even grimmerfor households with an annual income of less than $30,000.Nearly 40 million U.S. households earning less than $30,000per year spend 20 percent or more of their income on energy.These households spend 75 percent more on energy than onhealth care, and more on energy than on food. Increases inenergy prices will mean that Americans have less money in theirpockets to purchase health care, healthy food, exercise, shelter,and many other essentials for a healthy and long life.Despite significant environmental improvements during the pastfew decades, the EPA continues to propose more stringent air“Access to electricity is strongly correlatedwith every measureable indicator ofhuman development.” — Berkeley ScienceReview, 2008
  • 10ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKThe EPA has begun an unprecedented expansion of regulatoryauthority. This section provides a basic introduction to just nineof the numerous regulations representing the cause of an eco-nomic derailment.Utility Maximum Available ControlTechnology (MACT) RuleTheUtilityMACTRuleaimstoregulateallhazardousairpollutants(HAPs), including mercury and acid gases, for coal and oil plants.Under Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA will requirethe adoption of “Maximum Available Control Technology” forthese HAPs, defined as the strict requirement that all existingpower plants must equal the average performance of the top 12percent of power plants. New plants must meet an even stricterstandard. As proposed, the Utility MACT would require coal-firedpower plants to achieve a 91 percent reduction from emissionsof mercury, nine other toxic metals, and three acid gases.BackgroundIn 2005, the EPA promulgated regulations establishing a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of mercury from coal-firedpower plants. This was a change in policy by the Agency, becauseall previous sources of mercury subject to emission standardshad been required to meet plant-specific MACT standards underthe CAA. The 2005 cap-and-trade rules addressed only mercury,and would have allowed many power plants to avoid controlprovided they obtained allowances from others who achievedlower pollution levels than required, or reduced emissionssooner than required.The CAA statute requires that MACT standards applicable ateach existing plant be no less stringent than the average emissionlimitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existingsources in the industry. Whether the EPA could substitute cap-and-trade rules for the MACT requirements was challenged bythe State of New Jersey and others. The D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals found that the EPA had to require that each plant meetMACT standards instead of instituting cap-and-trade. Ratherthan appeal the court’s ruling to the Supreme Court, the EPAproposed what is referred to as “Utility MACT” on March 16,2011. The final MACT standards were to be publicized by Nov.16, 2011. After receiving 960,000 comments on the rule, EPAextended the final rule date to Dec. 16, 2011. On Feb. 16, 2012,the EPA published the finalized Utility MACT Rule (also known asthe Mercury and Air Toxics or MATS rule) in the Federal Register.The three-year compliance period starts on April 16, 2012, andaffected power plants will have to comply with the standards byApril 16, 2015.Who Is Affected?This rule will apply on a plant-by-plant basis to nearly every“The rule could require retrofits for up to753 units, and up to 15 gigawatts could beforced into early retirement by the rule,affecting electricity price and reliability forup to 15 million American households.”THE CAUSES OF ECONOMIC DERAILMENT
  • 11APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMcoal- or oil-fired utility in the country, and it will require rapidcompliance within just three years. An analysis by the NorthAmerican Electric Reliability Corporation estimates that the rulecould require retrofits for up to 753 units, and that up to 15gigawatts could be forced into retirement by the rule.Expensive pollution-control equipment will need to be installedto meet these standards at a large number of plants, and theseinstallations will be required as the EPA is simultaneouslyimposing many other requirements on the industry. Regardlessof cost, it simply may be impossible for many plants to install thenecessary equipment to meet the standards within the limitedcompliance time frame, forcing them to close. The standardsare so stringent that even recently permitted plants employingthe best available technology cannot meet them, and no newcoal plants are likely to be built.10A 2005 analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administrationfound that, depending on the availability of compliantcommercialized mercury removal technologies, resource costscould be as high as $261 to $358 billion. Even without addressingpotential scrubber requirements, a Credit Suisse report predictscapital expenditures of $70 to $100 billion for utilities to complywith just the mercury MACT and Clean Air Transport Rule.An analysis by National Economic Research Associates (NERA)found that the Utility MACT rule and other pending EPAregulations would destroy an average of 183,000 jobs every yearfrom 2012 to 2020, and increase electricity and other energyprices by $170 billion.11The NERA analysis also found that theaverage American household would have $270 less to spendeach year because of new EPA regulations.The EPA projected the annualized cost of compliance with theproposed rule at $10.9 billion in 2015, remaining at $10–11billion annually through 2030. Incredibly, the EPA’s highestbenefit estimate of the reduction in mercury is only $6 millionper year. The EPA claims that the rule will be the most costly ofthe proposed rules (although they failed to estimate costs ona number of proposed regulations). The EPA is not required tolook at the cumulative effects of the rule, only the direct cost ofcompliance, thus its calculations leave out any ancillary impacts,such as job losses, impact on businesses from higher energycosts, or electric reliability issues because of the early retirementof power plants.The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)claims that the EPA, through implementation of the UtilityMACT Rule, is using the CAA as a “mechanism to drive nationalenergy policy.”12TCEQ states that “the proposed rule isnot technologically feasible for coal-fired EGUs [electricity-generating units]. Based on the current state of technology,the TCEQ anticipates that no new coal-fired EGUs will be builtin the country if the EPA adopts the rule as proposed and thatmany existing coal-fired EGUs will be shut down.”13Households will not only face higher electricity bills becauseof this rule, but also the possibility of reduced reliabilityresulting from the early retirement of power plants. Thiseffect can ripple through the economy, hindering investmentand economic development for years to come.Why Is This Unnecessary?The impact of U.S. sources for mercury exposure is vastlyoverstated. At least 30 percent of the mercury that is in the“The EPA’s estimates of the direct benefitsattributable to reduction of the specific airtoxics targeted by Utility MACT range from$500,000 to $6 million per year. Costs of theproposed rule outweigh benefits roughly1800 to 1.”
  • 12ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKUnited States comes from other countries, and more than 80percent of seafood (the primary exposure method) eaten inthis country is from foreign shores. The Electric Power Instituteestimates that less than 5 percent of the 2,500 tons of mercuryreleased each year comes from the United States. Naturalsources of mercury, such as volcanoes, sub-sea vents, andgeysers, release 9,000 to 10,000 tons per year—dwarfing anymanmade sources. Eliminating the very low levels of mercuryemitted from U.S. power plants would have virtually no effect onhuman health in this country.A former EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiationexplains: “[E]ven if you could eliminate all the mercuryemissions in the U.S. completely, from every source ofmercury pollution, you would have almost no impact onpeople’s exposure.”The EPA’s analysis for the Utility MACT Rule indicates thattwo percent of mercury deposition in the United States isattributable to coal-fueled power plants, because most of themercury deposited in the United States originates in othercountries.14According to the EPA’s own analysis, mercuryreduction from the proposed utility MACT rule would resultin average IQ savings of 0.002 IQ points per child amongthe U.S. population that consumes recreationally caughtfreshwater fish.15Because average IQ is 95 to 100 IQ points,the resulting improvement within this population would betwo thousandths of one percent (0.002 percent) per child,a difference that “could never be measured or observed inreal life.” In addition, the EPA’s analysis indicates that theincreased cancer risk caused by coal-fueled power plants isonly three ten-thousandths of one percent (0.0003 percent).Similarly, the EPA indicates that non-cancer health effects arewell below what the EPA considers a “level of concern.”16In addition, the EPA is relying to a great degree on coincidental“co-benefits” of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) reductions.This means that regulations having nothing to do with reducing“The economic analysis of the Obama EPA’sUtility MACT paints a bleak picture for economicrecovery as it will cost $11 billion to implement,increase electricity rates for every American, and,along with the Cross-State rule, destroy nearly 1.4million jobs. This contrasts sharply with the mere$6 million in direct benefits the Agency projectsfromtherule’simplementation.Sadly,thisruleisn’tabout public health. It is a thinly veiled electricitytax that continues the Obama Administration’swar on affordable energy and is the latest in anunprecedented barrage of regulations that makeup EPA’s job-killing regulatory agenda.” – SenatorJames Inhofe (R-OK)“It is disappointing but not surprising to see thatregulations by EPA have caused several plantsto be closed. These local plants provide jobs andare an economic benefit to the area. This is justthe tip of the iceberg. While EPA has not beentransparent about exactly how much the UtilityMACT will cost, estimates show that it will bethe most costly electricity regulation in EPA’shistory. Unfortunately, consumers and workers willultimatelysufferthemostfromEPA’sjobdestroyingagenda.” — Energy and Power SubcommitteeChairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY)WHAT LEGISLATORS ON THE HILL ARESAYING ABOUT THE UTILITY MACT RULE
  • 13APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMPM2.5, such as the Utility MACT, are counting the reduction inPM2.5as a benefit, even though there is a separate rule thatexpressly addresses this pollutant. Co-benefits from PM2.5thatthe EPA already regulates should not be allowed to be the major—or, in some cases, the entire—calculated health benefit for aregulation that addresses entirely different pollutants. If the co-benefits are counted, then there is a misleading and unjustifiablebenefit analysis for such regulations.For example, the EPA claims that the Utility MACT rule willsave up to 17,000 lives per year, avert 11,000 heart attacks,and lower numerous other respiratory and cardiovascularailments. Almost all of the health benefits (more than 99.9percent) claimed by the EPA are attributable to the EPA’sestimates in reductions of PM2.5, which the Utility MACTrule is not even designed to address. The EPA has estimatedbenefits for mercury reductions, only one of the air toxicsaddressed by the rule. The Agency’s highest benefit estimatefor the mercury reduction is $6 million per year, compared toits cost estimate totaling $10.9 billion annually.17Nevertheless, mercury emissions are already declining. Between1990–1993 and 2005, annual nationwide mercury emissionsdecreased by 58 percent. Decreases will continue as older plantsare phased out and replaced by newer plants.Boiler Maximum Achievable ControlTechnology (MACT) RuleThe proposed MACT standard for commercial and industrialboilers (Boiler MACT Rule) would regulate emissions ofhazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from a variety of commercial,industrial, and institutional boilers. Specifically, the rule willaddress emissions of mercury, dioxin, particulate matter (aproxy for non-mercury metallic HAPs), hydrogen chloride (aproxy for acid gas HAPs), and carbon monoxide (a proxy fornon-dioxin organic HAPs). Thousands of such boilers are usedthroughout the nation, burning gas, oil, coal and biomass togenerate heat and electricity for factories, schools, and avariety of other types of facilities.BackgroundThe EPA released the first version of its Boiler MACT Ruleon April 29, 2010, and planned to issue a final rule by Jan.21, 2011. After the release of the first version, there was anoverwhelming outpour of protest that the agency did not leaveitself enough time to consider comments from the public, asrequired by law, and to make changes to the rule in responseto those comments. Consequently, the EPA sought courtapproval to extend the deadline for issuing the rule to April 13,2012, citing the need to “formulate the final standards basedon careful consideration of all relevant data and upon fullconsideration of comments.” Environmental groups opposedthe EPA’s request for extension, and the court ordered theagency to release the regulations by Feb. 21, 2011.On May 18, 2011, the EPA published a notice of postponement inthe Federal Register stating the need to delay implementation ofthe rule. The agency cited several issues it intended to reconsider,new data that it was unable to incorporate, and insufficientopportunity for the public to comment on certain revisions.Unfortunately, a federal court ruled that it was unlawful for theEPAtodelaytheimplementationdatewhiletheagencyundertakesUTILITY MACT COSTS VS BENEFITS (Billions/Year)Pollutant TypeTOTALMercuryAcid GasesNon-HG MetalsOrganic HAPs<$0.1$0$0$0<$0.1$2.3$5.4$3.2Not estimatedby EPA$10.9Direct Benefits Direct Costs
  • 14ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKa process of reconsideration of the final rule. The court decisionmeans that new boilers must immediately comply with the rulewhen they come on-line. Existing boilers would have until March2014 to comply with the rule. The EPA intends to announce itsreconsidered proposed rules in April 2012, and intends to issuefinal rules by the fall. After the decision by the court, the EPA hascommitted not to enforce those standards for the time being. EPAAdministrator Lisa Jackson noted that the Agency has proposeda revised suite of boiler standards that it expects to finalize inApril 2012. Until those standards are complete, Jackson statedthat the EPA would not enforce notification obligations that mightotherwise apply to existing sources under the 2011 standardsreinstated by the D.C. court.Unfortunately, there is little consolation for numerous industriesrelying on the affected fossil fuel–fired and biomass-fired boilers.The rule and the uncertainty surrounding its implementationwould impose difficult-to-meet emissions standards andmonitoring requirements for hazardous air pollutants.Who Is Affected?The original Boiler MACT rule would have affected almost200,000 existing boilers and any new boilers constructed afterthe rule became final.18,19These boilers can be found in factories,farms, schools, apartment buildings, restaurants, hospitals, andchurches, and the operators of these facilities would be requiredto test emissions and to meet strict and complex standards inorder to comply. The newest version of the rule now affects thelargest 5,500 industrial boilers. Most of these boilers are foundat paper mills, chemical manufacturing facilities, and refineries.In September 2010, 41 U.S. senators signed on to a bipartisanletter to Lisa Jackson expressing deep concern that this rulewould create “onerous burdens on U.S. manufacturers.”20The U.S. Small Business Administration warned that the ruleswould cause “significant new regulatory costs” for businesses,institutions, and municipalities across the country.21The cost, according to the United Steelworkers Union, “willbe sufficient to imperil the operating status of many industrialplants.”22A study by IHS/Global Insight concluded thatthis proposal would risk nearly 800,000 jobs, and that “[e]verybillion dollars spent on MACT upgrade and compliance costswill put 16,000 jobs at risk and reduce U.S. GDP by as much as$1.2 billion.”23The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners estimatesthat the rule may cost $14.3 billion and put 230,000 jobs at risk.Even the EPA estimates that the installation and maintenance ofcontrols to implement the rule will cost $487 million per year.24The costs of the rule will be borne by consumers. Any facilityaffected by this rule that generates electricity or heat from anindustrial boiler will face higher costs.Why Is This Infeasible and Unnecessary?In setting specific standards for emissions, the EPA chose toestimate “technology-based” standards that would requireexisting boilers to match the average emissions achieved bythe best-performing 12 percent of existing sources. Meanwhile,new boilers would have to match the absolute best-performingsource. Each standard is measured against the best-performingsource of each individual pollutant, not against total emissions.“The cost, according to the UnitedSteelworkers Union, ‘will be sufficientto imperil the operating status of manyindustrial plants.’”“Under the current form of the rule, boileroperators are expected to meet standardsthat not only may be impossible, but thatare also entirely disconnected from anyreal benefit to health.”
  • 15APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMFor example, a best-performing emitter of mercury may notbe a good performer in regard to the other pollutants. TheBoiler MACT Rule expects existing and new boilers, however, toperform extremely well or match the best performers in all ofthese categories, something which no boiler out there may bedoing at present.In choosing standards based on technology, the EPA avoidedsetting emission levels based on health risks, which is thepurported reason for the rule in the first place. The EPAadmitted that it lacked information necessary to set health-based standards.25Yet in a press release on the Boiler MACTRule, the EPA claimed that the rule will “avoid between2,600-6,600 premature deaths, prevent 4,100 heart attacksand avert 42,000 asthma attacks per year in 2014.”26The EPAonly quantified the benefit attributed to reductions in PM2.5,which is addressed by another regulation. Not a single healthbenefit has been estimated for the hazardous air pollutantsthat this rule was intended to address.Americans cannot afford costly regulations that aim only toimpose difficult, if not impossible, technological standards thatare entirely disconnected from any real benefit to health.Cross-State Air Pollution RuleThe Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, approved in July 2011, aimsto reduce power plant emissions that cross state lines andcontribute to ozone and fine particle pollution in the easternUnited States. The rule requires reduction of power plant SO2emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels, and NOxemissionsby 54 percent.BackgroundThe original version of the rule was the Bush Administration’sClean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was approved in 2005.The rule was largely supported by the utility industry, states, andthe environmental community, but it was overturned in courtbecause the mechanism for unlimited trading of permits was notauthorized under the applicable Clean Air Act provision.On remand, the EPA proposed a new program, the Clean AirTransport Rule (CATR), which is formally called the Cross-State AirPollution Rule. The rule requires the states to meet more stringentemissions reductions than CAIR, and is largely supported byenvironmental groups but opposed by utility groups.Although the rule was only approved in July 2011, the EPAwants the rule to be effective in 2012. Normally, states areresponsible for having State Implementation Plans (SIP) tomeet requirements, and if the EPA thinks that the plan doesnot adequately address the requirements, the EPA is requiredto give the state time to revise the plan (usually measured inyears). In order to implement the Cross-State Rule quickly, theEPA is imposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for eachof the states. States may develop their own SIP, but the federalplan will take effect until the state acts to replace it. Expeditingthe timeline for compliance deprives states of reasonable timeto make revisions or implement their own plans. Such actionunnecessarily ignores the established legal process under themodel of cooperative federalism set forth in the Clean Air Act.Potential Economic Impact of Boiler MACT Rule-152,552-$6.9 billion-$30.4 billion-$2.6 billion-$11.4 billion-798,250-$38 billion-$172.5 billion-$14.3 billion-$63.3 billionLOW ESTIMATE HIGH ESTIMATEEmploymentLabor IncomeIndustry SalesTax RevenuesGross DomesticProduct
  • 16ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKbillion annually, with the majority being borne by consumerseach year.Households in the affected region will face not only higherelectricity bills, but also reduced reliability in the form ofbrownouts resulting from the restricted power supply. Thiseffect can ripple through the economy, hindering investmentand economic development for years to come.Why Is This Unnecessary?The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule seeks to reduce powerplant SO2emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels, and NOxemissions by 54 percent. This is an ambitious, dangerous, andunnecessary pursuit that ignores the steady progress made“CSAPR is an unnecessary, burdensomeregulation that violates states’ rights andhinders any chance of an economic recovery.”STATES AFFECTED BY THE CROSS-STATE AIR POLLUTION RULEUtilities were planning for standards in 2012 with only six months’notice of the details of the final rule. As a result, the industryonly recently discovered specifically what rule the EPA wasimplementing, much less what the final requirements would be.A last-minute ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia delayed the Jan. 1, 2012, effective dateof the CSAPR until the Court can make a final decision on theregulation, which is expected to be heard by April 2012.As it stands, the industry will have to comply sometime soon,making it virtually impossible for them to fashion coherentplans for making the long-term, capital-intensive investmentsnecessary to ensure that power supplies remain reliable.Who Is Affected?The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will apply to virtually the entirefleet of fossil fuel power plants east of the Mississippi River,and some on the western side. The North American ReliabilityCorporation’s report figures that even the most modest versionof the rule could threaten 7 gigawatts (GW) with retirement. Toput this in perspective, 7 GW provides power to a little less than7 million American households. A report by the Brattle Groupfound that the number could go as high as 55 GW if the mostexpensive pollution control equipment — “scrubbers” to removesulfur dioxide and selective catalytic reduction equipment (SCRs)to remove nitrogen oxides — are required for power plants.The cost of investing in scrubbers and SCR units could run upto $120 billion by 2015. Even the EPA’s extremely conservativecost estimate indicates that the rule’s price could be $2.4
  • 17APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMthrough technological improvements and existing regulations.Ambient levels and overall emissions of both SO2and NOxhave dramatically declined during the past few decades, andwill continue to do so into the future without the impositionof tighter restrictions. From 1980 to 2008, SO2ambient levelsdropped by 71 percent, and overall emissions dropped by56 percent nationwide. During the same time period, NOxambient levels dropped by 46 percent and overall emissionsdropped by 40 percent. With these levels already at historiclows, it is unclear even from an environmental perspectivewhat is to be gained by forcibly reshaping the electric utilityindustry in exchange for marginal emissions reductions.To justify CSAPR, the EPA took emissions data from 2003–2007 to determine which states were affecting downwind airquality. The Agency then applied computer modeling to predictwhich states would likely be targets for the two phases of EPAregulation that go into effect in 2012 and 2014. Targets forregulation would be states that contribute more than 1 percentof the level of nonattainment of ozone and PM2.5in neighboringstates. Recently, the EPA released more timely emissions datafrom 2007–2010 that reflect the recent reductions in emissionssince the base years. The data show that emissions levels havedropped, accomplishing regulatory outcomes in areas that willbe forced to comply with the CSAPR. This data was available tothe EPA during the time the CSAPR was proposed but it was notused. By using outdated data, the EPA inflated the nonattainmentareas by 1,200 percent and maintenance areas by 277 percent,yet the Agency still plans to move forward with the CSAPR.Virtually all of the communities that the EPA found to be out ofcompliance are now in compliance, and the rest are expected tobe in compliance by 2014 with existing regulations in place.Regulation of Coal CombustionResidues (CCRs)The EPA is considering classifying coal combustion residues,more commonly known as coal ash, as a hazardous waste. CCRsare byproducts of the combustion of coal at power plants, andare disposed of in liquid form at large surface impoundments, insolid form at landfills, or in many cases beneficially recycled .Thisclassificationwouldplacestrictandexpensiveregulationsoncoalash, burdening both coal power plant owners and the $2-billion-per-year coal ash recycling trade that uses the byproduct for avariety of purposes.BackgroundIn 2008, a dam at a coal ash storage impoundment operated bythe Tennessee Valley Authority failed, resulting in a significantspill. Although the problem was the integrity of the dam,The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule couldthreaten 7 gigawatts of electricitygeneration capacity with earlyretirement, which is roughly enough topower 7 million American households.
