Earlier this week, H.R. 3826, the “Electricity Security and Affordability Act,” which I co-authored with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), advanced through the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, by a vote of 18 to 11. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation provides a reasonable alternative to EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas standards for new power plants and the agency’s planned regulations for existing power plants. It now moves to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for consideration.
Under EPA’s proposal, industry would not even be able to build the most state-of-the-art clean coal-fired power plant, because the technology required under the proposed regulation is not commercially feasible. This legislation allows us to bring these proposed regulations to the forefront and have a public debate about the effect they will have on jobs, energy costs, and economic growth.
Ultimately, I believe the consequences of these regulations will directly affect consumers, whether a family or a business, in the form of higher electricity costs. Americans deserve energy that is affordable and reliable. We need to keep a diverse energy portfolio, one that is truly all-of-the-above.
EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas standards for new power plants would require the use of carbon capture and storage technologies that are not yet commercially available, effectively banning the construction of even the most state-of-the-art coal-fired plants. H.R. 3826 would protect an all-of-the-above energy strategy by directing EPA to adopt workable standards that require technologies that have been adequately demonstrated and are commercially feasible. It would also instruct Congress to set the effective date for EPA’s expected regulations for existing plants.
What would be the national and global economic impacts of eliminating coal, which accounts for nearly 40% of our country’s baseload, from our energy portfolio? What are your views on H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act?
What about the climate change impact of keeping coal in our energy portfolio at the expense of renewable power that could provide nearly all of the nation’s electricity if we… Read more »
Per note that any regularion that is based on technology that is not possible when the rules are applied is asking to trouble. Let us relook at the mandated technology… Read more »
Congressman Whitfield I just read that the DOE has funded a tremendous amount of money to test a technology for the coal industry, to clean the exhaust and sequester the… Read more »
This EPA reg would force the burning of much more natural gas. Oil plants are no longer a fast replacement option. No new nuclear power for several years and more… Read more »
In order for an “all of the above” strategy to work, there must be objective ways to evaluate competing technologies. I have proposed “External Entropy” as a way to make… Read more »
From a theoretical perspective, it is not unrealistic to require a higher standard for coal emissions than is presently available. Naturally, it must pass the “is this possible?” test (a… Read more »
The legislation is completely unnecessary. The Clean Air Act also requires that the emission limit imposed on new sources must be achievable through the use of the best technology. That… Read more »
For Congressman Mike Quigley IL 5th Congressional District Dear Congressman Quigley: How are we going to convince backward thinking people all over the nation to leave fossil fuels in the ground… Read more »
The EPA rule is solid because it will actually help coal be viable in the future mix. The regulation will accelerate carbon capture and drive new kinds of industries to… Read more »
It is always interesting how congressmen name bills. This bill does not increase electric security nor does it make it more affordable. Clearly the congressman has not been looking at… Read more »
To properly address climate change, the focus of the EPA should be on carbon capture and storage (CCS) from existing coal-fired power plants. New coal-fired power plants with CCS technology… Read more »
Let’s separate out some issues, as they are getting muddied by the discussion: 1. Carbon reductions: The EPA carbon standard on new power plants will, by EPA’s own admission, have… Read more »
Congressman Whitfield: I support the EPA rules for the following reasons: 1. Coal’s share of the energy production mix is gradually being reduced. This reduction is an accurate reflection of… Read more »
Dawn Santoianni’s point #4 seems the most salient in this discussion. There is nothing in the EPA’s proposed rule — or indeed in the EPA’s authority — that will prevent… Read more »
I support the proposed legislation because the EPA rulemaking will effectively prevent the construction of any new coal fuelled plant, and will also require the early retirement of most, probably… Read more »
Thank you for asking the questions. I hope this is helpful in expanding the way we all view the economic costs of what is happening in our coal states. “What… Read more »
There are two vital elements to the broader coal dialogue that seem to be entirely missed on Capitol Hill in this fight over EPA’s new regulations. 1) You having the… Read more »
I support H.R. 3826, the “Electricity Security and Affordability Act,” because this bill brings some much needed transparency and oversight to an otherwise unaccountable regulatory bureaucracy. As they stand now,… Read more »
This bill is a waste of time – literally. It wastes time the coal industry does not have. It is likely doomed to veto if it even gets that far and it is… Read more »
Looking at only the electric generation and coal production sectors, the economic impact of eliminating coal would be significant especially in coal-dependent states that rely to a large extent on… Read more »
Brandon, Thank you. Very perceptive comments, especially perceptive for an academic. Maybe I can offer some additional light on the subject. In my humble opinion, there is only one issue… Read more »
Congressman Whitfield, Thank you for your effort to “save” coal. I do support your position, but I question the timing. I believe the War on Coal has already been lost. The… Read more »
Mr. Shortt … I certainly agree that … war on coal or no … we need to pull together for those hurt by the loss of jobs in the economic… Read more »
Jane, Thanks for your comments, even though we don’t seem to agree on much, I always enjoy learning something. Regarding coal, as I blogged, I believe the issue is resolved… Read more »
Congressman Whitfield, Thank you for opening up the discussion on this important issue and for encouraging comments from a variety of individuals and organizations. While the American Coal Council doesn’t… Read more »
Jack, Thanks for your willing curiousity! I do blanche when I hear that we shouldn’t bother reducing our emissions because the developing world will erase whatever we do … What… Read more »
Jane, I guess you believe all of those studies. I will not try to convince you otherwise. We’ll see how it turns out in the future. A couple of points to… Read more »
Amazed to see all the pro-coal comments here. As if there isn’t a 97 percent scientific consensus that man-made global warming is real and that we must stop spewing carbon… Read more »
According to the sponsors, “This legislation allows us to bring these proposed regulations to the forefront and have a public debate about the effect they will have on jobs, energy… Read more »