EPA Rule and Big Stone Plant

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the President's misguided plan to reduce carbon emissions from existing powerplants, specifically the impact it is going to have on my home State, South Dakota.

Over the last year, EPA has claimed its rule will grant States flexibility to meet burdensome emission reduction targets. However, there is really only one way for South Dakota to meet its staggering target of a 35-percent reduction; that is, by effectively shutting down Big Stone Plant, our only baseload coal-fired plant, which will soon be among the cleanest in the country.

The plant, which provides affordable power to thousands in South Dakota and neighboring States, is nearing completion of a $384 million environmental upgrade project to meet the EPA's regional haze and Utility MACT regulations. So as you can see, highlighted on this poster by a Watertown public opinion op-ed headline, the clean powerplant would threaten this significant investment.

The EPA has required this nearly $400 million upgrade--which is more than the original cost, the entire original cost of the plant itself--and is now turning around and saying: That is not enough. We want it shut down.

Let me repeat that. The EPA has required a $384 million environmental upgrade to make the plant among the cleanest in the country and now wants to put all that to waste. This isn't right, and this will stick South Dakotans with holding the bill.

When the Obama EPA pushes new regulations to attack affordable and reliable coal generation, it is low-income families who take the biggest hit. South Dakotans have already seen their electricity rates increased to pay for that $384 million add-on, but the Clean Power Plan will limit the ability for this investment to be recouped, and now they will be charged even more.

This is because the Clean Power Plan would require Big Stone Plant to run less, even on a limited or seasonal basis, not at the high capacity for which it was designed and is most efficient. At the same time, the Clean Power Plan would require the plan to run more efficiently to meet strict emission requirements. So, again, we have had this nearly $400 million investment to make the plant cleaner and more efficient in order to satisfy the EPA, and now the Obama EPA wants to shut it down.

The Obama EPA should not push regulations that result in higher utility costs for consumers, less grid reliability, and fewer jobs. Affordable and reliable energy helps grow the economy and helps low- and middle-income families make ends meet.

Unfortunately, the EPA's rule will only increase electrical rates and hurt those who can afford it the least by forcing our most affordable energy sources offline.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this burdensome rule and to prevent the serious economic burden it will impose on middle-income families in this country.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source