  • 18ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKand although only some coal ash is stored in impoundments(some of it is stored in landfills and coal mines, and much isbeneficially reused), the EPA is using this incident to justify itsregulation of coal ash. The Agency is considering this hazardouswaste designation action, despite having issued final regulatorydeterminations in 1993 and 2000 concluding that CCRs do notrepresent hazardous waste.Under one of the two regulatory proposals that the EPA isconsidering, CCRs would be regulated under Subtitle C ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), whichis reserved for hazardous waste. The EPA is prohibited fromdeclaring CCRs to be hazardous until it “conduct[s] a detailedand comprehensive study and submit[s] a report” to Congresson the “adverse effects on human health and the environment,if any, of the disposal and utilization” of CCRs.27Chairman Fred Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committeehas rightfully raised questions about whether the Agency hasthe authority to unilaterally reverse course on this issue, arguingthat “to do so…would render meaningless the statutorilyprescribed procedures Congress specifically required EPA tofollow in determining whether CCRs warrant regulation underRCRA Subtitle C.”28The EPA issued its proposed rule on June 21, 2010, and helda series of public hearings in the latter half of the year. Morethan 400,000 comments were generated on the rule. On Nov.14, 2011, the EPA concluded another public comment periodregarding a Notice of Data Availability issued on data that isrelevant to the rule, including chemical constituent data fromCCRs, current state regulatory programs, and the beneficialuses of coal ash.29The EPA has yet to act on this rule, but hassignaled its intention to regulate coal ash in some manner.This has created regulatory uncertainty in the industry,because not only the content of the regulation is unknownbut also the timeline.Last fall, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R.2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act,with broad bipartisan support. The legislation providesan alternative to the EPA’s proposal to regulate coal ashunder RCRA, setting up a state-based, federally enforceableprogram to ensure that coal ash is safely managed anddisposed of. In October 2011, Sen. John Hoeven introducedthe Senate version of The Coal Residuals Reuse andManagement Act (S. 1751), yet the bill will most likely gonowhere because of internal politics in the Senate and apossible veto from the presidential administration.Who Is Affected?Classifying CCRs as hazardous waste will have significantconsequences for electricity generation and the robust recyclingindustryintheUnitedStates.Thistranslatesintohigherelectricityrates and fewer jobs in an already struggling economy.“Classifying CCRs as hazardous waste willhave significant consequences for electricitygeneration and the robust recycling industryin the United States. This translates intohigher electricity rates and fewer jobs in analready struggling economy.”“250 to 350 coal units could be shut downas a result of coal ash regulation, which willfurther drive up the cost of electricity andhinder economic recovery.”
  • 19APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMReclassification will risk stigmatizing the numerous beneficialuses of CCRs. From Portland cement and wallboard products tokitchen cabinets and bowling balls, roughly 44 percent (morethan 60 million tons per year) of CCRs are beneficially recycled,which contributes to more than $2 billion in economic activity.30In addition to threatening the $2-billion-per-year CCR recyclingtrade, regulating any aspect of coal ash as hazardous wastecould create enormous compliance costs and force power plantretirements. A 2010 report by the Congressional Western Caucusstates: the rule “would have the effect of treating coal ash likenuclear waste and make it nearly impossible to operate a powerplant with coal due to the costly requirements that would goalong with such a designation.”31Subtitle C compliance costs for electric utilities would be in theconservative range of at least $55 billion to $77 billion.32The EPAitself estimates the average regulatory cost, for the next 50 years, tobe almost $1.5 billion per year. Other estimates have found that thepricetagcouldrunupto$20billionannually.33BryanHannegan,vicepresidentoftheenvironmentalsectorfortheElectricPowerResearchInstitute, sees a risk that “250 to 350 coal units could be shut down,in an extreme scenario, and drive up the cost of electricity.”34Why Is This Unnecessary?In its own studies over the years, the EPA found that it wasinappropriate to designate coal ash as a hazardous waste.35By doing so now, and without the science or cost-benefitanalyses to back up the change, the EPA is taking action thatwill cost billions of dollars and potentially reduce electricityreliability for no justifiable reason. If, as is stated in numerousgovernment and private studies, coal ash does not have highlevels of toxicity, then this rule will be all cost and no benefit.As recently as May 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jacksonexpressed concern that classifying coal ash as a hazardousmaterial would discourage companies from recycling it foreconomically beneficial uses.36In fact, the EPA’s headquartersbuilding was built with a concrete mix that includes coal ash.37If the rule is enacted as proposed, the status that coal ash nowhas as an economically useful byproduct will be destroyed.Groups including the U.S. Department of Energy, the FederalHighway Administration, the Department of Agriculture, theElectric Power Research Institute, a variety of state agencies,and the EPA itself have studied CCRs over the last severaldecades, and all have found that the toxicity levels in CCRs arefar below criteria that would require a hazardous designation.In addition, the EPA stated in a 2005 study that “the regulatoryinfrastructure is generally in place at the state level to ensureadequate management of these wastes” and recommendedthat states should continue to be the principal regulatoryauthority for regulating CCRs, because they are best suited todevelop and implement CCR regulatory programs tailored tospecific climate and geological conditions designed to protecthuman health and the environment.Cooling Water Intake RegulationThe EPA is considering a broad regulation that could force asignificant number of existing fossil fuel (and nuclear) powerplants to replace their once-through cooling systems withcooling towers, in an attempt to protect fish populations undercertain situations. This is an extremely costly proposition thatwould reduce efficiency, and possibly force some plants toclose, for marginal benefit at best.“Compliance costs for utilities wouldbe in the conservative range of $55billion to $77 billion. This will bedirectly passed down to Americans inthe form of higher electricity rates.”
  • 20ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKBackgroundOn April 20, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule undersection 316(b) of the Clean Water Act that will require changesin “cooling water intake structures.” The Clean Water Act’sSection 316(b) requires that these cooling water intakestructures minimize environmental effects by using the “besttechnology available.” Most power plants heat water intosteam to turn a turbine and generate electricity, and many usecooling water from a water body to condense the steam backto water and repeat the process. This system is used to coolthe vast majority of America’s coal, gas, and nuclear electricity-generating plants, as well as a wide range of manufacturingand industrial facilities. There are two major types of coolingwater systems: once-through cooling, which withdraws waterused to cool a condenser then returns it; and closed-cyclecooling, usually in cooling towers, which circulates water tocool through evaporation. These cooling water systems arevital to the operation of those facilities.The proposed rule focuses primarily on two potential coolingwater intake effects:• Impingement,whichisthetrappingoforganismsagainstscreens.• Entrainment, which is the passing of organisms, such as smallfish, eggs, and larvae, through the cooling system.The EPA has indicated that it could require once-through coolingsystems to shift to closed-cycle cooling towers, which would bean extremely costly and unnecessary retrofit. For impingement,the EPA proposes stringent fish mortality and water intakevelocity standards, without regard to site-specific factors thatmay make the standards unachievable. The EPA requires thatthe standards be met at all times, despite natural variability thatwould make compliance technically impossible at many sites.For entrainment, the EPA proposes that state environmentalagencies set site-specific standards by evaluating technologyoptions, including closed-cycle cooling (cooling towers),and requiring the “maximum reductions warranted” afterconsiderationofsite-specificfactors,includingcostsandbenefits.Although technologies that reduce entrainment often reduceimpingement as well, the proposed rule does not provide forimpingement and entrainment issues to be considered togetherin a comprehensive and site-specific fashion. Moreover, underthe proposal’s narrow definition of closed-cycle cooling, evenfacilities that already have closed-cycle cooling will face newimpingement control requirements. Many existing recirculatingsystems that were designed to rely on cooling ponds, channels,or basins will face extensive new impingement and entrainmentrequirements, as well. As a result, the EPA’s proposed rule willhave substantial economic, energy, and environmental impactson electric-generating and -manufacturing facilities nationwide,without providing corresponding benefits.In 2004, national standards for impingement and entrainmentwere established, and consideration of cooling towers as the “besttechnology available” was rejected because of their excessivecosts. In 2007, the court remanded the rule, in part denyingcost-benefit analysis, and implied that cooling towers should bedeemed the “best technology available.” Two years later, the U.S.Supreme Court decided that the EPA has discretion to use cost-benefit analysis in its regulatory rulemaking.The EPA is scheduled to take final action on this rule in July 2012.“The EPA’s proposed rule will havesubstantial economic, energy, andenvironmental impacts on electric-generating and -manufacturingfacilities nationwide, without providingcorresponding benefits.”
  • 21APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMWho Is Affected?AccordingtotheNorthAmericanElectricReliabilityCorporation(NERC), this rule could impact existing plants with once-through cooling systems, including as many as 1,201 coal, oilsteam, and gas steam generating units (totaling 252 gigawatts),as well as roughly one third of all installed nuclear capacity(approximately 60 gigawatts).38The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has found that thetotal initial capital costs would be around $64 billion nationally,and affect nearly 30 percent of U.S. electricity generatingcapacity.39According to a report by New Jersey utility PSEG,“[a] requirement to install cooling towers will force powerplants into a retrofit-or-retire decision.”40The NERC study found that, as a result of these decisions, thisrule alone could threaten up to 41 GW and, in turn, electricreliability throughout the country. For each plant, costs couldrun several hundred million dollars (and, for nuclear plants,as high as $1 billion).41The enormous capital expenditures,combined with reliability issues, could result in substantial rateincreases for consumers.Why Is This Unnecessary?Beyond economic costs associated with the rulemaking,there are several other reasons for pause on any broadcooling water intake structure regulation. From barrier netsto fish return systems, there are a variety of alternativesto cooling towers for reducing any adverse aquatic effects.Several studies have indicated that the overall impact forfish populations as a result of once-through cooling systemsis minimal. Furthermore, cooling towers could decreaseefficiency, increase emissions of particulate matter andgreenhouse gases, and expand water use.42While EPA Administrator Jackson stated in a letter to ChairmanUpton that she does not favor a “one-size-fits-all federalmandate,”closeattentionmustbepaidtowhethertheregulationswith which the EPA proceeds provide the necessary flexibility.Moreover, the necessity for federal intervention in this area, asopposed to action by the states, is questionable. As noted bythe Nuclear Energy Institute , a recent Supreme Court decisiongranted the EPA broad flexibility to “allow for the states to protectboth the aquatic environment and the reliability of the electricalgrid through appropriate site-specific and cost-benefit analyses.”43Thestatesthemselveshavealongstandingpracticeofmanagingthe resources within their state, and of considering both costsand benefits in establishing the “best technology available” aspart of their permitting duties. Many states have examined theissue, and have considered further regulation of cooling waterintake structures to be a low priority.“The EPA’s cooling water intake regulationcould result in power plant retirements andreduced electricity supply, and will verylikely lead to higher costs for Americans at atime when they can least afford them.”
  • 22ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKHydraulic Fracturing RegulationHydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” involves usingwater pressure to break up shale formations and stimulatethe flow of natural gas or oil. Advancements in “fracking”technology and the increasing use of the practice to recoverpreviously inaccessible domestic energy resources has spurredrapid economic development in places such as Texas, NorthDakota, and western Pennsylvania. This development has alsoled the EPA to examine the process and potentially regulate“fracking” despite already-existing regulations at the local,state, and federal levels.BackgroundAlthough vast deposits of energy resources, such as oil andnatural gas in shale formations, have been known for sometime, they were previously inaccessible. The process ofhydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling is now enablingthe extraction of these resources in an economical way, andit has revolutionized the country’s energy outlook. As withany booming energy industry, environmental activists havelatched on and begun spreading misinformation regarding theenvironmental impacts of “fracking.”The release of the documentary Gasland created a stir aboutthe potential for water contamination that has createda dialogue based on fear and skepticism of the process.Environmentalists claim that “fracking” threatens air qualityand water supplies, and that there is no existing regulatorybody to ensure that damages do not occur. Both charges arefalse. Energy production through “fracking” is already subjectto federal, state, and local regulations that address everyaspect of “fracking” operations. The Clean Water Act regulatessurface-water discharges and storm-water runoff. The CleanAir Act regulates air emissions from sources associated withdrilling and production. The National Environmental Policy Actrequires permits and environmental impact assessments forany drilling done on federal lands. The Occupational Safety andHealth Act sets standards for the safety of workers.Moreover, because of the recent resource production boom,the states themselves have assessed their own regulatoryneeds and have begun introducing a number of measuresto ensure that resources are developed in a responsiblemanner that balances environmental concerns with economicdevelopment. State-level action is much more appropriatefor hydraulic fracturing, because drilling practices arecustomized based on the unique geological characteristics indifferent localities, states, and regions. The geology of energyformations in shale can vary greatly from region to region,and even from well to well in the same area. In order toprovide transparency to the process, a number of states havebegun requiring drilling companies to disclose the contentsof “fracking” fluid used in each well. “Fracking” fluids aretypically composed of 98 to 99 percent water, with sand asthe next major ingredient and small amounts of chemicalsadded to protect the wellbore and improve production.Although many of the ingredients are natural and common,some “fracking” fluids utilize trace amounts of chemicals thatwould be harmful to people if ingested in large quantities.However, these chemicals are only present in trace amounts,and scientific studies have yet to demonstrate a causal linkbetween “fracking” and water contamination.Texas became the first state to enact a “fracking” fluiddisclosure bill in 2011. Pennsylvania has followed this year ina broadly supported, bipartisan comprehensive reform, andfour other states—Illinois, Indiana, New York, and Ohio—have introduced versions of the bill for consideration thisyear. In some states, including Wyoming, the issue has beenaddressed through existing regulatory programs, and innearly all of the states with significant hydraulic fracturing,the state itself is working to make the regulatory tweaks tobolster the industry while safeguarding the environment.
  • 23APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMNevertheless, the EPA and the Bureau of Land Managementare pressing forward in developing federal hydraulic fracturingregulations, and although the specific content of the regulationsare not yet released, reports have indicated that the scheme willinclude numerous overlapping regulations and a requirementfor hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure. In the last State of theUnion address, President Obama also mentioned this intent bystating, “… I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on publiclands to disclose the chemicals they use.”Also, the White House Office of Management and Budget hasbegun its review of updated New Source Performance Standardsapplicable to new and modified hydraulically fractured gas wells,natural gas processing facilities, and other facilities in the oil andgas sector. The rule was originally proposed in August 2011, andthe standards are scheduled to be published by mid-April 2012.Who Does This Affect?Duplicative and unnecessary federal regulations over resourcedevelopment have proven to be a strong deterrent todevelopment. Hydraulic fracturing has already proven to be asignificantjobcreator,yetpendingburdensomefederalregulationswill potentially hinder the advancement of this industry.An American Petroleum Institute report, released in February2012, says EPA’s forthcoming New Source PerformanceStandards for oil and gas production could slow hydraulicfracturing by as much as 52 percent, lower natural gasproduction by as much as 11 percent, and lower oil productionby as much as 37 percent. The report also says that federaland state tax revenues related to drilling would be reduced bymore than $10 billion.44Other than New Source Performance Standards regarding“fracking” emissions, there are no firm details on EPA regulationof hydraulic fracturing, so it is hard to determine the effecton economic development and job creation in the states. Butthere has been research on how much the oil and natural gasindustry has contributed to the U.S. economy.A recent report from the World Economic Forum asserts thatoil and natural gas production accounted for 9 percent of newU.S. jobs in 2011, nearly one of every 10 new U.S. jobs createdlast year. This report found that, in 2011, 37,000 new jobs werecreated from oil and gas resources, which, in turn, drove thecreation of another 111,000 jobs related to industries thatsupply the oil and natural gas industry with goods and services.In places such as North Dakota, oil and gas production hasjump-started rapid economic development across all sectorsto support population increases resulting from large numbersof new high-paying jobs.
  • 24ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKSurprising for a technology that barely existed a decade ago,“unconventional” oil and natural gas production employs morethan 1.3 million Americans. The shale gas industry alone employs600,000 people in the United States. An additional 400,000 areemployed in the production of tight gas and coal seam gas, andanother 350,000 in unconventional oil extraction.45Furthermore, increased access to energy reserves has ledto a sharp decline in natural gas prices. This has benefitedhousehold budgets immensely, because many Americans heattheir homes with gas, and many electric utilities rely on gas togenerate electricity for their customers.Additional layers of regulations coming from the EPA, ontop of the existing regulatory framework at the federal andstate levels, will certainly add costs to the industry that willbe passed down to all Americans who use oil and gas in theirdaily lives. In addition, it may hinder additional investment anddevelopment in areas where shale resources lie.Why Is This Unnecessary?Ultimately, the states themselves are best poised to ensureenvironmental protection from hydraulic fracturing processes,yet it is important to debunk some of the more egregious claimsfrom environmental groups and anti-“fracking” proponents.Groundwater contamination is continuously debated as a centralissue related to hydraulic fracturing, but it is important to notethat several layers of impermeable rock separate the oil andgas from aquifers and groundwater. “Fracking” is done deepenough below the earth’s surface—generally 5,000–20,000 feetdown—that the process itself cannot compromise the purity ofwater supplies. The Groundwater Protection Council, a nonprofitorganization whose members consist of state groundwaterregulatory agencies, conducted a report in 2008 and found thatthe layers of impermeable rock over shale act as a barrier sothat the water and chemicals used in “fracking” could not affectgroundwater aquifers.46In 2010, the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection completed a report and found similarconclusions, noting that “no groundwater pollution or disruptionof underground sources of drinking water have been attributedto hydraulic fracturing of deep gas formations.”47In February2012, a new study was released at the American Association forthe Advancement of Science’s annual meeting finding “no directevidence that fracking itself has contaminated groundwater.”The study, released by the University of Texas at Austin, foundno need for new regulations specific to “fracking,” but for betterenforcement of existing regulations of drilling in general.Although “fracking” used to extract oil and natural gas from deepshale reserves is relatively new, the process of hydraulic fracturinghas been used for decades, and there has never been any directevidence that it has contaminated ground water. The Universityof Texas study concluded, as others have found as well, that anycontamination is attributable to minor flaws in well construction,and that risk can be minimized through proper enforcement ofexisting regulatory frameworks within the states.48Regarding air quality, federal, state, and local governments havethoroughly tested hydraulic fracturing sites for air pollution. Testresults consistently show that the “fracking” process does notpose significant air pollution or health risks, and that air qualityin the immediate vicinity of “fracking” sites meets applicable airquality standards. One example is a study completed for the cityof Fort Worth, Texas, examining air quality around natural gassites. The study “did not reveal any significant health threats.”49The Fort Worth Star-Telegram characterized that report as “themost comprehensive study of urban gas drilling to date.”50Lastly, one of the issues brought up by “fracking” opponents isthe possibility that the process causes earthquakes. In regionsnear hydraulic fracturing sites, there has been a higher frequencyof minor earthquakes, but no connection has yet been verifiedbetween“fracking”andearthquakes.Researchershavereported
  • 25APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMthat any connection would not be related to “fracking” itself,but would instead be related to the practice of re-injecting used“fracking” fluid underground near a well site.51If any connectionbetween recent minor earthquakes and “fracking” is foundthrough further research, it can be readily addressed at the statelevel through restricting or limiting the process of re-injectingused fluids underground.Hydraulic fracturing is already transforming job markets inareas of the country that are in dire need, and it is criticalthat the EPA reserve regulation of hydraulic fracturing for thestates. This will accomplish the same regulatory goals in a lessburdensome way, while allowing for states to address anyenvironmental concerns that are unique to them.Ozone Regulation under theNational Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS)The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient AirQuality Standards for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide,ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. During the nextfew years, each one of these standards will be reviewed, and itis anticipated that each one will be tightened. Ozone regulationwill be highlighted in this report, because it is one of the moredamaging standards likely to be implemented in the next year.BackgroundTheNAAQSaretrulythebackboneoftheCleanAirAct,andtheydrivethe stringency of federal controls on pollutants. The EPA is requiredto revisit the stringency of the standards every five years, but is notrequired to tighten NAAQS for any of the covered air pollutants. In1997, the EPA set an ozone standard of 84 parts per billion (ppb).In March 2008, the Agency promulgated a final rule lowering thestandard to 75 ppb, which was at odds with the recommendationsof its clean air science advisory committee. Implementation of the2008 standard was suspended in 2009 pending further study. A fullrevisit of the standard wasn’t to occur until 2013.Despite the mandatory requirement to revisit the standard in2013, the Obama Administration decided it would make thestandard more stringent even before the 2008 standard had beenfully implemented. Under direction from the Administration, theEPA was poised to tighten ozone standards in January 2011, butthe decision was delayed to July 2011 pending review from theOffice of Management and Budget. Under the new proposal, theEPA proposed to reduce the acceptable primary ozone level toas low as 60 ppb parts. The revision of the standard represents aunilateral attempt by the Administration to change the standardadopted by the previous Administration without doing any furtherstudies or analysis. The public would be far better served if theEPA allowed the current standard to be fully implemented, thenreviewed additional science as a part of the regular NAAQS reviewcycletodeterminewhetheratighteningofthestandardisjustified.Justbeforethenewstandardwastobeproposed,theAdministrationstepped in as numerous reports were pouring in about theincredible cost of the regulation. In September 2011, PresidentObama demanded that the EPA withdraw its final rule to tightenthe ozone standard until 2013, just after the presidential election.“Non-attainment can mean loss of industryand economic development, including plantclosures; loss of federal highway and transitfunding; increased EPA regulation andcontrol over permitting decisions; increasedcosts for industrial facilities to implementmore stringent controls; and increased fueland energy costs.” — Sen. James Inhofe andRep. Fred Upton
  • 26ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKObamanotedthatthenextmandatoryreviewoftheozonestandardis due in 2013, and issuing a new standard now would have createdregulatory uncertainty, stating, “Ultimately, I did not support askingstate and local governments to begin implementing a new standardthat will soon be reconsidered.” Unfortunately, regulated entitiesare quite uncertain about what will happen in 2013.Following the withdrawal of the final ozone rule, lawsuitsbegan on both sides. Industry has challenged the 2008 NAAQSof 75 ppb as too stringent, while environmental groups havefiled suit challenging the standard as too weak.Who Is Affected?According to an analysis by the Business Roundtable, 66 out of 736monitored counties nationwide do not meet the ozone standardof 75 ppb. If the EPA lowers it to 60 ppb, the estimated number ofnon-attainment counties would skyrocket to 628 out of 736.52Thismeans that approximately 85 percent of the nation would be innon-attainment. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) foundsimilar results. CRS noted that the number of counties in non-attainment would jump from 85 to 650. The EPA’s own analysisis even worse, with a prediction that up to 96 percent of countieswould be in non-attainment at the stringent 60 ppb threshold.As a result of these non-attainment designations, the labor groupUnions for Jobs and the Environment foresees “significant joblossesacrossthecountryduringaperiodofhighunemployment.”The EPA has estimated the costs of moving to a 60 ppb standardto be in the range of $52–90 billion annually. Analysis byManufacturers Alliance/MAPI estimates that the annual cost ofattaining a standard of 60 ppb would be $1.013 trillion between2020 and 2030. That is approximately 5.4 percent of the nation’sprojected gross domestic product in 2020. By 2020, the analysisreveals, job losses could reach 7.3 million, which represents anestimated 4.3 percent of the total work force in the country.53Why Is It Unnecessary?Many toxicologists and physicians challenge the EPA’s scientificjustification for an ozone standard lower than 85 ppb. Even theformer chairman of the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Committee,Dr. Roger McClellan, in referring to the proposal of the BushAdministration to lower the previous ozone standard to a rangeof 70 ppb to 75 ppb, called the revision “a policy judgmentbased on a flawed and inaccurate presentation of the science,”and recommended that a range up to 80 ppb be considered.54The proposed 60 ppb standard is so strict that even areas ofYellowstone National Park may be naturally noncompliant. Tothe extent that some areas will be affected by ozone emittedelsewhere (even outside the United States), it may proveliterally impossible to comply with the new standard.The EPA estimated the annual benefits of moving to a 60 ppbstandard to be in the range of $30–87 billion. Although thebenefit analysis itself is questionable, the cost-benefit analysisof the more stringent standard still does not pencil out. Onlybetween 27–35 percent of the EPA’s claimed health benefitsare attributable to reductions in ozone. On the other hand,65–73 percent of the benefits are attributed to coincidentalreductions in fine particulate matter, which is addressed byanother regulation entirely.55Using the EPA’s own cost andbenefit estimates, the 60 ppb standard could cost up to $90billion per year for a direct benefit of $53–63 billion per year.Restrictions on Mining PermitsTheEPAisnotonlyatwarwithcoal-firedgenerationofelectricity,but also with the mining of coal. Mountaintop mining isauthorized by the 1977 Surface Mining Control and ReclamationAct (SMCRA), and it is essential for the Appalachian coal industry.The process involves removing the tops of mountains to getat the underlying coal, and it is being attacked by the currentAdministration in a number of ways. The EPA is halting already-
  • 27APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMapproved permits, holding back and unnecessarily delayingpermits, and even revoking previously issued permits.BackgroundImpacts from mountaintop mining have long been regulatedunder the Clean Water Act by the EPA, the states, and the ArmyCorps of Engineers. In order to regulate even further, the EPAcame up with a new basis for regulation beyond the acceptedstandards and existing regulatory framework, claiming that thestates’ interpretation of “water quality” insufficiently accountsfor the threatened species of the mayfly. A single inside draftstudy from 2008, which found a tenuous connection betweenwater near mines and reduced mayfly populations, led the EPAto believe mining is unacceptable under the Clean Water Act. InApril 2010, the EPA subverted the normal rulemaking processesand issued new water quality standards. Although the EPA claimsthat the standards were officially “non-binding,” the Agencyinformed states that they needed to follow the new standardswhen it issues Clean Water Act permits. The EPA’s new definitionofwaterqualityissostringentthatEPAAdministratorLisaJacksonconceded it would outlaw future mountaintop mining altogether.To make matters worse, the EPA announced in January 2011that, for the first time in history, it was retroactively revokingan existing water permit. The EPA does not have the statutoryauthority to do this under the Clean Water Act, and, with thisaction, it has jeopardized all similarly issued permits. The EPA’sveto of the Spruce Mine No.1 in West Virginia sent shockwavesthroughouttheindustry,leavingsignificantuncertaintyregardingwhether other permits could be revoked, stranding investmentsand costing jobs. Now that the EPA has demonstrated thatit will veto issued permits, states are obligated to adhere to aregulatory process under which they must follow the EPA’snew standards or risk a veto. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia)describes this process as “do or dare permits.”Inall,theEPAhashaltedmorethan150permitsalreadyapprovedby state and federal officials. This number does not include themore than 200 backlogged permits that the EPA is sitting onand not subjecting to review.56Through stopping the issuanceof mining permits, the EPA has violated the AdministrativeProcedures Act, the Clean Water Act, the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act, and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.The EPA has disregarded requirements under these laws forpublic comment and formal rulemaking procedures, as well asextending its jurisdictional reach over state and local authorities.This isn’t all. The Obama Administration is poised to reinterpretSMCRA in a move to essentially ban mountaintop mining.SMCRA contains a “100 foot buffer rule” that prohibits miningactivity within 100 feet of intermittent or perennial streams,unless the mine operator installs the best technology availableto mitigate impacts. When mining for coal, the loose dirt androck has more volume then when it was compacted. Much ofthis is used to reconstruct the approximate original shape ofthe mined terrain; however, extra dirt and rock is often placedin the valley at the base of the mine. This is known as a valley fill,and it is an essential part of the mining industry in Appalachia.In the 1990s, lawsuits originating from environmental groupsallegedthatvalleyfills,abyproductofmining,violatethebufferrule.The Court clearly ruled that SMCRA assumed that valley fills wouldbe used in the mining process, and it makes no sense that SMCRAwould envision valley fills as part of the process yet also serve asthe basis to ban them.57Every Administration since the passage ofSMCRA has interpreted the 100 foot buffer rule as not conflictingwith the construction of valley fills, as long as the best technologyavailable is used. In fact, the Bush Administration undertook aformal rulemaking to clarify the use of valley fills with the 100 feetbuffer rule, to end the uncertainty once and for all.58After PresidentObamatookoffice,theDepartmentofInteriorattemptedtoreversethe Bush rule clarification, but a federal court intervened becausethe Department had bypassed the formal rulemaking process. InApril 2010, a notice of proposed rulemaking was issued stating an
  • 28ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKintent to reconsider the interpretation of the 100 feet buffer rule.29Only time will tell whether the Administration decides to changethe interpretation or threaten coal mining across Appalachia.Recently, WildEarth Guardians, the Sierra Club, and otherenvironmental groups, filed a lawsuit requesting that the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia require the EPA torespond to a petition filed in 2010, which argues that the CleanAir Act should cover coal mines as pollution sources. The EPA hasacknowledged that it received the petition to add a coal minestationary source category under the New Source PerformanceStandards, but has yet to respond. Regulation of coal minesunder the CAA would add yet another burdensome layer ofregulation, and the threat of regulatory change is already causinguncertainty in the market.Who Is Affected?Attempts to change or alter already-existing and acceptedstandardsarecausingsignificantuncertaintyinminingoperationsacross the country. This means less investment, less economicdevelopment, and, ultimately, fewer jobs and less tax revenuefor the states. The revocation of the Spruce No. 1 Mine resultedin the loss of 250 jobs that paid on average $62,000 a year, butthis is just one mine.60Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky calledthe rejection of 11 permits that were approved by the KentuckyDivision of Water as “arbitrary and unreasonable,” citing that itrisked up to 18,000 mining jobs.61The EPA’s actions threatenthousands of jobs, with each coal mining job generating anestimated 3.5 jobs elsewhere in the economy.62There is no way to know the full impact of regulatory uncertainty,just as there is no way to calculate how many mines wouldhave been developed. Even so, the National Mining Association(NMA) has quantified how the mining industry as a whole will beaffected by the closure of coal power plants across the country.The NMA estimates that up to 27,000 jobs could be lost, andthe industry itself could take an almost $15 billion hit.63According to the Department of Interior, the rewrite of thestream buffer zone would eliminate 7,000 coal mining jobs, andcoal mining would decline or stay flat in more than 20 states.Production would decrease or stay flat in 22 states, but climbby 15 percent in North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. TheNMA claims that even this large impact is deflated, stating thatthe rewrite “will destroy tens of thousands of coal-related jobsacross the country from Appalachia to Alaska and Illinois to Texaswith no demonstrated benefit to the environment,” and that theDepartment’s“ownanalysisprovidesaveryconservativeestimateof jobs that will be eliminated, incomes that will be lost and staterevenues that will be foregone at both surface and undergroundcoal mining operations.”64
  • 29APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMA study by ENVIRON International Corporation completed inMarch 2012 revealed that the proposed rewrite of the streambuffer zone puts up to 273,000 coal-mining related jobs at risk,puts up to 79,000 direct mining jobs at risk, and leads to losses of$5 billion in annual federal and state tax revenues.65Needless to say, this will impact the thousands of families andcommunities supported by mining, and the millions of Americanswho will see increases in electricity rates resulting from a reducedcoal supply and the consequent higher prices of coal.Why Is This Unnecessary?The EPA claims that the coal mines would impact water quality,pointing to the results of its 2008 study finding that certain mayflies—atypeofinsectthatissensitivetoanychangeintheenvironment— are absent from water near mines. Yet the same EPA study citedanother report finding that “total abundance of all organisms wasnot substantially reduced in streams below valley fills.”During the past 30 years, there have been a handful of reports andenvironmental impact statements on the practice of mountaintopmining. The most comprehensive was an environmental impactstatement co-sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency,the Fish & Wildlife Service, the Office of Surface Mining, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, and the state of West Virginia.This 5,000-page report includes 30 studies of all different aspectsof mountaintop mining. According to the report, surface mininghas disturbed only about 3 percent of the land in the studyarea during the past 10 years. This area, which includes parts ofVirginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, accounts forabout 25 percent of the nation’s coal mining. During the 10-yearperiod studied, mountaintop mining was viewed as impacting only2 percent of the streams in the study area, which does not takeinto account the numerous measures used to avoid, minimize, ormitigate impacts under the Clean Water Act.66In addition, there are numerous state agencies that thoroughlyassess the environmental impact of mining within their state’sborders. No mining activity can even take place without apermit, and the permitting process is rigorous. It requires miningcompanies to submit different types of environmental studies,engineering reports, and land restoration and reclamation plans.Changing, altering, or drastically increasing the stringency of thealready well-accepted standards on mining is burdensome andwill not lead to any appreciable environmental benefit.Regulation of Greenhouse GasEmissions (GHGs)The EPA is moving full steam ahead on regulating greenhouse gasesunder the Clean Air Act. The principal human-emitted GHGs includecarbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. TheEPAblamesthesegasesforanincreaseinglobaltemperatureduringthe past 100 years that they allege will lead to catastrophic globalclimate change. The EPA finalized first-ever rules for reducing GHGemissions and increasing fuel efficiency for automobiles and light-dutytrucksinMay2010,anditaddedthefinalruleformedium-andheavy-duty vehicles in September 2011. Now the EPA has moved toimplement a program of regulating GHGs from stationary sourcesthrough two different programs.BackgroundThe cornerstone of the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases is thepublished endangerment finding that emission of GHGs threatenspublic health and future generations. Although the Clean Air Actdoes not provide for regulation of GHGs, the Supreme Courtheld in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency could pursue suchregulations if it found them to endanger the public. President Bushdeclined to make this finding, but within the first year of PresidentObama’s tenure the EPA published the final endangerment findingfor GHGs.
  • 30ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKCurrently, a broad coalition of groups is challenging theendangerment finding in court on the grounds that the EPAviolated the statutory standard that regulations not be “arbitraryand capricious.” Arguing that the EPA admittedly relied on suspectscience, they charge the agency with weaving together threehighly uncertain lines of evidence — temperature records, climatemodels, and understanding of large-scale physical phenomena —to create the false sense that it could be 90 percent certain ofanthropogenic global warming. The coalition also argued that theEPA made the endangerment finding outside of the legal contextprovided by the Clean Air Act, which requires a reasonableapproach that considers a real benefit to regulation of a pollutant,not merely negligible decreases in global temperature. In addition,the Pacific Legal Foundation, one of the petitioners in the case,argues that the EPA’s finding is invalid because it did not submitits work for independent scrutiny by its Science Advisory Board(SAB), as required by the Clean Air Act. The SAB is a panel of topscientists from universities, research institutions and other highlyregarded organizations, empowered by federal law to reviewany new “criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation”that the EPA proposes to issue under the Clean Air Act. The EPAis legally required to have the SAB review its work on greenhousegases, and the Agency broke the law by ignoring this obligation.The case is currently pending decision in the D.C. Circuit Court ofAppeals, although in oral arguments the justices unfortunatelyshowed little willingness to challenge the EPA on science.The EPA’s first program for regulating GHGs began on January 2,2010. The Clean Air Act requires states to implement programsapproved by the EPA as a part of issuing pre-construction permitsunder the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of air quality(PSD) portion of New Source Review, as well as operating permitsunder Title V. The permits require sources to adopt “best availablecontrol technology” to limit emissions of regulated pollutants.The CAA triggers these permitting requirements if a source emitsa regulated pollutant at levels above a certain threshold, and theyapply only to new and substantially upgraded sources.However, these requirements are uniquely unsuited forregulation of GHGs, having been designed to regulate pollutantswith a local or regional impact, not emissions that circulateglobally in the atmosphere.The CAA’s PSD and Title V permitting programs set relativelylow emissions thresholds to determine which projects mustobtain permits under these programs. Those thresholdsare appropriate for traditional types of pollutants because,in general, only large industrial facilities emit traditionalpollutants above those levels. But GHGs are different. Underthe same threshold set forth by the CAA, more than 6 millionbuildings and facilities do not comply. The EPA thereforehas had to unilaterally raise those thresholds to muchhigher levels for GHGs (in its “Tailoring Rule”) to preventwhat the Agency characterizes as the “absurd result” of amultiplicity of smaller buildings and facilities from becomingimmediately subject to permitting requirements.The tailoring rule is currently being challenged in court as a partof the same combined cases involving the endangerment finding.The court in oral arguments showed more skepticism toward thetailoring rule than the other arguments advanced by the EPA, butit remains to be seen what the practical effect would be if the rulewere overturned in court.The initial target of these programs is large industrial,electric generation, and manufacturing facilities; over time,“The EPA’s claim of authority to regulategreenhouse gases gives it an unprecedentedability to control virtually every facet ofAmerican life.”
  • 31APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMthe EPA plans further rulemaking to expand the universeof regulated facilities. Because the economy runs on fossilfuels, and because carbon dioxide is the inevitable byproductof combusting fossil fuels, the EPA’s claim of authority toregulate GHGs gives it an unprecedented ability to controlvirtually every facet of American life. The EPA is consideringregulation of everything from ships and boats to planes,cars, and trucks, agricultural facilities, mining, and movableequipment of every stripe (from forklifts to lawnmowers),as well as more regulations on manufacturing and industrialfacilities, and commercial and industrial buildings.In its rush to commence regulating greenhouse gas emissionsby the beginning of 2011 under these two permit programs,the EPA triggered a regulatory stampede that trampledover states’ rights and federal law requirements under thecooperative federalism model of the Clean Air Act. The EPApromulgated no less than 11 GHG regulations in 2010, sevenof them in December of that year, and six of them totalingmore than 500 pages.Because in most cases states implement the PSD and TitleV programs under plants submitted to the EPA for approval,the Agency needed states to change the laws and regulationsunder which these programs operate to conform to theAgency’s new GHG requirements. With time running out in2010, the EPA actually threatened states with a constructionban for large industrial and manufacturing sources if they didnot make the necessary law and regulatory changes on theEPA’s incredibly expedited schedule.The final months of 2010 witnessed a large majority of statesgalloping through rulemaking, many of which invoked emergencyauthority to meet the EPA’s schedule, in order to avoid theconstruction ban. Some states did not make it, and the EPAimposed a federal implementation plan on eight states that didnot act quickly enough. Surprisingly, the EPA announced in a pressrelease that the Agency and the states had “worked closely” toimplement the GHG program.This is simply not the case. Rather than cooperating with states,the EPA rapidly and forcefully imposed a regulatory programfor which it is not explicitly authorized under the Clean Air Act.When states were unable to meet the federal requirements,their sovereignty under the Act to implement their own airquality permit programs was revoked.The second track by which EPA aims to regulate GHGs isthrough New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), whichlimit the level of emissions for regulated pollutants by certainsources. The EPA was poised to roll out GHG NSPS for bothpower plants and refineries by the end of 2011, althoughpersistent delays have plagued both rules. In late December2010, the EPA announced that it had settled litigation withstates and environmental groups, agreeing to proposestandards for power plants in July 2011 and petroleumrefineries in December 2011. In the settlement, the EPAcommitted to final rules for both types of facilities by May26, 2012.In January 2012, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and RadiationGina McCarthy announced that the agency was close to proposingNSPS for new and significantly modified power plants. At the time,she claimed that the regulations would be released before the endof that month, but the Agency missed that deadline as well. Finallyon March 27th, the Agency released a carbon dioxide standardfor new power plants. The regulation requires that all new fossil-fuel fired power plants that exceed 25 megawatts in capacity beable to meet an emission rate standard of 1,000 pounds of carbondioxide per megawatt hour. The EPA notes that the standardscould be met either by natural gas combined cycle generationor coal-fired generation using carbon capture and sequestration(CCS) - the commercially unproven process of capturing andstoring carbon dioxide.
  • 32ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKThe EPA admits that it is not close to finalizing the rules for existingsources which is the next step in the Agency’s goal to eliminatecoal-fired electricity as the regulations will most likely cause theearly retirement of power plants across the country.As for NSPS for oil refineries, EPA Administrator Lisa Jacksonannounced in early March 2012 that there are no suchrules under development, and it appears that the issue hasbeen punted until after the November elections. Rising gasprices made the refinery rule an obvious tool for PresidentObama to show that he is willing to slow down the regulatoryonslaught. The original settlement set a goal of December2011 and a deadline of May 2012, so the parties will nowbegin negotiating a new settlement with a new timeline foreventually implementing the rule.Who Is Affected?If the tailoring rule stands through court scrutiny, the EPA plansto regulate both mobile sources and major stationary sources ofGHGs. This will mean that anything using or requiring energy to beproduced will increase in cost.The EPA failed to study the overall cost of its GHG regulations, butestimates from a variety of perspectives suggest a substantialprice tag.Dr. Roger Bezdek of the economic research firm ManagementInformation Services, Inc., compiled a variety of analyses onGHG regulation, concluding that the EPA approach would:68• Reduce Gross Domestic Product every year for the next twodecades, with GDP dropping $500 billion by 2030;• Reduce U.S. employment, culminating in the loss of 2.5 millionjobs by 2030;• Reduce U.S. household incomes, with average householdincome dropping by about $1,200 annually by 2030;• Increase U.S. energy costs, with increases of 50 percent forgasoline and residential electricity prices, 75 percent forindustrial electricity prices and residential natural gas prices,and 600 percent for electric utility coal prices.The Heritage Center for Data Analysis found that regulation ofGHGs from all sources under the Clean Air Act (in other words, ifthe EPA is wrong and the tailoring rule is shot down by the court)wouldresultin:cumulativeGDPlossesof$7trillionby2029;single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion; and annual job losses of800,000 or more for several years.Why Is This Unnecessary?The recently released carbon dioxide standard for new powerplants is a perfect example of how politically favored policiescan be disguised as providing real health benefits. Althoughthe purpose of a regulation is to protect human health, theEPA did not attempt to calculate health benefits of reducingcarbon dioxide as an alleged “pollutant.” In order to justifyeach proposed regulation in terms of a cost benefit analysis, theEPA conducts a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). In the carbondioxide RIA, the EPA clearly shows that its agenda is politically-motivated rather than based on health benefits:“ This proposed rule is consistent with the President’s goalto ensure that ‘by 2035 we will generate 80 percent ofour electricity from a diverse set of clean energy sources- including renewable energy sources like wind, solar,biomass and hydropower, nuclear power, efficient naturalgas, and clean coal.”“Greenhouse gas regulations will increaseU.S. energy costs, with increases of 50percent for gasoline and residentialelectricity prices, 75 percent for industrialelectricity prices and residential naturalgas prices, and 600 percent for electricutility coal prices.”
  • 33APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMis already accomplishing the goal of greenhouse gas reduction:carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of GDP declined in theU.S. by 41.3 percent from 1981 to 2005, and are expectedto decline by another 42 percent through 2035. The growthin global energy demand will be 65 percent lower through2030 than it would have been without these innovations.These improvements were prompted not by an unnecessaryregulatory scheme that achieves only negligible results, butby market demand for energy efficiency.Essentially, EPA regulation of GHGs is all cost and no benefit anditisbeingusedasapoliticaltooltoadvancetheAdministration’sgoal of forcing Americans to purchase renewable energy.STUDYYEAR OFIMPACTLEGISLATIONANALYZED(PROXY FOREPA GHGREGULATION)FEWERJOBSEnergy InformationAdministrationH.R. 2454 2030 2.3 Million2.5 Million5.1 MillionUp to 1.9Million3.6 Million2.44 Million20502030203020352050H.R. 2454H.R. 2454H.R. 2454Kerry/LeibermanAmerican PowerActKerry/LeibermanAmerican PowerActNational BlackChamber ofCommerceNational Associationof Manufacturers/ACCFHeritage FoundationInstitute for EnergyResearchACCF/Small Business& EntrepreneurshipCouncilJOB LOSSES DUE TO GREENHOUSEGAS REGULATIONPutting aside the issue that there are no direct human health benefits ofreducingGHGs,threemajorreasonssuggestthat,evenifthingsgoaccordingto EPA plans, the impact on GHG emissions will be minimal.First, the EPA admits that its CAA requirements will achieve at best a 5percent reduction in U.S. GHGs — a drop in the global climate bucket.The EPA’s Federal Register entry accompanying the rule regulatingGHG emissions from new cars and light-duty trucks found that: “[G]lobal mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015[degrees] C by 2100… and sea-level rise is projected to be reducedby approximately 0.06 – 0.14 cm by 2100.” As the minority staff ofthe Senate Environment and Public Works Committee notes, “[t]hisamount is so miniscule it can’t even be measured by a ground-basedthermometer.”Second,thegrowingandunmitigatedemissionsbydevelopingcountrieswill overwhelm even the most severe unilateral GHG reductions. U.S.emissions are likely to remain relatively flat, while developing countryemissions will grow exponentially over the next century (furthercompounded by the fact that China’s faster growth of electricitydemand comes from more than 70 percent coal-fired generation). Eventhe EPA’s own analysis concludes that unilateral American reduction inGHGs has a negligible impact on atmospheric concentrations.Third, there is a significant risk that carbon leakage (in which energy-intensive industries shift production overseas to avoid costly regulation) willwipe out even the modest effect estimated by the EPA.Also, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration,greenhouse gas regulation may not even be necessary as U.S. carbondioxide emissions continue to track lower than levels during 2000.The newest data rebut assertions that the EPA needs to impose strictgreenhouse gas emissions.As standards of living rise worldwide, global demand for energy isexpected to continue rising over the next few decades. Yet technologicalimprovements have led to a dramatic increase in energy efficiency that
  • 34ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKECONOMY DERAILED:STATE-BY-STATE IMPACT PROFILESThe state impact profiles highlight just a few of the impactsof the EPA regulations described in the preceding section.Ultimately, the economic impact of numerous overlappingstringent regulations on the energy industry will causedamage in all sectors of state economies. The top 10 statesimpacted by the EPA, according to highest potential job loss,are Illinois, West Virginia, Ohio, Alabama, Michigan, Indiana,Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina.Electricity ImpactsThe state’s average retail price for electricity is correlatedwith the type of energy used to generate electricity. Largerpercentagesofcoalinastate’sgenerationmixequatestolowerrates. The 16 states that rely on coal for a small percentageof their electricity generation paid 30 percent more than thenational average price for electricity. The 34 states that usedmore coal paid 17 percent less than average.69Unfortunately,the vast majority of the EPA regulations proposed arespecifically designed to make coal-generated electricity moreexpensive or, as President Obama has stated to be his goal,not economically feasible at all.The expected increase in electricity rates comes from a varietyof sources. Electric utilities have begun releasing estimates onthe increase in electricity rates resulting from a number of EPAregulations.70Also, a National Economic Research Associates,Inc., study completed in September 2011 estimated increasesin electricity rates resulting from the Cross-State Air PollutionRule, the Utility MACT, the regulation of coal combustionresidues, and cooling water intake regulations.71It is important to note that none of the increase in electricityrates for the state impact profiles incorporates the costassociated with regulation of greenhouse gases. Estimatesfor electricity price increases resulting from greenhouse gasregulations vary, yet all show significant increases. The HeritageFoundation predicts that GHG regulation (through cap-and-traderegulations) would increase residential electricity rates by 90percent.72Management Information Services, Inc., an economicresearch firm, estimates a 50 percent increase for residentialelectricity prices and a 600 percent increase for electric utilitycoal prices.In addition, the effect of increasing electricity prices on thetransportation sector of the economy is not incorporated inthe state impact profiles. Not only will the refining of oil intogasoline increase in cost because of greenhouse gas regulations,but the major input cost for refineries happens to be energy.Nearly half of a refinery’s operating costs (43 percent) are forenergy.73Research shows that six kilowatt hours of electricityis needed to produce one gallon of gasoline,74which meansthat the price of electricity has a significant effect on the priceof gasoline. The reliability of electricity also plays a role. For aspecific example, the Energy Information Administration notes“... if somebody wants to build a coal powerplant, they can. It’s just that it will bankruptthem because they’re going to be charged ahuge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’sbeing emitted.” — Barack Obama
  • 35APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMthat up to 27 percent of California refining capacity could be“expected to be forced to shut down completely” during rotatingpower shortages.75Given that the EPA regulations are expectedto cut electricity supply and increase rates, it is certain that theregulatory onslaught will increase the cost of supplying gasolineto American consumers.Every one of the power plant retirements detailed in thestate impact profiles are the result of EPA regulations. Thelist is derived from three sources. One is the EPA’s modeling,which identifies the power plants that will close as a result ofeither the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or the Utility MACT.Another is culled from press releases or news stories in whicha power plant operator states that a power plant will or islikely to close because of EPA regulations. The final sourcecomes from filings with state public utility commissions inwhich a power plant operator states that a power plant willor is likely to close because of EPA regulations.The total job losses are derived from two different studies,depending upon the state. A study completed by McIlvaineCompany for the National Mining Association estimatedspecific job losses in the power sector resulting from theUtility MACT, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, coolingwater intake regulation, and coal combustion residualregulations that are causing coal-fired power plants toretire.76In addition, a study completed by the Unions forJobs and the Environment (UJAE) assessed the figure forboth direct and indirect job losses associated with powerplant closures.77The UJAE estimates that more than 50,000direct jobs in the coal, utility, and rail industries will be lost,with a total job loss — including indirect jobs — of 251,300.The total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retiredbecause of EPA regulations is derived from the NationalMining Association study, as well. This study provided threescenarios: a best-case scenario, a most-likely scenario, anda worst-case scenario. The most-likely scenario was used forthe state impact profiles, and the calculation of the numberof homes that the retired capacity could power was basedthe average U.S. household electricity use.78Mining ImpactsThe state impact profiles show only impacts on the miningsector that result from power plant closures. As power plants“Under my plan of a cap and trade system,electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…” — Barack Obama
  • 36ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKand, thus, electric utilities begin using less coal, less coalis mined and communities that were previously supportedby these endeavors begin to fall apart. The result is a lossof jobs, economic development, and state governmentrevenues. For a specific example, Alpha Natural Resources, amajor Appalachian coal producer, announced plans on Feb.3, 2012, to lower coal production because demand for coalby utilities is dropping. Altogether, 10 mining operations areaffected, four in eastern Kentucky and six in southern WestVirginia, reducing annual coal production by approximately4 million tons.79The state profiles that contain impacts on the mining sectorare derived from the National Mining Association study.The authors of study assess the origin and destination ofcoal to power specific plants that are being retired, andestimate the impact on the mining sector resulting fromthe decrease in coal usage from these retirements. For themost-likely scenario, nearly 20,000 coal mining jobs will belost as a result of power plant retirements, more than 300million tons will not be mined, and the coal industry itselfwill lose almost $11 billion. This impacts the standard ofliving of families and communities supported by mining, aswell as the millions of Americans that rely on affordable andreliable coal-generated electricity.Boiler Regulation ImpactsThe Boiler MACT Rule affects a number of facilities acrossthe country. One of the major industries affected by theBoiler MACT is the forest and paper industry, which oftenuses boilers to generate electricity for its facilities.The data for impacts on the forest product industry andthe overall economy originates from a study by IHS GlobalInsight, an economic forecasting firm that specializes ineconomic impacts on national, state, and local economies.80The study revealed significant negative impacts on stateeconomies resulting from this regulation. For every $1 billionspent on upgrade and compliance costs, the regulationwill put 16,000 jobs at risk and reduce U.S. gross domesticproduct by as much as $1.2 billion. The “total jobs at risk”figure used in the state impact profiles is the number of jobspotentially “at risk” of being eliminated as a consequence ofcompliance with the Boiler MACT.TOP 10 STATES IMPACTEDBY THE EPA42186759103
  • 37APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMARIZONA“As the stewards of our states’ natural resources, we share thebroad goals of the EPA to protect our air and water. However,we wish to express our strong concerns over the contents andtiming of many of the recently adopted and pending regulations,which together could seriously impact energy supply, reliability,and affordability for the residents, small businesses, andmanufacturers in our states and across the country.” — JaniceK. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, signer of a governors’ coalitionletter opposing EPA overreachPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Coal industry lost revenue:Total capital costs:Expected increase in electricity rates:Coal industry potentialjob loss:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:Coal tons lost per year:Number of boilersaffected: Total jobs at risk:9.7 cents per Kwh2,592,2502 34539%$91,610,000$23,532,1031.6%174572676.3 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 500,000 homes.ELECTRICITY IMPACTSMINING IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameNavajoFuel TypeCoalYear of Closure2015ALABAMA“The EPA continues to issue job-killing regulations that harm our economy. I am proud tostand with other state attorneys general to push back against the continued onslaught ofburdensome new federal rules and regulations flowing from Washington, D.C.”— Luther Strange, Alabama Attorney General“Some proposed regulations pending in Washington could result in significant cost increasesfor our customers — many of whom are already having trouble making ends meet in a tougheconomy. These cost increases could also hurt business and industry, and hurt their ability tocreate or retain jobs in Alabama.” — Michael Sznajderman, Alabama Power spokesmanPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Coal industry lost revenue:Total capital costs:Total capital costs:Expected increase in electricity rates:Coal industry potentialjob loss:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Average Retail Electricity Price:Coal tons lost per year:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:8.98cents per Kwh6,910,1905161 7,94341%$478,420,000$468,394,778$544,618,9328.2%–14%1,74518,832Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:5,324 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power almost 4 million homes.ELECTRICITY IMPACTSMINING IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSRANK: #4 WORST HIT BY THE EPAPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameColbertFuel TypeCoalYear of Closure2015
  • 38ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKCALIFORNIA“Regulations such as the Boiler MACT could raise compliancecosts, take away billions of dollars in capital annually andput hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. It is essential thatwe reform this regulation in order to protect the qualityof our environment, but also prevent overburdening smallbusinesses with new compliance costs.”— Representative Kevin McCarthy, California House Majority WhipPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Total capital costs:Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:Number of boilersaffected: Total jobs at risk:13.81 cents per Kwh18 1,1041%$69,016,2381.6%–5%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameBP WilmingtonCalcinerRio Bravo PosoRio Bravo JasminACE Cogeneration FacilityFuel TypePetroleumCokePetroleumCokeCoalCoalYear of Closure20152015PendingPendingARKANSAS“At a time when the unemployment rate remains alarmingly high, the Administration seemsdetermined to impose overly burdensome regulations at the expense of Arkansas jobs. It’sestimated that the EPA’s Boiler MACT rules, as written, could cost Arkansas’s economy over$338 million and put more than 5,400 Arkansans out of work.”— Arkansas Congressman Tim GriffinPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss in power sector:Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.19 cents per Kwh46%19–23%3882,158 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 1.6 million homes.ELECTRICITY IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameWelsh 2Fuel TypeCoalYear of Closure2014Total capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:3942 3,684$297,281,774$338,482,280BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTS
  • 39APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMCONNECTICUT“It’s devastating for the town. They’ve been a longtime goodneighbor. It’s not only the tax revenue, but they’ve created a lot ofjobs.” — Ronald K. McDaniel Jr., Mayor of Montville Connecticut,regarding the AES Thames coal plant shutdown resulting from“unexpected market conditions” and “regulatory uncertainties”“Thecumulativepotentialimpactofbothretrofitsandretirementson reliability is troubling. The possibility of regional reliabilityproblems is high if a substantial number of coal-fired power plantsgo out of service for extended periods of time in the same timeframe to either accomplish the retrofits required to comply withthe EPA requirements, or to replace the plant with a new naturalgas-fired plant.” — American Public Power Association (APPA),eight Connecticut public utilities are APPA membersPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Total capital costs:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:Number of boilersaffected: Total jobs at risk:17.39 cents per Kwh13 1,7478%$122,190,7542.2%–5%1,526399.5 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 300,000 homes.Aes thames co-generation plant 181 mw shut down last year, with aloss of 43 jobs.Estimated loss in tax revenue because of thames plant closure:more than $1.2 MillionELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSCOLORADO“The compliance cost for these Clean Air Act programs would beoverwhelming as millions of entities, including farms and ranches would besubject to burdensome CAA regulations ... the high costs of this regulation,the unidentified environmental benefits, and the ongoing effort in Congressto decide this issue argues strongly for Congress to use its authority underthe Congressional Review Act to intervene in this matter.”— Alan Foutz, Colorado Farm Bureau“Much like last year’s failed cap and trade bill would have done, EPAregulations are driving up the cost of energy and forcing American jobsoverseas. To be clear, my colleagues and I care deeply about the quality ofour air and water. But the EPA is attempting to regulate greenhouse gasseswith no consideration for the economic consequences. Now is not the timeto impose new costs on American businesses trying to create jobs.”— Colorado Congressmen Cory GardnerPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss in power sector:Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:9.18 cents per Kwh68%1.5-11%4,736464 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 300,000 million homes.ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilersaffected: Total jobs at risk:5 1,173$73,282,889Coal industry lost revenue:Coal industry potentialjob loss:Coal tons lost per year:1,881,000 $63,980,000 143MINING IMPACTS
  • 40ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKFLORIDA“The problems inherent in regulating GHGs under the CAA are so profound thatwebelieveEPAmustdecideagainstmakinganendangermentfindingatthistimeand delay regulation because regulation of GHGs will overwhelm the Agencyand state environmental agencies to the point where they cannot carry out theirother responsibilities under the Act.” — Florida Municipal Electric AssociationPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Lost manufacturing output by 2015: Lost state and local government revenues by 2015:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:10.64 cents per Kwh26%$1,300,000,000 $2,100,000,0003.9%–5%2,6951,703 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 1.2 million homes.ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:1736 3,602$146,217,277$365,498,920DELAWARE“AMP urges EPA to withdraw the Utility MACT rule as proposedand to conduct a thorough analysis of the specific regional andelectricity market impacts associated with this rulemaking … onlythen will EPA have a complete picture of the negative impact thatthese rules will comprehensively have on the nation’s economy andrecovery.”— Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation (AmericanMunicipal Power, Inc.)“… Delaware’s high cost of electricity is costing approximately$500 per home per year in higher energy costs … employersleave the State or decide not to locate in Delaware due to its50% higher electricity costs …” — Delaware House Bill 86, 146thGeneral AssemblyPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Total capital costs:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:Number of boilersaffected: Total jobs at risk:11.99 cents per Kwh3 29246%$18,258,89810.7%1,36882 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 60,000 homes.ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NamePower Plant NameIndian River Power StationNorthsideScholzCrystal RiverFuel TypeFuel TypeCoalPetroleum CokeCoalCoalYear of ClosureYear of Closure2013201520152020
  • 41APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMIDAHO“Allowing any federal agency to unilaterally move forward onissues of this magnitude not only allows politics to drive policydecisions; it locks out the voices of Idahoans, Americans andtheir elected representatives in Congress ... Such an importantdebate as climate change, and the potential to drive up costs onconsumers and small businesses, should not be left in the handsof Washington, D.C., bureaucrats” — Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo“(The) EPA is not equipped to consider the very real potentialfor economic harm when regulating emissions. Without thatconsideration, regulation will place heavy administrativeburdens on state environmental quality agencies, will be costlyto consumers and could be devastating to the economy andjobs.” — C.L. “Butch” Otter, Governor of IdahoPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:6.54 cents per Kwh1%0.1%–5%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:720 1,272$13,495,337$98,248,045GEORGIA“The cumulative impact of EPA’s regulatory actions, resulting in a reductionof domestic energy supply and higher energy prices, could force the U.S. torely even more heavily on foreign energy which can potentially stifle ourfragile economic recovery.”— Nathan Deal, Governor of Georgia, signer ofa governors’ coalition letter opposing EPA overreachPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:8.99 cents per Kwh53%8.2%–10%5,4601629.1 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 1.2 Million homes.ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameHarllee Branch 1Harllee Branch 2Fuel TypeCoalCoalYear of Closure20132013Total capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:4551 6,363$371,162,554$399,225,204
  • 42ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKINDIANA“We believe the EPA’s proposed rules harm domestic energy production and are hostile to theAdministration’s stated goals of creating jobs, improving the regulatory process, and increasingour nation’s energy security.” — Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, signer of a governors’coalition letter opposing EPA overreachELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Lost manufacturing output by 2015: Lost state and local government revenues by 2015:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.75 cents per Kwh90%$1,500,000,000 $1,100,000,0008.6–30%12,7816,863.5 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 5 million homes.Coal industry lost revenue:Total capital costs:Coal tons lost per year:Number of boilersaffected:Coal industrypotential job loss:Total jobs at risk:6,407,3708276612,712$244,330,000$1,023,776,776MINING IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameTanners CreekWabash RiverState LineR GallagherFuel TypeCoalCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure201420142015PendingRANK: #6 WORST HIT BY THE EPAILLINOIS“First, any costs incurred by utilities, refiners, manufacturers and other large emitters to complywith GHG regulatory requirements will be passed on to the consumers of those products,including farmers and ranchers … As a result, our nation’s farmers and ranchers will havehigher input costs, namely fuel and energy costs, to grow food, fiber and fuel for our nation andthe world.” — Philip Nelson, President of the Illinois Farm Bureau.ELECTRICITY IMPACTSRANK: #1 WORST HIT BY THE EPAPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Lost manufacturing output by 2015: Lost state and local government revenues by 2015:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:9.07 cents per Kwh47%$1,800,000,000 $2,100,000,0007.8%–18%28,8998,003.5 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 6 million homes.Coal industry lost revenue:Total capital costs:Coal tons lost per year:Number of boilersaffected:Coal industrypotential job loss:Total jobs at risk:1,236,680531499,334$47,680,000$464,824,188MINING IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameMeredosiaHutsonvilleMarionDallmanAbbotFuel TypeCoal/oilCoalCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure20122012201420152017
  • 43APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMKANSAS“We believe the EPA’s proposed rules harm domestic energy production andare hostile to the Administration’s stated goals of creating jobs, improving theregulatory process, and increasing our nation’s energy security.” — KansasHouse Resolution opposing the Environmental Protection Agency’sregulatory train wreck“The speed of EPA regulatory action prevents careful consideration of theimpacts. The expectation that the power sector may comply with newrequirements in as few as three years is simply not realistic given our operatingexperience with the lead times necessary to develop and acquire the requiredhardware for compliance.” — Colin Hansen, Kansas Municipal UtilitiesELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:8.23 cents per Kwh67%8%–15%2,4171,745.2 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 1.3 million homes.Total capital costs:Number of boilersaffected: Total jobs at risk:7 1,146$78,652,329BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameRivertonLawrence Energy CenterTecumseh Energy CenterFuel TypeCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure201420152015IOWA“Because we are consumer-owned power systems, costs imposed by EPA must be passed ondirectly to our consumers. We have no shareholders who will earn a rate of return on the capitalinvestments that will be mandated in order to comply with EPA requirements. Moreover, manyof our communities contain disproportionate shares of low income consumers and elderly onfixed incomes.” — Robert Haug, Iowa Association of Municipal UtilitiesTotal job loss (direct & indirect):Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.66 cents per Kwh5,6077.8%–32%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costsNumber of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:551 7,667$46,197,293$489,971,530Percentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:72%Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:4,391.5 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 6 million homes.Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameDubuqueEarl F. WisdomPrairie CreekBurlingtonMilton L KappSutherlandFuel TypeCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure20152015PendingPendingPendingPending
  • 44ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKLOUISIANA“The cumulative impact of EPA’s regulatory actions, resulting in a reduction of domesticenergy supply and higher energy prices, could force the U.S. to rely even more heavily onforeign energy which can potentially stifle our fragile economic recovery. Additionally, EPA’sactions are adding to already overburdened state resources and are limiting the abilityof states to administer their own, effective environmental programs and further slow thenation’s economic recovery.” — Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, signer of a governors’coalition letter opposing EPA overreachELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss in the power sector:Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.77 cents per Kwh23%7.2%–23%2381,324 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 1 million homes.Coal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:3,640,150 272$98,040,000MINING IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosurePower Plant NameNelsonFuel TypePetroleum cokeYear of Closure2015Total capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:2531 4,021$279,045,236$345,665,237KENTUCKY“Coal is not only a vital national resource, but coal mining also supports thousands of Kentuckyfamilies ... It’s time for the EPA to end these unpredictable policy swings and work with us on areasonable policy that protects our families.” — Steve Beshear, Governor of KentuckyTotal job loss (direct & indirect):Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:6.75 cents per Kwh12,52113.5%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:626 2,806$13,872,185$183,140,546Percentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:93%Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:4,704.3 megawatts. This represents enough energy to power more than 3.6 million homes.RANK: #9 WORST HIT BY THE EPAPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameRobert A. ReidDaleBig SandyD.B. WilsonCane RunGreen RiverTyroneShawneeFuel TypeCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure2014201420142015201620162016PendingCoal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:32,709,700 6,245$1,964,580,000MINING IMPACTS
  • 45APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMMARYLAND“The EPA fails to analyze and communicate scientific uncertainties,refusestomakekeyscientificdatapubliclyavailable,andshort-changesthepeerreviewprocess.Inshort,theAdministration’spoliticalagendaaims to frighten Americans into supporting a regulatory agendaagainst affordable energy, while science and objective analysis takesa backseat.” — Andy Harris, Congressman from Maryland“The price of electricity may not be the only victim—reliability ofthe bulk power system may also suffer. As plants are retired, thegeneration capacity to meet the demand for electricity will bereduced, and so will the reserves available to back up plants thatexperience outages during the course of a year. Without sufficientback-up, the likelihood that demand will exceed the available supply(especially in times of peak usage) becomes more real.” — SouthernMaryland Electric CooperativeELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:12.68 cents per Kwh54%10.7%3,7381,161.5 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 850,000 homes.BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameR. Paul SmithFuel TypeCoalYear of Closure2015Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:13 3,135 $195,929,256MAINE“Maine has previously adopted numerous regulatory and policyrequirements that exceed federal standards, putting Maine mills ata competitive disadvantage…MPPA is very concerned that recentlyproposed air emission rules from the EPA will cripple the U.S. paperindustry. The ‘Boiler MACT’ rules would cost Maine mills in excessof $300 million, with limited environmental benefit.” — Maine Pulpand Paper Association“At a time when millions of Americans are out of work andmanufacturers are struggling to retain jobs, it simply does not makesense for Washington to swamp businesses in red tape and newregulations. Doing so would only create further uncertainty, makingit impossible for them to plan, grow, and add jobs. I am particularlyconcerned with onerous new rules proposed by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) that would impose billions of dollars of newcostsonmillsthatusebiomassforenergy.Nationwide,thenewboilerrules could jeopardize thousands of manufacturing jobs, particularlyin the forest products industry, which is the economic backbone ofmany rural areas here in Maine.” — Senator Susan CollinsExpected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:12.71 cents per Kwh 2.2%–5%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:2439 4,355$280,178,777$365,590,686Percentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:1%
  • 46ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK MICHIGAN“The resolutions call on Congress to stop the EPA from issuing burdensome rules knownas the train wreck that will, in the words of the American Legislative Exchange Council,dramatically increase energy costs, causing enormous negative impact to jobs and theeconomy, irreparable damage to the competitiveness of businesses, and trample on therights of states in the process.” — State Sen. Casperson regarding the vote on the resolutionsopposing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasesELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:10.03 cents per Kwh59%19-30%14,6246,554.5 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 5 million homes.Lost manufacturing output by 2015: Lost state and local government revenues by 2015:$1,900,000,000 $1,700,000,000Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameEndicott StationJames De YoungEckert StationFuel TypeCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure201420142015BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:1684 12,821$213,383,489$801,314,219RANK: #5 WORST HIT BY THE EPATotal job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:4,515163.9 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 120,000 homes.Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameBrayton PointSalem HarborFuel TypeCoalCoalYear of Closure20142014MASSACHUSETTS“Well, I’m looking out for jobs and jobs in Massachusetts andthroughout the country. And to give a non-governmental agency theability to regulate the way that they have the potential to, they canregulate churches and restaurants and drop it all the way down fromthe big emitters to the very smallest emitters and it’s not appropriate.And, you know, we in Congress should continue to work on this issueand have the authority to do just that.” — Senator Scott BrownExpected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:14.53 cents per Kwh2.2%–5%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:2439 2,400$30,875,604$119,941,780Percentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:20%
  • 47APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMMISSISSIPPI“This is a regulatory scheme that will impact the entire economywithout having any significant impact on global greenhouse gaslevels. This is unconscionable. The Obama Administration shouldbe focused on creating more and cheaper American energy inall forms, not on heavy-handed regulation that will drive awayAmerican jobs.” — Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi“Higher electricity rates impact families and businesses alike. Thesecosts would put U.S. workers at a disadvantage to our overseascompetitors who are not subjected to the same energy costs andgovernment regulations. The level of federal overreach by the EPAis unprecedented in scope and takes no consideration of how thesenewly imposed requirements will impact jobs and the Americaneconomy.” —Senator Roger WickerELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss in power sector:Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:8.62 cents per Kwh25%7.2%–8%144799.20 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 600,000 homes.Coal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:5,056,600 309$147,100,000MINING IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:37 2,642 $165,113,821Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:2,911930.3 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 700,000 homes.Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameFox LakeFuel TypeCoalYear of ClosurePendingMINNESOTA“EPAisnotequippedtoconsidertheveryrealpotentialforeconomicharm when regulating emissions. Without that consideration,regulation will place heavy administrative burdens on stateenvironmental quality agencies, will be costly to consumers andcould be devastating to the economy and jobs.” — Tim Pawlenty,Former Governor of Minnesota, signer of a governors’ coalitionletter opposing EPA overreachExpected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:8.41 cents per Kwh7.8%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:12068 8,926$120,468,757$557,885,114Percentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:52%
  • 48ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK MONTANA“… the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed or is proposing numerous newregulations, particularly in the area of air quality and the regulation of greenhouse gases,that could have major detrimental effects on the economy, jobs, and U.S. competitiveness inworldwide markets… neither the EPA nor President Obama’s administration has undertakenany comprehensive study of what the cumulative effect of all of this new regulatory activitywill be on the economy, jobs, and competitiveness” — Montana Senate Resolution opposingefforts by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissionsELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect)Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.8 cents per Kwh63%0.1%–10%835241 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 180,000 homes.Coal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:12,511,690 373$316,020,000MINING IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:68 515$27,191,330$32,209,962Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameColstrip Energy LPYellowstone LPFuel TypeCoalPetroleum CokeYear of Closure20152015Total job loss (direct & indirect)Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:12,9786,714 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 5 million homes.Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameSibleyBlue ValleyChamoisJames River Power StationLake RoadMeramecMontroseFuel TypeCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure201420142014201520152015PendingMISSOURI“The United States Environmental Protection Agency has proposed numerous new regulations,particularly in the area of air quality and regulation of greenhouse gases, that are likely to havemajor effects on the economy, jobs, and the competitiveness of the United States in worldwidemarkets.” — Missouri House of Representatives in HCR 42 (2011)“We write today to express concern at the pace and stringency of other expanded EPAregulation of our electric generation resources, which more directly jeopardize our ability toprovide affordable, reliable electricity. … EPA moves precipitously in a number of rulemakingprocesses that will impact electric reliability, resource adequacy and impose significant cost onelectric consumers.” — Duncan Kincheloe, Missouri Association of Municipal UtilitiesExpected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.81 cents per Kwh11.1%–23%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:44 5,456 $341,015,163Percentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:81%Lost manufacturing output by 2015: Lost state and local government revenues by 2015:$1,200,000,000 $1,300,000,000
  • 49ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK NEW JERSEY“… if coal ash were to be classified as hazardous waste it wouldhave a significant economic impact to New Jersey, leading tohigher electricity production costs for industry and increasesin costs for electricity for every consumer of the State.” —Nancy Wittenberg, Assistant Commissioner of EnvironmentalRegulation, New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:14.68 cents per Kwh10%10.9%365163.20 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 120,000 homes.BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:12 1,884 $117,763,956Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameGlen GardnerSchillerDeepwaterFuel TypeCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure201520152015Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:3,2373,129.90 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 2.3 million homes.NEBRASKA“We feel compelled to guard against a regulatory approachthat would increase the cost of electricity and gasoline prices,manufacturedproducts,andultimatelyharmthecompetitivenessof the U.S. economy. As governors, we strongly urge Congressto stop harmful EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissionsthat could damage those vital interests.” — Dave Heineman,Governor of Nebraska, signer of a governors’ coalition letteropposing EPA overreach“I am supporting this resolution to protect the Nebraska economy,and our nation’s economy, from EPA overreach. It’s that simple... I want to send a clear message: Nebraska’s farmers, ranchers,business owners, cities, towns and hundreds of thousands ofelectricity consumers should not have their economic fortunesdetermined by unelected bureaucrats in Washington.” — SenatorBen Nelson regarding the Murkowski Disapproval Resolution“We appreciate Senator Nelson’s support for the MurkowskiDisapproval Resolution as we believe this is clearly in the besteconomic interests of Nebraska’s electricity consumers.”— Ron Asche, President of the Nebraska Power AssociationExpected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.48 cents per Kwh7.8%–27%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:9 956 $57,581,639Percentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:65%
  • 50ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK NEW YORKELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:16.31 cents per Kwh10%4.2–8%1,329694.4 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 500,000 homes.BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:46 8,966 $560,381,038Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameGlenwoodPort JeffersonNiagaraFuel TypeNatural GasNatural GasCoalYear of Closure201520152015Total job loss in the power sector:Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:4092,269.8 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 1.7 million homes.NEW MEXICO“Adopting meaningless, incredibly expensive and symbolicregulations that only serve to harm New Mexico families andbusinesses simply does not make sense.”— Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico“The Utility MACT rule could cause significant electricity reliabilityconstraints that would have a ripple effect through our fragileeconomy, hurting businesses of all sizes. Reasonable regulationand regulatory certainty are essential for businesses to growand prosper. By contrast, regulatory uncertainty is a deterrent toputting Americans back to work, particularly for small businesses.The potential costs of the Utility MACT rule could have a majorimpact on job creation and consumer demand for our products.”— Greater Sandoval County Chamber of Commerce“It is likely that CSAPR [Cross-State Air Pollution Rule] may raiseconcernsabouttheeconomicviabilityofsomeNewYorkgenerators.If generation is mothballed or generation is reduced, and/or morecostly, this is likely to lead towards concerns about reliability,increased transmission congestion, effects on the market clearingprice, effects on zone pricing, long term contracts, ability to meetpower demands…and effects on large consumers.”- Energy Committee of the Business Council of New York StateExpected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:8.45 cents per Kwh1.6%–6%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSMINING IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:71%Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameFour Corners 1, 2, 3Fuel TypeCoalYear of Closure2013Coal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:10,701,390 594$377,000,000
  • 51ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK NORTH DAKOTAELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.03 cents per Kwh82%7.8%–27%2,730292 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 220,000 homes.“… the EPA is simultaneously developing and implementing anumber of regulatory and policy initiatives with extremely shortand converging compliance deadlines within the next five yearswhich will significantly impact the energy industry, increaseburdensome costs to consumers, and hurt the competitiveness ofU.S. manufacturers.”— Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota,signer of a governors’ coalition letter opposing EPA overreach“… the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory activity as toair quality and greenhouse gases has become known as the “trainwreck” because of the numerous and overlapping requirementsand because of the potentially devastating consequences thisregulatory activity may have on the economy …” — NorthDakota House of Representatives Resolution opposing the EPA’sregulatory train wreckCoal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:14,962,200 503$225,160,000MINING IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:14 1,647 $102,953,268Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:6,0303,298.6 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 2.5 million homes.NORTH CAROLINA“In our state, coal is not a partisan issue. Both partiesunderstand its significance as a major contributor to NorthCarolina’s economy. The industry provides families with areliable, affordable supply of electricity, and directly employsthousands of workers across the state.”— Rep. Thom Tillis,Speaker of the North Carolina House of RepresentativesExpected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:8.70 cents per Kwh5.1%–7%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:56%BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:166 15,557 $972,292,267Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameHF LeeLV SuttonBuckCape FearWeatherspoonRiverbendFuel TypeCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure201320132013201320132013RANK: #10WORST HIT BYTHE EPA
  • 52ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKOHIO“We believe the EPA’s proposed rules harm domestic energyproduction and are hostile to the Administration’s stated goals ofcreating jobs, improving the regulatory process, and increasingour nation’s energy security.” — John R. Kasich, Governor of Ohio,signer of a governors’ coalition letter opposing EPA overreach“The EPA only looks at the new rules in isolation, rather thanconsideringthatthepancakingoftheseruleswillmakecompliancecosts unnecessarily higher. Furthermore, the agency requirescompliance with some of these regulations within three years, adeadline that is often unrealistic or impossible to meet.”-Kevin Schmidt, Ohio Manufacturers’ AssociationRANK: #3 WORST HIT BY THE EPATotal job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likelyto be retired:19,6476,871.30 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 5 million homes.Expected increase in electricity rates:Lost wages resulting from powerplant closures:Average Retail Electricity Price:9.12 cents per Kwh7–12%$10,900,000ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:82%Lost manufacturing output by 2015: Lost state and local government revenues by 2015:$1,800,000,000 $1,300,000,000Coal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:3,027,050 382$131,220,000MINING IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:875 13,968$95,863,004$850,983,351Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameBay Shore Units 2-4 Coal 2012201220122014201420142014201520152015201420142012CoalCoalCoalNatural Gas/Residual Fuel OilCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalEastlakeAshtabulaLake ShoreAvon LakeConesvilleHamiltonMuskingum RiverPicwayRE BurgerMiami FortNilesWC BeckjordFuel Type Year of Closure
  • 53ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK OREGONELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss in the power sector:Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.58 cents per Kwh7%0.1%–5%101560.5 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 400,000 homes.“This is the worst possible time for new job-killing regulationsthat make it harder for business to grow and for the economyto recover. I hope the EPA works with the bipartisan coalitionin Congress that is ready and willing to help identify solutionsthat protect the environment and public health while notdestroying jobs at the same time.”— Congressman Greg Walden, OregonBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:30 2,434 $209,294,358OKLAHOMA“We believe the EPA’s proposed rules harm domestic energy production andare hostile to the Administration’s stated goals of creating jobs, improvingthe regulatory process, and increasing our nation’s energy security.” — MaryFallin, Governor of Oklahoma, signer of a governors’ coalition letter opposingEPA overreach“The simple fact is, your agency is issuing multiple rules and regulations on topof each other at such an accelerated rate that it makes it difficult for companiesto invest and create jobs. Your regulatory actions on the utility sector aloneare having a negative impact on electric reliability that threatens our nation’seconomy recovery.” — Congressman John Sullivan, OklahomaTotal job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:8444,689.8 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 3.5 million homes.Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.51 cents per Kwh12.6%–19%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:44%BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:10 1,699 $106,184,389Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPotential Power Plant ClosurePower Plant NamePower Plant NameMustang 1BoardmanMustang 2Mustang 3Mustang 4Anadarko PlantFuel TypeFuel TypeNatural GasCoalNatural GasNatural GasNatural GasNatural GasYear of ClosureYear of Closure2015Pending2015201520152015
  • 54ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKPENNSYLVANIARANK: #7 WORST HIT BY THE EPA“The cumulative impact of EPA’s regulatory actions, resulting in areductionofdomesticenergysupplyandhigherenergyprices,couldforce the U.S. to rely even more heavily on foreign energy which canpotentially stifle our fragile economic recovery. Additionally, EPA’sactions are adding to already overburdened state resources andare limiting the ability of states to administer their own, effectiveenvironmental programs and further slow the nation’s economicrecovery.” — Tom Corbett, Governor of Pennsylvania, signer of agovernors’ coalition letter opposing EPA overreach“…thelossofgeneratingcapacityisasignificantconcerntothePUCas it directly threatens the obligations of utilities to provide reliableand cost-effective power … Such an approach would appear tobe regulatory overkill and, more importantly, could threaten cost-effective and reliable provision of electrical services in our State.”— Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionTotal job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:11,4076,871.30 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 5 million homes.Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:10.35 cents per Kwh10.7%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:48%Lost manufacturing output by 2015: Lost state and local government revenues by 2015:$1,200,000,000 $1,100,000,000Coal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:10,709,650 1,521$504,350,000MINING IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:1382 12,028$99,842,473$726,068,629Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameElrama Coal 2012201220122014201520142015201520142014CoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalArmstrong Power StationEddystoneNew CastleShawvilleSunbury Generation LPPenn State WestCampus PlantTitusPortlandG F Wheaton Power StationFuel Type Year of Closure
  • 55ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK TENNESSEEELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:8.68 cents per Kwh53%13.5%15,2174,530.4 megawatts“Governorsaredeeplyconcernedaboutthehighandgrowingcostsof environmental protection, including both the programmaticand capital costs required to comply with federal environmentalmandates and reporting requirements.” — National GovernorsAssociation (NGA) in a resolution opposing further regulation bythe EPA during tough economic times. Bill Haslam, Governor ofTennessee, is a member of NGASOUTH CAROLINA“...These electric rate increases would adversely affect the ratepayers in SouthCarolina who currently have 18.3% less disposable income than the averageAmerican and face one of the Nation’s highest unemployment rates of 11%.Further complicating the economic landscape in South Carolina is the fact thatthis state ranks 10th highest in average residential electric expenditures. Anyincrease in electric rates will have a substantial and detrimental impact on thealready economically disadvantaged ratepayers in South Carolina.”— South Carolina Office of Regulatory StaffTotal job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:6,8761,749 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 1.3 million homes.This represents enough energy to power more than 3.4 million homes.Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:8.48 cents per Kwh5.1%–8%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:36%Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NamePower Plant NameSavannah RiverJohn SevierJohnsonvilleCanadys SteamWS LeeH B RobinsonFuel TypeFuel TypeNatural GasCoalCoalNatural GasNatural GasNatural GasYear of ClosureYear of Closure20132014201420152020PendingBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSBOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Total capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYIMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected:Number of boilers affected:Total jobs at risk:Total jobs at risk:289686011,4297,435$204,873,197$73,238,697$677,585,203$527,375,393RANK: #8 WORST HIT BY THE EPA
  • 56ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKTEXAS“Once again, the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at theEPA are flouting the law by denying Texas the opportunity to manageits own air permitting program. The EPA’s unlawful scheme threatensTexas jobs and businesses by imposing costly and unnecessarygreenhouse gas regulations immediately and improperly. Theseexpensive mandates do little to make our air safer or to control theglobalwarmingtheEPAinsistsisthreateningourcountry,whiledoinggreat damage to our energy independence and economic recovery.”— Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General“The Obama Administration continues to put up road blocks forour nation’s job creators by imposing burdensome regulationsbased on assumptions, not facts, that will result in job losses andincreased energy costs with no definite environmental benefit. Yetagain, this administration is ignoring Texas’ proven track recordof cleaning our air while creating jobs, opting instead for morestifling red tape. As expected, the only results of this rule willbe putting Texans out of work and creating hardships for themand their families, while putting the reliability of Texas’ grid injeopardy.” — Rick Perry, Governor of TexasPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameMonticelloLone StarWelshAES DeepwaterERCT_TX_Coal steamMoore CountySan MiguelJ.T. DeelyFuel TypeCoalnatural gas,distillate fuel oilCoalpetroleum cokepetroleum cokenatural gascoalcoalYear of Closure20122014201420152015201520152018Total job loss in the power sector:Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:4722,623 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 2 million homes.Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:9.33 cents per Kwh6.9%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:37%BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:2327 2,166$139,243,045$202,218,185MINING IMPACTSCoal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:8,755,970 686 $242,970,000
  • 57ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK VIRGINIAELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:8.73 cents per Kwh35%10–15%11,4922,643 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 2 million homes.“We’ve been called the Saudi Arabia of coal because the amount of coal we got in our country isakin to what Saudi Arabia has in oil. Why would we ever want to sacrifice a strategic Americanadvantage? ... We all know that an unnecessary regulation is nothing more than a hidden tax.”— Robert McDonnell, Governor of VirginiaMINING IMPACTSCoal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:213 2,292,250 $103,450,000UTAH“The cumulative impact of EPA’s regulatory actions, resulting in a reductionof domestic energy supply and higher energy prices, could force the rely even more heavily on foreign energy which can potentially stifle ourfragile economic recovery. Additionally, EPA’s actions are adding to alreadyoverburdened state resources and are limiting the ability of states toadminister their own, effective environmental programs and further slow thenation’s economic recovery.” — Gary R. Herbert, Governor of Utah, signer of agovernors’ coalition letter opposing EPA overreach“… the EPA’s regulatory activity of GHG has numerous and overlappingrequirements that are likely to have major effects on the nation’s economy,jobs, and U.S. competitiveness in worldwide markets the Legislature of thestate of Utah calls on Congress to adopt legislation prohibiting the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions without Congressional approval, including, if necessary, notfunding EPA greenhouse gas regulatory activities.” — Utah House ResolutionTotal job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:1,287188.6 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 140,000 homes.Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:6.95 cents per Kwh1.5%–5%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:81%Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NamePower Plant NameCarbonClinch RiverGlen Lyn 1,2Glen Lyn 51,52Potomac RiverYorktownChesapeakeKUCCSunnyside Cogen AssociatesFuel TypeFuel TypecoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalcoalcoalYear of ClosureYear of Closure201520142014201520152015201620152015BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:2081 9,597$142,249,627$634,212,550Lost wages resulting from powerplant closures:Lost state tax revenue resulting from powerplant closures:$6,100,000 $2,900,000
  • 58ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKWEST VIRGINIA“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to proposenew federal rules that would designate coal ash — a byproduct ofusing coal to generate electricity — as a ‘hazardous’ waste. Sucha decision would cause significant economic and environmentaldamage and I implore the EPA to evaluate the facts about coal ashrecycling before making a decision.”— Joe Manchin, Governor of West Virginia“This type of unfunded mandate at a time when many stategovernments cannot meet exisiting commitments for educationand other vital public services makes no sense and is whollyunwarranted. Electric power reliability and electricity rates for ourcitizens also would be adversely affected.”— Randy C. Huffman,CabinetSecretaryoftheWestVirginiaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection, in a letter to the U.S. EPA regarding coal ash regulationPotential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameRivesvilleWillow IslandAlbrightKammerKanawhaPhillip SpornFuel TypeCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalCoalYear of Closure201220142012201420142014RANK: #2 WORST HIT BY THE EPATotal job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:25,6463,009.7 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 2 million homes.Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:7.44 cents per Kwh7%–28%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:97%BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Total capital costs:Number of boilers affected:IMPACT ON THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRYOverall ImpactNumber of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:339 7,706$7,644,318$481,618,811MINING IMPACTSCoal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:18,387,080 3,190 $1,140,000,000Lost wages resulting from powerplant closures:Lost state tax revenue resulting from powerplant closures:$16,900,000 $12,890,000
  • 59ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK WYOMINGELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:Expected increase in electricity rates:Total job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:Average Retail Electricity Price:6.20 cents per Kwh89%1.5%–26%1,5803,193.05 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 2 million homes.“As the stewards of our states’ natural resources, we sharethe broad goals of the EPA to protect our air and water.However, we wish to express our strong concerns over thecontents and timing of many of the recently adopted andpending regulations, which together could seriously impactenergy supply, reliability, and affordability for the residents,small businesses and manufacturers in our states.” — MattMead, Governor of Wyoming, signer of a governors’ coalitionletter opposing EPA overreach“Utility MACT will make it harder and more expensive for theprivate sector to create good jobs for American workers. Thisred tape will force coal fired power plants to close their doorsand send their workers to the unemployment office.” — JohnBarrasso, Wyoming U.S. Senator72 9,124 $570,273,057WISCONSIN“In2008,Mr.ObamasaidthatifhewaselectedPresident,electricityrates would ‘necessarily skyrocket’ under his cap and trade policy,and that those who built coal-fired power plants would wind upgoing bankrupt. Now those promises will come true. The UtilityMACT rule promulgated by the EPA will put many coal-fired plantsout of business. This will eliminate thousands of jobs and threatenthe reliability of our electrical grid, while delivering very little in theway of health benefits.” — Senator Ron Johnson, WisconsinTotal job loss (direct & indirect):Total estimated electricity capacity likely to be retired:7,1022,820.60 megawattsThis represents enough energy to power more than 2 million homes.Expected increase in electricity rates:Average Retail Electricity Price:9.73 cents per Kwh9.2%–21%ELECTRICITY IMPACTSPercentage of Electricity Derived from Coal:63%Potential and Announced Power Plant ClosuresPower Plant NameAlmaValleyBlount StreetSouth Oak CreekFuel TypecoalcoalcoalcoalYear of Closure2012201420152015BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:BOILER MACT REGULATION IMPACTSTotal capital costs:Number of boilers affected: Total jobs at risk:13 2,479 $154,967,483MINING IMPACTSCoal industry lost revenue:Coal tons lost per year:Coal industrypotential job loss:180,122,970 3,403.53 $4,929,400,000
  • 60ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKBROAD AND DIVERSECOALITION OPPOSING THE EPAAdvocates of EPA regulation claim that only industry, particularlythe coal industry, is fighting recent EPA action while many otherorganizations and companies are supportive of the EPA’s efforts.This is not even close to true.This section exposes the broad and diverse coalition thatis actively pushing back against EPA overreach. The variousorganizations, trade associations, labor unions, governmentofficials, legislative bodies, and state agencies representedreveal a wide consensus that the EPA has gone much too farin regulating almost every aspect of the economy.In sum, 32 current and former governors and lieutenantgovernors, 27 groups of state and local officials, 16 laborunions, 17 state legislative bodies, 10 state agencies, and57 trade associations have openly voiced opposition to theescalating EPA expansion.ORGANIZATIONS & ELECTED OFFICIALS TOTALGovernorsLabor UnionsGroups of State & Local OfficialsState LegislaturesState AgenciesTrade Associations321627171057OPPOSITION TO EPA OVERREACH“What they are trying to do to coal and our coal minersis bad for Kentucky. That’s why I sued the EPA and that’swhy I will continue fighting to get our people back towork.”—Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky 81“…Such regulations under consideration by EPA couldposesignificantchallengesfortheelectricpowersector,with respect to the economic burden, the feasibility ofimplementation by the contemplated deadlines andthe maintenance of system reliability…”—NationalAssociation of Regulatory Utility Commissioners82“This rule is an all-out, in my opinion, decision by the EPAthat we’re never going to have another coal-fired facilityin the United States that’s constructed.”—Cecil Roberts,President of United Mine Workers of America 83“See, with the EPA, there’s regulations. They are notactually laws … they never go through Congress and arenever voted on by our representatives. That creates softtyranny because we have no choice in the matter.”— Gary Howell, West Virginia Delegate 84“While we understand that regulation of CCRs [coalcombustion residuals] will impose significant costs onpower plant operations….Such increases will likely lead toincreased electricity prices for all electricity consumers…Such an approach would appear to be regulatoryoverkill…”—Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission85
  • 61APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMGOVERNORS OPPOSED TO EPA OVERREACHGOVERNORDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONAlabama Former GovernorBob RileyGeorgia Former GovernorSonny PerdueHawaii Former GovernorLinda LingleKentucky Governor StevenL. BeshearAlabama Governor Robert J.BentleyGeorgia Governor NathanDealIdaho Governor C.L. “Butch”OtterIndiana Governor MitchDanielsIowa Governor Terry E.BranstadAlaska GovernorSean ParnellArizona Governor Janice K.BrewerGreenhouse GasEmissionsGreenhouse GasEmissionsGreenhouse GasEmissionsGreenhouse GasEmissionsVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesGreenhouse GasEmissions , Various EPArules, Electric UtilitiesGreenhouse GasEmissions , Various EPArules, Electric UtilitiesSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LettersSign-on LettersMinnesota Former GovernorTom PawlentyLouisiana GovernorBobby JindalGreenhouse GasEmissionsGreenhouse GasEmissions , Various EPArules, Electric UtilitiesSign-on LetterSign-on LettersThere are 32 governors, former governors, and lieutenantgovernors that have voiced opposition to EPA regulations. Themajority of the opposition is directed towards greenhousegas regulations, coal ash regulations, and a variety of otherregulations that will lead to higher electricity prices for theirstates’ citizens. These governors and lieutenant governorsrepresent 28 states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, NorthDakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, SouthCarolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia,and Wyoming.“It is vital for our citizens and businesses to haveaccess to a wide diversity of energy sources in orderto facilitate our economic recovery. The fact thatour dominant energy source, oil, is heavily importedreinforces the need for utilizing our abundant domesticenergy supply. The United States has bounteousreserves of oil and natural gas, and we believe thatyour administration should allow for adequateutilization of these domestic resources.”— Mary Fallin, Governor of Oklahoma, signer of agovernors’ coalition letter opposing EPA overreach86“Jumping to classify coal ash as hazardous waste wouldneglect many dozens of years of proven beneficialuses of this byproduct. Hastily raising its status to‘hazardous’ could actually cause more environmentalharm and place undue financial burden on countlessthousands of Americans.”— Joe Manchin, Governor of West Virginia87
  • 62ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKGOVERNORDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONUtah Governor Gary R.HerbertVirginia Governor Robert F.McDonnellGreenhouse GasEmissions , Various EPArules, Electric UtilitiesGreenhouse GasEmissions , Various EPArules, Electric UtilitiesSign-on LettersSign-on LetterTexas Governor Rick PerryWyoming GovernorMatthew H. HeadWest Virgina GovernorJoe ManchinVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesGreenhouse GasEmissionsSign-on LetterSign-on LetterOp-Ed andSign-on LetterGOVERNORS OPPOSED TO EPA OVERREACHGOVERNORDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONMississippi GovernorHaley BarbourGreenhouse GasEmissions , Various EPArules, Electric UtilitiesSign-on LettersMissouri LieutenantGovernor Peter D. KinderNebraska Governor DaveHeinemanNevada Former GovernorJim GibbonsNorth Dakota GovernorJack DalrympleNorth Dakota FormerGovernor John HoevenRhode Island FormerGovernor Donald L CarcieriSouth Carolina FormerGovernor Mark SanfordOhio GovernorJohn R. KasichOklahoma Governor MaryFallinPennsylvania GovernorTom CorbettSouth Carolina GovernorNikki HaleyCoal Ash DisposalGreenhouse GasEmissionsGreenhouse GasEmissionsVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesGreenhouse GasEmissionsGreenhouse GasEmissionsGreenhouse GasEmissionsVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesLetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSouth Dakota GovernorDennis DaugaardSouth Dakota FormerGovernor M. MichaelRoundsVarious EPA rules,Electric UtilitiesGreenhouse GasEmissionsSign-on LetterSign-on Letter
  • 63APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMGROUPS OF STATE & LOCAL OFFICIALSOPPOSED TO EPA OVERREACHNAME OFORGANIZATIONDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONAmerican Association ofState Highway &Transportation OfficialsAssociation of State andInterstate Water PollutionControl OfficialsAmerican Association ofPesticide Control OfficialsAssociation of Fish &Wildlife AgenciesAmerican LegislativeExchange CouncilAssociation of State andTerritorial Solid WasteManagement OfficialsAmerican Public WorksAssociationClean Water Act,“Waters of the U.S.,”NPDES, TMDL, Coal Ash,Hazardous WastePesticides, NPDES,Clean Water Act,NPDES, TMDLPesticides, NPDESClean Water Act, “Waterof the U.S.,” NPDES, TMDLEPA Regulation, PowerPlants, Greenhouse gases,Coal Ash, HazardousWaste, Tailoring RuleCoal Ash, HazardousWaste, EnvironmentalJusticeChesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,Coal Ash, HazardousWasteLetters & PolicyResolutionSign-on Letters& LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterReportLetters, SurveySign-on LettersThere are 27 groups of state and local officials that opposerecent EPA action, including tens of thousands of statelegislators, utility commissioners, agricultural departmentofficials, foresters, drinking water administrators, fish andwildlife agencies, solid waste management officials, statewetland managers, mayors, counties, and cities.A cross-section of this list demonstrates just how many officialsand entities are represented. The American Legislative ExchangeCouncil represents more than 2,000 state legislators from all 50states, which add up to nearly a third of all state legislators in thecountry. The American Association of Pesticide Control Officialsrepresents about 170 state control officials in all 50 states, theDistrict of Columbia, and U.S. territories. The EnvironmentalCouncil of the States is the national association of state andterritorial environmental agency leaders from around thecountry. The National Association of State Foresters consists ofthe directors of forestry agencies in all 50 states, U.S. territories,and D.C. The National Association of Counties represents thenation’s 3,068 counties. The American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials represents highway andtransportation departments in all 50 states, D.C., and PuertoRico, and represents all five transportation modes: air, highways,public transportation, rail, and water. The National League ofCities represents more than 19,000 cities, villages, and towns,and more than 1,600 municipalities of all sizes are also members.“While local governments share EPA’s goals for improvingand protecting the environment, we continue to be deeplyconcerned about the high and growing costs of complyingwith federal regulations.”— Donald J. Borut, Executive Director of the NationalLeague of Cities87“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hasproposed, or is in the process of proposing, numerousregulationsregardingairqualityandregulationofgreenhousegases that likely will have major effects on Southern stateeconomies, impacting businesses, manufacturing industriesand, in turn, job creation and U.S. competitiveness in worldmarkets. … Neither the EPA nor the Obama administrationhasundertakenanycomprehensivestudiesofthecumulativeeffects of this new regulatory activity on the nation’s wealthor financial system.”— Council of State Governments88
  • 64ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK GROUPS OF STATE & LOCAL OFFICIALSOPPOSED TO EPA OVERREACHNAME OFORGANIZATIONDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONNational GovernorsAssociationNational League of CitiesNational Association ofState ForestersNational Conference ofState LegislaturesUnited States Conferenceof MayorsWestern Governors’AssociationEPA Regulation, UnfundedMandates, Coal Ash,Hazardous WasteChesapeake BayWatershed Regulations ,Storm Water, NPDES, CoalAsh, Hazardous WastePesticides, NPDES,Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,Clean Water Act, NPDES,TMDLClean Water Act, “Waterof the U.S.,” NPDES,TMDL, Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,Cooling Water Intake, CoalAsh, Hazardous WasteChesapeake BayWatershed Regulations, Coal Ash, HazardousWasteWater Transfers, NPDES,Coal Ash, HazardousWasteResolution &LetterSign-On Letters& LetterSign-On LettersLetters, Sign-OnLetterSign-On Letters& LetterLetters,ResolutionNAME OFORGANIZATIONDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONGround Water ProtectionCouncilInterstate Mining CompactCommissionNational Association ofClean Air AgenciesEnvironmental Councilof the StatesClean Water Act, “Water ofthe U.S.,” NPDES, TMDLCoal Ash,Hazardous WasteCO2, Tailoring Rule, PSD,Title VCoal Ash, HazardousWaste, Clean Water ACT,NPDES, TMDL, FossilFuels, Electric UtilitiesSign-on LetterLetters,CommentsLettersResolution,Sign-On Letter,LettersNational Association ofCountiesNational Association ofCounty EngineersClean Water Act, “Waterof the U.S.,” NPDES,TMDL, Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,PM, Air Quality Standards,Emissions, GHGs,Pesticides, NPDES,Cap and Trade, CoalAsh, Hazardous Waste,Silvicultural Rule, MACTChesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,Coal Ash, HazardousWasteLetters, Sign-On Letters,ResolutionsSign-On LettersAssociation of StateFloodplain ManagersAssociation of StateWetland ManagersCoastal States OrganizationAssociation of StateDrinking WaterAdministratorsCouncil of StateGovernments – SouthernLegislative ConferenceClean Water Act, “Water ofthe U.S.,” NPDES, TMDLClean Water Act, “Water ofthe U.S.,” NPDES, TMDLClean Water Act, “Water ofthe U.S.,” NPDES, TMDLClean Water Act, “Waterof the U.S.,”NPDES, TMDLAir Quality, GreenhouseGasesSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterSign-on LetterResolution /Policy PositionNational Associationof Regulatory UtilityCommissionersNational Association ofFlood and Storm waterManagement AgenciesNational Association of StateDepartments of AgricultureUtility MACT, Various EPArules, Electric Utilities,CAA, CWA RCRAClean Water Act,“Waters of the U.S.,”NPDES, TMDLPesticides, NPDES,Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,Clean Water Act, EPAregulation and federalism,Pesticides, TMDLs, WaterPollutants, CAA, NNCLetters &ResolutionsLetterSign-On Letters,Letters
  • 65APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMLABOR UNIONS OPPOSED TO EPA OVERREACHNAME OFUNIONDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONBrotherhood of LocomotiveEngineersCoal Ash, HazardousWasteSign-On LetterIndiana State Building &Construction Trades CouncilInternational Associationof Bridge, Structural,Ornamental and ReinforcingIron WorkersMarine Engineers BeneficialAssociationSheet Metal WorkersInternational AssociationInternational Brotherhoodof Electrical WorkersInternational Association OfPlumbers and Pipe FittersInternational Brotherhoodof Boilermakers, Iron ShipBuilders, Blacksmiths,Forgers & HelpersInternational Brotherhoodof TeamstersCoal Ash, HazardousWasteProposed MATS / MACTRegulationProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous WasteProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous WasteProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous Waste, CleanAir Transport Rule, NOX,SO2Coal Ash, HazardousWasteEPA MACT ProposedRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous WasteProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous WasteLetterSign-On LetterSign-On LettersSign-On LettersLetters &ResolutionsSign-On LetterLetter, Sign-OnLettersSign-On LettersThe 16 labor unions entail a diverse group of miners, electricalworkers, pipe fitters, food and commercial workers, thetransportation and construction industry, and more. Theseunions represent millions of workers nationwide, and all haveplayed a role in fighting back against an ever-expanding EPA.Two examples from this list that especially show the extent to whichworkersopposetheEPAaretheBrotherhoodofLocomotiveEngineersand the Unions for Jobs and the Environment. The Brotherhood ofLocomotive Engineers represents locomotive engineers, conductors,brakemen, firemen, switchmen, and other train service employeeson numerous railroads in the United States. Its total membershipincludes more than 59,000 employees, and it opposes the EPA’sclassification of coal ash as a hazardous waste.90Unions for Jobsand the Environment represents more than 3.2 million workers inelectric power, transportation, coal mining, construction, and otherindustries. These unions understand that numerous overlapping andoverreaching EPA regulations will cause negative economic impacts,and they have actively voiced their concern.
  • 66ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKLABOR UNIONS OPPOSED TO EPA OVERREACHNAME OFUNIONDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONUnions for Jobs and theEnvironmentProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous WasteSign-On LettersUnited Association ofPlumbers and Pipe FittersInternational Associationof Bridge, Structural,Ornamental & ReinforcingIron WorkersUnited TransportationUnionUnited Food & CommercialWorkers International UnionUnited Mine Workers ofAmericaUtility Workers Union ofAmericaProposed MATS / MACTRegulationProposed MATS / MACTRegulationProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous WasteProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous WasteProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous Waste,Revoking a Mine PermitProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous Waste,Revoking a Mine PermitSign-On LetterSign-On LetterSign-On LetterSign-On LetterSign-On Letters,Letter, PressReleaseSign-On Letters,Press Release“Early shutdowns of coal-fired plants could lead tothe loss of 50,000 workers in utilities, mining, railroadand related occupations and 200,000 more in indirectlosses. If — as most credible estimates predict — theutilities have to close 50,000 megawatts or more of coalplants, rates will soar and reliability will be dramaticallyaffected in many parts of the country.”—Edwin D. Hill, International President of the InternationalBrotherhood of Electrical Workers91“It’s never a good day when hard-working people losetheir jobs. The current and future job losses causedas a result of this decision will cause great difficultiesfor the Spruce mine workers, their families and theirlocal communities.” — Cecil E. Roberts, President of theUnited Mine Workers of America, in response to an EPAveto of a mine permit92“Electricity prices are almost certain to increase as aresult of these increased operational and maintenancecosts, further impacting industries and consumers. As aresult, jobs throughout the country and in nearly everysector of the economy could be threatened at a timewhen unemployment is high and our economic recoveryis uncertain.”— -Indiana State Building and ConstructionTrades Council regarding EPA regulation of coal ash.93WHAT UNIONS ARE SAYING ABOUT THEEPA TRAIN WRECKTransportation &CommunicationsInternational UnionProposed MATS / MACTRegulation, Coal Ash,Hazardous WasteSign-On Letters
  • 67APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMSTATE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OPPOSED TOEPA OVERREACHThere are 17 state legislative bodies that have realizedthe negative impact that the EPA is having on the states,all passing resolutions opposing EPA overreach. The vastmajority of the opposition was to the EPA attemptingto regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act.These legislative bodies represent 14 different states andthousands of state legislators nationwide.LEGISLATIVE BODYLEGISLATIONTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONAlabama LegislatureIndiana HouseIndiana SenateIowa HouseKansas HouseKentucky LegislatureGreenhouse GasesGreenhouse GasesGreenhouse GasesGreenhouse GasesGreenhouse GasesCombined SewerOverflow Control PolicyResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionKentucky SenateMichigan HouseMichigan SenateMissouri HouseMontana SenateOklahoma SenatePennsylvania HouseUtah HouseVirginia HouseWyoming LegislatureGreenhouse GasesGreenhouse GasesGreenhouse GasesGreenhouse GasesGreenhouse GasesCO2 Emission LimitsFederal Water PollutionControl Act PermitsGreenhouse GasesGreenhouse Gases“Train Wreck” Air QualityRegulationsResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionResolutionResolution“…theIndianaHouseofRepresentativesurgesCongressto adopt legislation prohibiting the EnvironmentalProtection Agency from regulating greenhouse gasemissions, and if necessary, by defunding the EPA’sgreenhouse gas regulatory activities.”— Indiana House of Representatives Resolution94“… EPA over-regulation is driving jobs and industryout of the United States … neither the EPA nor anyother entity in the executive branch has undertakena comprehensive study to determine the cumulativeeffect this regulatory activity will have on the economyincluding jobs and competitiveness in worldwidemarkets …”—Wyoming Legislature Resolution opposing the EPAregulatory train wreck95“…EPA’s regulatory activity as to air quality andgreenhouse gases has numerous and overlappingrequirements and may have a potentially devastatingconsequence on the economy…”—Missouri House of Representatives Resolution96
  • 68ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKSTATE AGENCIES OPPOSED TO EPA OVERREACHNAME OF AGENCYDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONIowa Land Quality Bureau,Environmental ServicesDivisionMaryland Department ofthe EnvironmentMississippi Department ofEnvironmental QualityMissouri Department ofNatural ResourcesCoal Ash DisposalCoal Ash DisposalCoal Ash DisposalCoal Ash DisposalCommentCommentCommentCommentNevada Division ofEnvironmental ProtectionNew Jersey Department ofEnvironmental ProtectionSouth Carolina Office ofRegulatory StaffWest Virginia Department ofEnvironmental ProtectionPennsylvania Office ofWaste, Air and RadiationManagementPennsylvania Public UtilityCommissionCoal Ash DisposalCoal Ash DisposalCoal Ash DisposalCoal Ash DisposalCoal Ash DisposalCoal Ash DisposalCommentCommentCommentCommentCommentCommentTen state agencies have also expressed their concern with theEPA. Each one of these state agencies, representing nine differentstates across the country, focused on the potential EPA regulationof coal ash. It is interesting to note that six of these state agenciesare environmental protection agencies. Their mission is to protectthe states’ citizens from environmental hazards, yet they too havedecided that the EPA has overstepped its bounds.“We believe regulation of coal combustion wasteas hazardous waste is unnecessary, as none ofthese wastes generated by Pennsylvania powerplants has been observed to exhibit characteristicsof hazardous waste. Classification of coalcombustion waste as hazardous would likely endits beneficial use without any tangible increasein environmental protection.”— Thomas K. Fidler,Deputy Secretary of the Pennsylvania Departmentof Environmental Protection97“… the ORS [Office of Regulatory Staff] is concernedthat if CCRs [Coal Combustion Residues] are regulatedas hazardous waste, there will be significant increasesin electric utility rates due to the higher costs ofhandling and disposing of CCRs. These electric rateincreases would adversely affect the ratepayersin South Carolina who currently have 18.3% lessdisposable income than the average American andface one of the Nation’s highest unemployment ratesof 11%.” — Florence P. Belser, General Counsel ofthe South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff98
  • 69APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMTRADE ASSOCIATIONS OPPOSEDTO EPA OVERREACHLastly, there are 57 trade associations representing hundredsof thousands of companies nationwide that are steppingup and fighting back. These associations represent abroad variety of industries, such as agriculture, forestry,manufacturing, energy, chemicals, mining, independentbusinesses, the automotive industry, construction, and evenapparel and footwear.Just a couple of examples from this list reveal how manyaspects of American life are affected by the EPA. TheNational Association of Manufacturers (NAM) representssmall and large manufacturers in every industrial sector,and in all 50 states. These manufacturers employ nearly 12million workers and contribute more than $1.6 trillion tothe U.S. economy annually. The industry represented by thisassociation is the largest driver of economic growth in thenation, and accounts for a majority share of private-sectorresearch and development. NAM is concerned with the impactof a number of EPA regulations, including the Utility MACT(MATS), Boiler MACT, the regulation of greenhouse gases andmore. The American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA) isthe national trade association of the forest products industry,which accounts for approximately 5 percent of the total U.S.manufacturing gross domestic product. Industry companiesproduce about $175 billion in products annually and employnearly 900,000 men and women across the country. Fromtissue, newsprint, and boxes to wood for constructionpurposes, AFPA member company products are used in justabout every aspect of our lives. AFPA member companies,those employed by the industry, and Americans that rely ontheir products will be hit hard by the EPA’s proposed BoilerMACT Rule.“Affordable energy and jobs are top priorities formanufacturers, and the EPA’s proposed Utility MACTrule threatens to deal a lethal blow to both. TheEPA’s Utility MACT proposal is yet another example ofexcessive overreach that will dampen economic growthand result in job losses.”— Chip Yost, Vice President for Energy and ResourcesPolicy for the National Association of Manufacturers99“The proposed Boiler MACT rule would destroy jobs inour industry at a time when policymakers are rightlysaying we need to preserve and grow manufacturingjobs. EPA has a choice — they can regulate in a waythat protects both jobs and the environment, or theycan regulate in a way that sacrifices jobs.”— Donna Harman, President and CEO of the AmericanForest and Paper Association100“The new EPA requirements could be devastatingto consumers and communities across the nation.Consumers would be hurt by the increased cost offuel … and the closing of refineries could put localeconomies at risk, meaning there would be fewer jobs.In addition, we would be forced to rely even more onforeign fuel supplies, and that can only weaken ournation’s economy and national security.”— Bob Greco, American Petroleum Institute101WHAT TRADE ASSOCIATIONS ARE SAYINGABOUT THE EPA TRAIN WRECK
  • 70ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK TRADE ASSOCIATIONS OPPOSEDTO EPA OVERREACHNAME OF TRADEASSOCIATIONNAME OF TRADEASSOCIATIONDOCUMENTTYPEDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONAmerican Road &Transportation BuildersAssociationAmerican SoybeanAssociationAssociated GeneralContractors of AmericaAmerican Seed TradeAssociationEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,Stormwater PermitRegulations, OzoneStandards, Revocation ofValid PermitEPA Over-Regulation,EPA Regulation ofGreenhouse Gases,Renewable Fuel StandardEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed RegulationsEPA’s Proposal EliminatesAny Tolerances for GrainFound to Have SulfurylFluoride ResidueSign-On Letters,LettersPress ReleasesSign-On LetterPress ReleaseAutomotive RecyclersAssociation Stormwater DischargesPress ReleaseAmerican Forest and PaperAssociationEPA’s Boiler MACT RuleSign-On Letters,Press ReleasesAmerican InternationalAutomobile DealersAssociationAmerican PetroleumInstituteAmerican Public GasAssociationAmerican Public PowerAssociationE15 FuelEPA GasolineRegulations could RaiseCosts, Block EPA fromRegulating GHGsEPA Regulation ofGreenhouse GasesEPA’s Proposed Rule onElectric Generating UnitMACTSign-On LetterPress Releases,StudiesSign-On LetterPress ReleaseAmerican Gas AssociationAmerican Home FurnishingsAllianceEPA Ozone Review Panel,EPA Proposed Rule forMandatory Reporting ofGHGsEPA Proposed FederalFormaldehyde RuleLettersPress ReleaseAmerican Chemistry CouncilAmerican Farm BureauFederationAmerican CoatingsAssociationAmerican Cleaning InstituteEPA’s Final OzoneEmissions, ChemicalSafety AssessmentEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations ,Bills to Preempt EPA GHGRegulationsEPA and HUD PublicService AnnouncementCampaign About LeadPaintNew Guidelines forCleaning ProductsSign-On LetterSign-On Letters,Press ReleasesPress ReleasePress ReleaseAmerican Association of AirPort ExecutivesEPA Rule Proposing NewStandards for LimitingDeicing Fluid Runoff atCommercial Airports,Lead Aviation FuelPress ReleasesAgricultural RetailersAssociationAir Conditioning Contractorsof AmericaAmerican Apparel &Footwear AssociationAmerican ArchitecturalManufacturers AssociationAlliance of AutomobileManufacturersEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed RegulationsEPA’s Ban on Pre-ChargedEquipment Rule, Lead,EPA’s Proposed HCFCAllocation RuleRedundant Compliancewith State and FederalRegulations & LawsRegulations forPolyvinyl Chloride (PVC)Manufacturing, VinylProduction and Use,Increased ManufacturingCosts, Lead: Renovation,Repair and PaintingRegulationsIncrease in Ethanol inFuel Use, Fleet FuelEconomy/GHGs, E15Sign-On LetterTestimonies,LetterLetterPress ReleasesPress Releases
  • 71APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMTRADE ASSOCIATIONS OPPOSEDTO EPA OVERREACHNAME OF TRADEASSOCIATIONDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONInternational Council ofShopping CentersIrrigation AssociationNAFA Fleet ManagementAssociationNACS - The Associationfor Convenience and FuelRetailingInterstate Natural GasAssociation of AmericaEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed RegulationsEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed RegulationsE-15 Gasoline RuleE-15 Gasoline RuleIdentifying WatersProtected by the CleanWater ActSign-On LetterSign-On LetterPress ReleasePress ReleaseLetterNAME OF TRADEASSOCIATIONDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONNational Association ofManufacturersNew Ozone Standards,Utility MACT, ChesapeakeBay WatershedRegulations, BoilerMACT, GHGs, EPA JobKilling Regulations,Overregulation, Section404 PermitPress Releases,Sign on LettersNational Cattlemen’s BeefAssociationNational Chicken CouncilNational Corn GrowersAssociationNational Cotton Council ofAmericaNational Federation ofIndependent BusinessNational Lumber and BuildingMaterial Dealers AssociationNational Business AviationAssociationClean Water ActGuidelinesEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed RegulationsGreenhouse GasesLead RegulationsLead in Piston AircraftGasolineEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,EPA OverregulationEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations ,E15 Gasoline RulePress ReleaseSign-On LetterPress ReleasePress ReleaseSign-On LetterSign-On Letter,Press ReleasePress ReleasesNational Milk ProducersFederationNational Petrochemical &Refiners AssociationNational Stone, Sand &Gravel AssociationNational Pork ProducersCouncilNational Oilseed ProcessorsAssociationEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed RegulationsChemical Reporting Rule ,Renewable Fuel Standard,Cellulosic Biofuels, GHGsEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed RegulationsEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,E15 Gasoline RuleEPA’s Proposed UtilityMACT RuleSign-On LetterPress Releases& LetterSign-On LetterSign-On Letter,Press ReleaseLetterNational Turkey FederationNatural Gas SupplyAssociationWater Quality, E15Gasoline RuleGreenhouse GasesPress ReleasesSign-On LetterAutomotive ServiceAssociation EPA Used Oil ProposalPress ReleaseAutomotive WarehouseDistributors AssociationCropLife AmericaEnvironmental IndustryAssociationsFlexible PackagingAssociationEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,Impact of EPA Regulationon AgricultureGreenhouse GasReporting, GHGregulation, Municipal SolidWaste FacilitiesEmissions of Toxic AirPollutantsEPA Used Oil ProposalSign-On Letter,TestimonyPress ReleasesPress ReleasePress ReleaseIndustrial MineralsAssociation North AmericaEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,GHG RegulationsSign-On Letter,Letter
  • 72ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK TRADE ASSOCIATIONS OPPOSEDTO EPA OVERREACHNAME OF TRADEASSOCIATIONDOCUMENTTYPEISSUE AREA OF EPAOPPOSITIONU.S. Chamber of CommerceUnited Egg ProducersU.S. Poultry & EggAssociationUnited Soybean BoardAir Pollutants From Coaland Oil-Fired ElectricUtility Steam GeneratingUnits, PVC, WaterQuality, GHG/FuelEconomy, TSCA,Unfunded Mandates,Overregulation, Coal AshEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed RegulationsWater QualityWater QualityLetters, Sign-OnLetterSign-On LetterPress ReleasesPress ReleasesWHAT TRADE ASSOCIATIONS ARE SAYINGABOUT THE EPA TRAIN WRECK“Thecostsincurredbyutilities,refinersandmanufacturersto comply with GHG regulations will be passed alongto their customers, including farmers and ranchers,increasing their fuel, fertilizer and energy costs. Unlikeother types of businesses, farmers and ranchers havemuch less ability to pass along such costs.”— Bob Stallman, American Farm Bureau FederationPresident102“EPA is out of control and often acts as activistsrather than a taxpayer-funded government agencythat is expected to use sound science when imposingregulations. We cannot allow EPA to jeopardizeeconomic growth by placing opinions over science.”— Ashley Lyon, National Cattlemen’s Beef AssociationDeputy Environmental Counself103“EPA is now imposing emission levels 5-12 timesstricter than Europe. Such excessive regulation willshift production, investment and jobs offshore tocountries like China. Already the world’s largestcement producer, China’s standards have a long wayto go before they catch-up to what the U.S. has,even before these recent EPA regulations. In theend, we don’t even improve air quality in the UnitedStates, as their emissions will eventually reach us.”—Aris Papadopoulos, Chair of the Portland CementAssociation104Portland CementAssociationThe Alkylphenols &Ethoxylates ResearchCouncilThe Brick IndustryAssociationThe Fertilizer InstituteThe National MiningAssociationGreenhouse GasesEPA Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,Climate Regulations,NNC, Water PollutantsNew Air Regulations,Chesapeake BayWatershed Regulations,Utility MACT, Section 404PermitNational EmissionStandard for HazardousAir Pollutants, CementEPA RegulationEPA’s Screening LevelReview of NP/NPEs, NPEsin BP Oil Spill DispersantsPress ReleaseSign-On Letter,Press ReleasesPress Releases,Sign-On LetterPress ReleasesPress Releases
  • 73APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMTOOLS FOR STATE LEGISLATORSThere exist a number of tools at the disposal of state legislatorsto make sure their state is heard in 2012 and beyond. Thissection provides an introduction to some of the approachesand language that have been utilized by state legislatures, andsome new strategies being tested throughout the United States.It often seems fruitless for state legislators to push back againstfederal government overreach, but it is imperative that one usesall of the tools possible in order to maintain the balance of powerbetween federal and state governments.Model Resolutions AddressingEPA OverreachALEC has a number of model resolutions that state legislatorscan introduce directly addressing the EPA regulatory train wreck.These resolutions are intended to push back against an ever-expanding federal government and Administration.RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE EPA’S REGULATORY TRAINWRECKThis resolution calls on Congress to slow and stop the EPA’s trainwreck. This resolution highlights the impact and scope of theEPA’s recent regulatory offensive. It also calls on Congress toadopt legislation prohibiting the EPA by any means necessaryfrom regulating greenhouse gases, impose a moratorium on anynew air quality regulation for at least two years, and requires theAdministration to undertake a multi-agency study identifyingall EPA regulatory activity and the cumulative effect on theeconomy, jobs, and American competitiveness.Reason to introduce:This is the most comprehensive ALEC resolution addressingEPA overreach. It is important to get the state on record ascalling on Congress to stop the regulatory train wreck. It isneeded to bolster allies in Congress and to show the EPA and theAdministration that consequences will follow across the countryif they refuse to pull back.RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE EPA’S REGULATIONOF GREENHOUSE GASES FROM MOBILE SOURCESThis resolution takes issue with the Supreme Court’s review ofclimate science and its ruling that the EPA has the authority toregulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. It opposesthe EPA endangerment finding and regulation of mobile sourcegreenhouse gas emissions.Reason to introduce:Although the EPA is well under way in regulating greenhousegases from mobile sources, introduction of this resolutionwould provide an excellent vehicle to express dissatisfactionof regulating greenhouse gases from mobile sources.RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION OF CARBON DIOXIDESTANDARDSThisresolutionlaysouttheargumentagainstmandatoryorvoluntarycarbon dioxide emission standards and the use of greenhouse gastransferable credits as a tool for environmental policy or regulation.The resolution also states that “state regulations of carbon dioxideemission standards for motor vehicles is tantamount to a stateversion of federal fuel economy mandates that reduce consumer
  • 74ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKchoice by restricting production of larger, heavier vehicles thatprovide more utility and passenger safety.”Reason to introduce:Setting carbon dioxide standards will significantly and negativelyimpact the state’s economy with little or no environmentalbenefit. This is a powerful opposition statement regarding theregulation of carbon dioxide.RESOLUTION ON BEST AVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOLOGY FOR COAL-BASED ELECTRIC GENERATIONThis resolution offers guidance to state regulatory agencies onhow to interpret “Best Available Control Technology” (BACT)when issuing Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits forthe BACT requirements for greenhouse gases from coal-basedelectric generation. The language expresses the need for newelectric generation that is efficient and economically practicable.It also encourages accommodation of highly efficient powertechnologies, like super-critical and ultra-super-critical coal-firedelectric generating units, to serve the dual purpose of reducingthe overall emissions profile of the electricity generation unitwhile providing efficient, affordable, and available power todayand into the future.Reason to introduce:ConsideringtheextremelyvagueguidanceofferedbytheEPAastowhat constitutes “Best Available Control Technology,” legislaturesshould consider weighing in to prevent overly restrictiveinterpretations that could devastate investment and certainty.Also, this resolution is needed to be able to incorporate highlyefficient and reliable technologies into the definition of BACT.RESOLUTION TO RETAIN STATE AUTHORITY OVER COALASH AS NON-HAZARDOUS WASTEThis resolution supports the 2000 EPA determination that coalcombustion residuals do not warrant federal regulation ashazardous waste, and concludes that states are best positionedto serve as the principal regulatory authority for CCRs as non-hazardous waste.Reason to introduce:The concern regarding EPA overreach into state regulatoryaffairs warrants the introduction of this resolution. In addition,the overregulation of coal ash and impacts on electric reliabilityand electricity rates merits a pushback from the states.RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE EPA’S PLAN TOREGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES UNDER THE CLEANAIR ACTThis resolution opposes the EPA’s endangerment findingand any regulation of greenhouse gases, citing the massiveeconomic burden that would result and the global nature ofclimate emissions.Reason to introduce:This resolution is more comprehensive than the Resolution inOppositiontoEPA’sRegulationofGreenhouseGasesfromMobileSources, because it expresses opposition to the endangermentfinding and all regulation of greenhouse gases. This year and nextwill be critical years, in which the EPA will roll out regulations ofgreenhouse gases. In addition, 2012 and 2013 will be filled withlitigation surrounding every aspect of the endangerment findingand greenhouse gas regulation. It is imperative that states voiceopposition to regulations that would significantly damage stateeconomies, grow federal influence within state borders, andlead to little or no environmental benefit.RESOLUTION TO RETAIN STATE AUTHORITY OVERHYDRAULIC FRACTURINGThis resolution anticipates the EPA’s planned regulation ofhydraulic fracturing. It explains that reservoirs producing oil andgas are highly variable geologically, and separated geographically
  • 75APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMacrosstheoil-andgas-producingstatessuchthatstateregulatoryagencies are best suited, through local expertise and experience,to effectively regulate hydraulic fracturing.Reason to introduce:The EPA is currently working on a federal regulatory frameworkfor hydraulic fracturing. To push back against federal overreach,introduction of this resolution would influence the regulatoryprocess and send a strong message that the state regulatoryframework is adequate, and that the state should havesovereignty over state-specific energy development issues.RESOLUTION ON RESPONSIBLE RESOURCEDEVELOPMENTThis resolution also focuses on the jurisdiction of regulatinghydraulic fracturing. It describes in detail the benefits of resourcedevelopment in the states, and encourages responsible resourcedevelopment practices, balanced efforts to ensure reliable resources, and continued jurisdiction of the states toappropriately regulate oil and gas production in their uniquegeological and geographical circumstances.Reason to introduce:Thisresolutionassertsthatstatescaneffectivelyandsafelyextractand use resources within their borders. In order to preemptivelypush back against potential federal regulation of hydraulicfracturing, this resolution confirms that the state is the best entityto deal with the unique characteristics within their state.RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ENERGY SECURITY,PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE U.SThis resolution requests that Congress quickly pass legislationand take other actions as necessary so that that the benefits ofcoal-fire-generatedelectricitytoAmericansandstateeconomiesare increased, not decreased; fuel diversity and grid reliabilityis improved, not restricted; and continuing emission reductionprogress is made while minimizing capital costs, rate increases,and other economic impacts while meeting public health andenvironmental goals.Reason to introduce:This resolution pushes back against the implications of theCross-State Air Pollution Rule, the regulation of coal combustionresiduals, and the Utility MACT Rule that threaten the reliabilityand security of the nation’s energy supply. It sends a message toCongress and the Administration that the state does not approveof recent regulatory actions that threaten the ability of the stateto have affordable and reliable electricity generation.RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE FEDERALGOVERNMENT CONFER AND CONSULT WITH THESTATES ON MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS ANDENERGY RESOURCESThis resolution requests Congress and the Administrationto acknowledge and respect the role of states in a federalconstitutional republic. It calls on Congress and theAdministration to commit to greater consultation with thestates, and to recognize cost-benefit and job-impact analysesmust be addressed in order to understand how federalregulations impact states and their respective citizens.Reason to introduce:Every year, the federal government further erodes statesovereignty by handing down decisions on the use of energy onpublic land. Introduction of this resolution demands a seat at thetable when decisions are made at the federal level that affectpublic land and energy development.
  • 76ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKModel Legislation AddressingRegulatory OverreachThese model bills provide direct action against the EPA orstate-specific environmental regulatory activity by providingaccountability and transparency, and creating alliances amongthe states.REGIONAL AIR QUALITY INTERSTATE COMPACTThe Regional Air Quality Interstate Compact asserts the rightof states to retain authority over their own implementationplans to enforce the Clean Air Act. The interstate compacthas throughout constitutional history been a tool for states toexercise joint authority over a common issue, and the SupremeCourt has held in recent decades that it can be an effectivemeans for states to preserve their sovereignty and push backagainst federal overreach.UnderthecooperativefederalismmodelestablishedbytheCleanAir Act, the federal government traditionally defers enforcementofmanyairqualitystandardstostates,whichdevelopandsubmitfor approval their own State Implementation Plans. However, inthe wake of the onslaught of rapidly enforced regulations, theEPA revoked the authority of eight states to develop SIPs andimposed a Federal Implementation Plan. The EPA argued thatstates were not adapting their plans quickly enough to includethe new bevy of regulations, including regulations of greenhousegases that are not explicitly authorized by the Clean Air Act.The compact represents a direct attempt to combat the EPA onthis particular legal issue — the violation of state sovereigntyto implement CAA requirements through SIPs. It establishesa commission comprising representatives of joining states todevelop non-binding common guidance for SIP enforcement ofthe CAA. Per Supreme Court precedent, a compact that receivesCongressional consent assumes the force of federal law, and itwoulddisplacetheauthorityoftheEPAtoimplementtheportionsof the Clean Air Act covered by the compact. State sovereigntyto develop their own plans to meet air quality requirements, asexplicitly outlined in the CAA, would be restored.Reason to introduce:Fullimplementationofthecompact,whichrequiresCongressionalconsent, is an admittedly uphill battle. Nonetheless, the compactis still more than just stated opposition to the EPA Train Wreck.It makes a compelling constitutional case for a viable solutiondemonstrating that state legislatures are serious about restoringstate sovereignty and reason to air quality regulation. A broadcoalition of states joined together would offer a proposal toCongress directly from constituents to which it would have torespond. By taking this actionable step, state legislatures canpublicly address the federalism concerns raised by the actionsof the EPA.CLIMATE ACCOUNTABILITY ACTThis model bill requires that before implementation of anygovernment expenditure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,the respective agency must provide the overall cost per ton ofcarbon dioxide–equivalent to be achieved by the policy. Thisbill is designed to ensure that states receive the greatest returnpossible on environmental expenditures.Reason to introduce:Many states are passing and implementing laws to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. If these efforts cannot be stopped,holding the programs designed to reduce these emissionsaccountable and assessing their relative cost would shine a lighton the expense of these activities and guide the process towardless expensive alternatives.
  • 77APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMCONDITIONING REGULATION OF NON-POLLUTANTEMISSIONS ON SCIENCE ACTThis legislation requires a state environmental administratorto perform an assessment prior to implementing regulationof an emission not explicitly listed as a “pollutant” underthe Clean Air Act. This includes a “regulatory right toknow” disclosure, to include: reasonable demonstrationthat authority is necessary to protect public health orwelfare; whether there is a significant impact on energyavailability or price; and if the regulation is feasible andsuperior to alternatives.Reason to introduce:This legislation provides full disclosure and a properprocedure for regulating any pollutants not explicitly listedunder the Clean Air Act. States should be concerned withthe impact of such regulation on energy availability andprice. This will provide proper consideration before movingforward with a regulation that has potentially damagingunintended consequences.ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENTS ACTThis bill is designed to provide environmental protectionwithout compromising economic growth, by requiring aneconomic analysis of new environmental regulations. Keycomponents of the bill include: detailed short-term and long-term projections of the economic effects of regulation, andlegislative review of regulators.Reason to introduce:This bill is essential for states that want proper evaluationof the economic costs of a proposed regulation. It willalso allow for better decision making in deciding toimplement a regulation that could have a major impacton the state’s economy.STATE REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY ACTThisActclearlyestablishestheroleofastateenvironmentalagencywhen confronted with attempted intrusive and unauthorizedactions by the federal government. The purpose of the Act isto ensure the division of governmental responsibilities betweenthe federal government and the states under the principles offederalism, so those state agencies are free to implement theirpowers without unauthorized federal interference.Toward that end, the legislation establishes three policies.First, the Act prevents a state agency from complying with afederal requirement that is inconsistent with state law unlessthe requirement is clearly expressed in a federal statute orrule, and is adopted pursuant to the Federal AdministrativeProcedures Act. Second, the Act precludes a state agencyfrom allowing federal law to preempt state law unless thestate attorney general finds that such preemption is required.Lastly, the Act prohibits state agencies from complyingwith any federal regulatory mandate or requirement unlessadequate funds are provided, the state agency has expressstate statutory authority to implement the program, andthe action does not conflict with state law. These provisionsensure that the state does not accept unfunded mandates,and has the authority to implement a delegated programconsistent with state law.Reason to introduce:This Act effectively pushes back against unfunded andunwarranted federal intervention in the states. The StateRegulatory Responsibility Act is one way to address thefederal government overstepping its bounds.STATE SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH LOCALCOORDINATION ACTThis model legislation grants city and town governments theauthority to demand that the federal or state government
  • 78ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKcoordinate its law or regulation with that of the localgovernment when the federal or state government imposes alaw or regulation more restrictive than local law or regulation.According to American Stewards for Liberty, coordination ismandated by federal law and “requires federal agencies tocoordinate their plans, programs and management activitieswith local governments.”105Reason to introduce:This legislation is a powerful tool that can be used to protectprivate property rights, productive uses of land, and localeconomies from burdensome government regulations.Other Avenues to MakeYour Voice HeardStates should pursue all available legal means for opposingexcessive EPA regulation, including filing appeals of EPA rulesor filing interventions of amicus briefs in the appropriateproceedings. As of last year, 18 states are party to a casebefore the D.C. Circuit appeal on the EPA endangermentfinding and greenhouse gas regulations: TX, MI, HA, IN, KY,LA, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, UT, MI, AK, FL, VA, AL, and GA. Oneapproach to this litigation, as proposed in New Hampshirein 2011, would require incoming attorneys general to joinongoing lawsuits over EPA regulation.Another example of the success of pursuing legal options isthe delay of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The statesof Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, SouthCarolina, Texas, and Virginia, along with several privatecompanies, sued the EPA in federal court in order to haltthe implementation of this regulation. The rule was to beimplemented on Jan. 1, 2012, but was stayed by the courtbecause of pending litigation.State legislators should consider filing comments onindividual EPA rules. Although the Agency has proceededon an unnecessarily rapid path for regulating nearly everyaspect of the economy, there are opportunities for statelegislators to protect their constituents’ interests by filingcomments at During 2012, ALEC willprovide updates to regulations and will identify and postopportunities to comment at legislators should write focused, joint letters to theircongressional delegations, particularly if your federalrepresentatives are on the fence about action to limit EPA’sagenda. For example, Wyoming’s Joint Minerals, Businessand Economic Development Interim Committee coauthoreda letter to their incoming and outgoing governors andcongressionaldelegation,askingthemto“standasoneagainstthe efforts of the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) as they seek to regulate carbon dioxide andother greenhouse gases in the state of Wyoming.” On March18, 2011, 20 governors sent a letter to President Obamaabout the “unreasonably aggressive regulatory agenda beingpursued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”Legislators should also consider holding oversight hearingsover the EPA’s regulatory train wreck, including both regionaland national EPA officials, as well as state administrators.As the media educates minds and minds inform policy, ALECmembers should attempt to inform the public by writing op-eds and pursuing other press opportunities to highlight thedamage that this train wreck will cause to local economies.Talking points for five of the major EPA regulations areavailable at
  • 79APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMGLOSSARY OF TERMSATTAINMENT AREAAn area considered to have air quality as good as or betterthan the national ambient air quality standards as definedin the Clean Air Act. An area may be an attainment area forone pollutant and a non-attainment area for others.BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT)An emission limitation based on the maximum degree ofemission reduction (considering energy, environmental,and economic impacts) achievable through application ofproduction processes and available methods, systems, andtechniques. BACT does not permit emissions in excess ofthose allowed under any applicable Clean Air Act provisions.Use of the BACT concept is allowable on a case-by-case basisfor major new or modified emissions sources in attainmentareas, and applies to each regulated pollutant.CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)Enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990, the CAArequires industries to use various technologies to reduceair pollutants that contribute to acid rain and smog byestablishing national ambient air quality standards.CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTThe 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act required the EPAto set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certainpollutants known to be hazardous to human health. The EPAhas identified and set standards to protect human healthand welfare for six pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, totalsuspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxide.The term “criteria pollutants” derives from the requirementthat the EPA must describe the characteristics and potentialhealth and welfare effects of these pollutants. It is on the basisof these criteria that standards are set or revised.FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (FIP)Under current law, a federally implemented plan to achieveattainment of air quality standards, used when a state isunable to develop an adequate plan.HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (HAP)Air pollutants that are not covered by ambient air qualitystandards, but which, as defined in the Clean Air Act,may present a threat of adverse human health effects oradverse environmental effects. Such pollutants includeasbestos, beryllium, mercury, benzene, coke oven emissions,radionuclides, and vinyl chloride.MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCESTerm used to determine the applicability of Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration and new source regulations. In anonattainment area, any stationary pollutant source withpotential to emit more than 100 tons per year is considereda major stationary source. In PSD areas, the cutoff level maybe either 100 or 250 tons, depending on the source.MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (MACT)The emission standard for sources of air pollution requiringthe maximum reduction of hazardous emissions, takingcost and feasibility into account. Under the Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990, the MACT must not be less than theaverage emission level achieved by controls on the best-
  • 80ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKperforming 12 percent of existing sources, by category ofindustrial and utility sources.MOBILE SOURCEAny non-stationary source of air pollution such as cars,trucks, motorcycles, buses, airplanes, and locomotives.NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)Standards established by EPA that apply for outdoor airthroughout the country.NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUSAIR POLLUTANTSEmissions standards set by the EPA for an air pollutant notcovered by NAAQS that may cause an increase in fatalities,or in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness. Primarystandards are designed to protect human health, secondarystandards to protect public welfare (e.g., building facades,visibility, crops, and domestic animals).NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)Uniform national EPA air emission and water effluentstandards that limit the amount of pollution allowed fromnew sources, or from modified existing sources.NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR)A Clean Air Act requirement that State ImplementationPlans must include a permit review that applies to theconstruction and operation of new and modified stationarysources in nonattainment areas, to ensure attainment ofnational ambient air quality standards.NONATTAINMENT AREAAn area that does not meet one or more of the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards for the criteria pollutantsdesignated in the Clean Air Act.PERMITAn authorization, license, or equivalent control documentissued by the EPA or an approved state agency to implementthe requirements of an environmental regulation; e.g.,a permit to operate a wastewater treatment plant, or tooperate a facility that may generate harmful emissions.PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)EPA program in which state and/or federal permits arerequired in order to restrict emissions from new or modifiedsources in places where air quality already meets or exceedsprimary and secondary ambient air quality standards.SCRUBBERAn air pollution device that uses a spray of water or reactant,or a dry process to trap pollutants in emissions.STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP)EPA-approved state plans for the establishment, regulation,and enforcement of air pollution standards.STATIONARY SOURCEA fixed-site producer of pollution, mainly power plants andother facilities using industrial combustion processes.
  • 81APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMREFERENCES1Steven Hayward. 2011 Almanac of Environmental Trends. Pacific Research Institute.Apr. 2011. Available at: B. Shrestha. Life Expectancy in the United States. Congressional ResearchService. Aug. 16, 2006. Available at: Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 2011. Available at: Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. 2006. “Economic Growth andLow-Cost Energy Drive Improved Public Health.”5U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditure Survey 2009. Oct. 2010.6Statistics on Federal Register pages published annually. Available at: Center, Washington University and the Regulatory Studies Center, theGeorge Washington University.Derived from the Budget of the United States Government and related documents,various fiscal years.8Chamber of Commerce comments to EPA on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017:National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.9Daniel E Klein and Ralph L. Keeney. “Mortality Reductions from Use of Low-CostCoal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework.” Twenty-First Strategies. Mclean,Virginia. Dec. 2002.10Jon McKinney, Chair, NARUC Clean Coal and Carbon Sequestration Subcommitteeand Commissioner of the West Virginia Public Service Commission. SupportDocument for remarks made at the NARUC/FERC Electricity Reliability andEnvironment Forum. Feb. 7, 2012.11“Potential Impacts of EPA Air, Coal Combustion Residuals, and Cooling WaterRegulations.” National Economic Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Available at:“Comments by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Regarding theNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-firedElectric Utility Steam Generating Units.” EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234.13“Comments by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Regarding theNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-firedElectric Utility Steam Generating Units.” EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234.14Lewandowski, Thomas, Ph.D. Memorandum to American Coalition for Clean CoalElectricity. “Review of Proposed EPA HAPs Rule.” Aug. 4, 2011 (“Gradientmemorandum”).15U.S. EPA. “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Toxics Rule: Final Report.”Mar. 2011.16“EPA states that non-cancer risks for the non-mercury HAPs for coal units neverexceeded a non-cancer hazard index of 0.05 whereas the level of concern would be1.0.” EPA’s definition of “hazard index” states that “... exposures equal to or below [ahazard index] of 1.0 … likely will not result in adverse non-cancer health effects overa lifetime of exposure and would ordinarily be considered acceptable.” (see, Anne Ph. D. Testimony at Hearing on “Quality Science for Quality Air.”Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. Committee on Science, Space, andTechnology. U.S. House of Representatrives. Oct. 4, 2011.18Don Wolf PE. Overview of the EPA’s Industrial Boiler MACT Rule. Burns andMcDonnell. Mar. 2011. Available at: Issues Final Boiler MACT Rule. Environmental Law Resource. Mar. 2011.Available at: letter available at: Sargeant , Chief Counsel for Advocacy, and Kevin Bromberg, AssistantChief Counsel for Environmental Policy, Small Business Administration Office ofAdvocacy. Letter to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.Aug. 23, 2010. Available at: Steelworkers Union. “Comment: Proposed Rule, National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial,and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters,” Document ID: EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2002‐0058‐2964.1. Available at:!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058-2964.123IHS/Global Insight (for the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners), “The EconomicImpact of Proposed EPA Boiler/Process Heater MACT Rule on Industrial, Commercial,and Institutional Boiler and Process Heater Operators,” Aug. 2010. Available at:
  • 82ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK Roundtable. Background on Industrial Boiler MACT. Apr., 2011. Availableat: States Environmental Protection Agency. “National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and InstitutionalBoilers and Process Heaters, Request for Comment on Proposed Rule.” Jun. 9, 2010.Available at: States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Establishes Clean Air ActStandards for Boilers and Incinerators / Sensible standards provide significant publichealth benefits while cutting costs from initial proposal by nearly 50 percent.” Feb.23, 2011. Available at: 6424ac1caa800aab85257359003f5337/06ddff3abfb133d585257840005e6406%21OpenDocument2742 U.S.C. § 6982.28“Upton Fights EPA’s Misguided Coal Ash Rule that Could Cost Billions and EliminateThousands of Jobs.” Nov. 22, 2010. Available at: EPA. Coal Combustion Residues-Proposed Rule. Available at: and Congressional Western Caucuses. “The War on Western Jobs.” Sep.2010. Available at: Comments to EPA on Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From ElectricUtilities. Nov. 18, 2010. Available at: R. Kuhn and David K. Owens. “Electricity 2010: Opportunity Dressed asHard-Work.” Feb. 10, 2010. Available at: King, Jr., and Rebecca Smith. “White House, EPA at Odds Over Coal-WasteRules.” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 9, 2010. Available at: EPA. Hazardous Waste Identification. p. 14. Available at:“EPA says ash not hazardous.” May 5, 2010. Available at: David McKinley. “Coal Ash bill a winner for American economy.” The DailyCaller. Apr. 15, 2011. Available at: American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). “2010 Special ReliabilityScenario Assessment: Resource Adequacy Impacts of Potential U.S. EnvironmentalRegulations.” Oct. 2010. Available at: Energy Institute. “Issues in Focus” at 1.40PSEG. “Navigating the Environmental Regulatory Landscape: Overview ofForthcoming National Environmental Requirements, Impacts to the Electric PowerIndustry, and PSEG Power’s Position.” Jun. 29–30, 2010. Available at: Fred Upton. “Declaring war on the regulatory state.” The Washington Times.Oct. 18, 2010. Available at: Energy Institute. “Issues in Focus: Water Use and Electricity Production.”Nov. 2010. Available at: Energy Institute. “EPA Should Consider Flexible Approaches to Clean WaterRegulation.” Nov. 2010. Available at:“Estimate of Impacts of EPA Proposals to Reduce Air Emissions from HydraulicFracturing Operations.” Advanced Resources International Inc. Feb. 2012. Available at:“Energy for Economic Growth: Energy Vision Update 2012.” World Economic Forumand IHS CERA. Available at: Daniel Arthur, Brian Bohm, and Mark Layne. “Hydraulic Fracturing Considerationsfor Natural Gas Wells of the Marcellus Shale.” Sep. 21, 2008. Available at: Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection. Sep. 2010. Available at:“Faulty Wells, Not Fracking, Blamed for Water Pollution.” Wall Street Journal. Mar.12, 2012. Available at: of Fort Worth Natural Gas Air Quality Study. Jul. 13, 2011. Available at:“Study: No ‘significant health threats’ from natural gas sites in Fort Worth.” Star-Telegram. Jul. 15, 2011. Available at:“Ohio Earthquake Likely Caused by Fracking Wastewater.” Scientific American. Jan. 4,2012. Available at:
  • 83APRIL2012WWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COMearthquake-likely-caused-by-fracking52Ozone Rule Fact Sheet. Business Roundtable. Jul. 14, 2011. Available at: A. Norman. “Economic Implications of EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard.” Sep.2010. Available at: McClellan. Statement Before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air andNuclear Safety, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Hearing on EPA’sProposed Revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Jul. 11,2007. Available at: Rule Fact Sheet. Business Roundtable. Jul. 14, 2011. Available at: of Coal. “Mining Permits: Surface Mining Permitting Delays Put Jobs andEnergy Production at Risk.” Available at: States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v.Aracoma Coal Company. Available at: of the Interior. Federal Register. Vol. 73, No. 240. Dec. 12, 2008.Available at: of the Interior. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 83. Apr. 30, 2010. Availableat: Yeatman. “EPA Guilty of Environmental Hyperbole in Mountaintop MiningVeto.” Competitive Enterprise Institute. Feb. 7, 2011. Available at: K. Chumley. “Kentocuky Challenges EPA Restrictions on Mining.” Environmentand Climate News. Jan. 2011. Available at:“Fast Facts About Coal.” Available at: Mining Association. “Jobs and Plant Losses from EPA’s Proposed AirRegulations.” Mar. 2011. Available at:“New rules would cut thousands of coal jobs.” The Charleston Gazette. Jan. 26, 2011.Available at:“Economic Analysis of Proposed Stream Protection Rule Stage 1 Report.” ENVIRONInternational Corporation. Mar. 5, 2012. Available at: Mining Association. “Mountaintop Mining Fact Book.” Mar. 2009. Availableat:“EPA Completes Framework for Greenhouse Gas Permitting Programs.” Dec. 23,2010. Available at:!OpenDocument68Roger Bezdek. “Potential Harm of EPA Greenhouse Gas Control Regulations toMinorities, Low-Income Persons, the Elderly, and Those Living on Fixed Incomes.”Declaration to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Sep.2010. Available at: Electric Power Monthly. Mar. 2011.70American Electric Power. New EPA Rules. Available at: Economic Research Associates. “Potential Impacts of EPA Air, CoalCombustion Residuals, and Cooling Water Regulations.” Sep. 2011. Available at: Beach, Karen Campbell, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris.“The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Cleanenergy and Security Act of 2009.” Aug. 6, 2009. Available at: Consumption Facts. Available at: Ward. U.S. Department of Energy. Available at: Information Administration. Electricity Shortage in California: Issues forPetroleum and Natural Gas Supply. Available at: Mining Association. Jobs and Plant Losses from EPA’s Proposed AirRegulations. Mar. 2011. Available at: for Jobs and the Environment. Comments submitted to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Jul. 8, 2011. Unions for Jobs and the Environment.Letter and analysis prepared for the U.S. EPA. Jul. 8, 2011: Available at: Budget Office. Prospects for Distributed Electricity Generation. Sep.2003. Available at: Natural Resources. Press Release regarding adjustments to coal production.Feb. 3, 2012. Available at:
  • 84ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECK80IHS Global Insight. The Economic Impact of the Proposed EPA Boiler/Process HeaterMACT Rule on Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boiler and Process HeaterOperators. Aug. 2010. Available at: Campaign Responds with TV Ad Highlighting Lawsuit over EPA Regulations”.Oct. 3, 2011. Available at: Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Resolution on the Role ofState Regulatory Policies in the Development of Federal Environmental Regulations.Jul. 18, 2007. Available at: Union Boss: Coal Industry Could Suffer Same Fate as Bin Laden.” The Hill. Apr.4, 2012. Available at: Virginia’s Latest Plan to Avoid Federal Regulation”. Jan. 18, 2011. Available at: Public Utility Commission. Letter to EPA Administrator. Sept. 7, 2010.Available at:’ coalition letter to President Barack Obama. Mar. 18, 2011. Available at Manchin. “Coal Ash a Beneficial Resource if Safety Concerns Are Put First.”Huntington News. Feb. 13, 2010. Available at to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oct. 9, 2009. National League ofCities. Available at: of State Governments. Southern Legislative Conference. Memphis, Tenn., Jul.19, 2011. Available at: to the U.S. EPA. September 2, 2010. Available at: Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, on the Need for Legislative Action toPhase In EPA Regulations of the Clean Air Act. Press Release. May 16, 2011. Availableat: Roberts’ statement re: EPA veto of Spruce #1 mine permit. Jan. 13, 2011.Available at: State Building and Construction Trades Council. Letter to EPA Administratoron the regulation of coal ash. Nov. 19, 2010. Available at: House of Representative Resolution opposing the numerous new regulationsproposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Available at: Legislature Resolution. 2011. Available at: House of Representative Resolution opposing the numerous newregulations proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2011.Available at: to the EPA regarding regulation of coal combustion waste. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection. Apr. 10, 2009. Available at: on EPA regulation of coal combustion residuals. South Carolina Office ofRegulatory Staff. Nov. 19, 2010. Available at: release regarding EPA Utility Regulation. National Association ofManufacturers. Aug. 8, 2011. Available at: release regarding a new study showing EPA’s Boiler MACT Rule would destroyTens of Thousands of Jobs. American Forest and Paper Association. Aug. 31, 2010.Available at: Petroleum Institute. “Study: EPA Gasoline Regulations could raise costs by25 cents per gallon”. Jul. 29, 2011. Available at: Farm Bureau Federation. “AFBF Backs Bills to Preempt EPA GreenhouseGas Regs”. Mar. 3, 2011. Available at: Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “NCBA: House Votes to Curtail EPA’sOverregulation”. Jul. 14, 2011. Available at: Cement Association. “Economic Study Details Cumulative Impact ofRegulations”. Mar. 15, 2011. Available at: Stewards for Liberty Coordination Strategy. Available at:
  • 85ECONOMYDERAILED:STATE-BY-STATEIMPACTSOFTHEEPAREGULATORYTRAINWRECKWWW.REGULATORYTRAINWRECK.COM1101 Vermont Ave., NW, 11th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20005P: (202) 466-3800 • F: (202) 466-3801 •