Providing for Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted by The Environmental Protection Agency

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of my resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act against EPA's greenhouse gas regulation targeting existing power sources.

I am so proud to be here with my colleague from North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp. We have 47 cosponsors on this bipartisan effort to stop the existing coal plant rule. We have had a lot of discussion about this. It affects all of our States differently, but I think it is important to talk not just about what this does to our individual States but what this is going to do to us as a country.

If the administration's proposed Clean Power Plan moves forward, hardship will be felt all across the country. Fewer job opportunities, higher power bills, and less reliable electricity will result. West Virginia and other coal-producing States, such as Kentucky and Wyoming, are feeling the pain of prior EPA regulations. Nearly 7,000 WARN notices, or notifications to employees--let me ask, does everybody know what a WARN notice is? If you have gotten one, you will never forget it because basically what a WARN notice says to that employee is that you could be laid off within the next 60 days.

In West Virginia, 7,000 of those notices have gone out to West Virginia families, West Virginia coal miners, in the year 2015, and more than 2,600 of those were just issued last month alone. Our neighboring State of Kentucky--the State of the majority leader--lost more than 10 percent of its coal jobs during the first quarter of this year.

Kentucky's coal employment now stands at the lowest level since the 1920s. The Energy Information Administration's most recent annual coal report for 2013 showed that the average number of coal mine employees dropped by roughly 10 percent in other coal-producing States, such as Alabama, Utah, and Virginia.

According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, coal mining employment nationally has dropped by a massive 31 percent in just the last 4 years. If you travel to the State of West Virginia--particularly our coal area--it does not take you long to see that. The impact of this war on coal extends far beyond the coal industry. These regulations are affecting all aspects of Americans' lives. Last month, West Virginia's Governor announced that most State agencies would have to endure 4 percent cuts, largely because of shrinking energy tax revenues. For the first time in many years, the Governor cut our education budget in the State of West Virginia because of this war on coal. That means less money for roads, for schools, and for health care services, but the terrible impact that prior regulations have had on West Virginia and the Nation would get far worse if the EPA's Clean Power Plan goes into effect.

The Clean Power Plan is the most expensive environmental regulation the EPA has ever proposed on our Nation's power sector. Compliance spending is estimated to total between $29 billion and $39 billion per year. Household spending power--the money American families have in their pockets--will be reduced by $64 billion to $79 billion by this rule.

A new study by NERA, a respected economic analysis firm, of the final rule found that electricity prices in West Virginia would increase between 13 and 22 percent, but certainly West Virginia will not be alone, as we are going to hear through this debate, in enduring higher energy prices and job loss. NERA projects that all of the lower 48 States will see their electricity prices go up under the Clean Power Plan. As many as 41 States could see electricity prices increase by at least 10 percent. That is just from this regulation. I am sure my colleague from North Dakota represents one of those affected states. Twenty-eight States would see electricity prices that would increase by at least 20 percent.

What does that mean for our economy? The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association found that a 10-percent increase in electricity prices could mean a loss of 1.2 million jobs across the country. Half a million of those jobs would be in rural communities in rural States such as West Virginia and North Dakota.

The National Black Chamber of Commerce found that the Clean Power Plan would increase poverty among blacks by 23 percent and poverty among Hispanics by 26 percent. Affordable energy matters, especially to those living on fixed incomes. Households earning less than $30,000 a year spend an average of 23 percent of their income on energy costs. These families, these children, these workers, these elderly are the ones who will suffer most under this administration's policy.

Energy reliability also matters. Coal is the source of our baseload generation, and the administration wants to replace coal with intermittent sources. What does that mean? That means that on a hot day, when the air-conditioner is running and factories are operating, we could be confident that a coal-fired powerplant will be supplying the energy needed to cool our homes and keep our businesses running.

In the cold winter of 2014, when the demand for electricity surged, coal was the energy source utilities relied on to keep people warm. Renewable sources--and we want more. We want more variable ones and more frequent ones. Renewable sources are an important part of our country's energy mix, but there are always going to be days when the wind isn't blowing and the Sun isn't shining, and it is critical we preserve more reliable energy resources to meet the demand of powering our economy.

Where I would like to see us go is innovation. Innovation, not across-the-board regulations, should be our focus, but these regulations will not spur innovation. The Clean Power Plan sets a standard for new plants that cannot be met by the most commercially available technology we have today. That not only flies in the face of the Clean Air Act but also makes gradual improvements in technology that would improve our environment impossible implement. The effect will be to instead choke off our most reliable and

[Page: S7980]
affordable source of energy and devastate the livelihoods of many folks around this country.
Prior to this administration, our country did a laudable job of protecting and improving our environment while promoting economic growth. Last week marked the 25th anniversary of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, which were signed into law by President George H.W. Bush and supported by Senators across the political spectrum. Our air is now the cleanest it has been in decades. We continue, and we must continue, to reduce harmful pollutants such as sulfur dioxide as our energy consumption increases and our population grows.

Since 2005, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have fallen by 13 percent. According to the EIA, West Virginia has emitted 19 percent less carbon dioxide since the year 2000. We should continue on this track. We should continue to protect our environment but not at the expense of our families, our communities, and our economy. I am serious when I say, if you come to West Virginia, you will easily see this.

With this rulemaking, the EPA is attempting to impose the same type of cap-and-trade system that Congress rejected 5 years ago. Having failed at its attempt at cap and trade, the administration has taken a second bite at the apple by claiming authority under the Clean Air Act to impose a regulatory cap-and-trade program. That is not the way it should be. This raises an obvious question. If EPA had cap-and-trade authority, as the administration is asserting now, why did the administration go to such lengths to try to pass cap-and-trade legislation? The answer is clear. The Clean Air Act does not authorize a mandatory cap-and-trade program. With its Clean Power Plan, EPA ignores 40 years of history and prior regulations that consistent with the law, always based standards on controls installed at an existing plant.

Let me be clear. In the 40-year history of the Clean Air Act, EPA has never issued an existing plant program quite like this. As one EPA official summed it up to the New York Times, ``The legal interpretation is challenging. This effectively hasn't been done.''

Rather than regulating existing plants using the best technology, EPA is instead attempting to regulate the entire energy grid. This has not been done before because the Clean Power Act does not authorize EPA to do this. Both States and the private sector are doing what they can to fight back over this overreach.

West Virginia is 1 of 27 States that has filed lawsuits to block this rule. Additionally, 24 national trade associations, 37 rural electric cooperatives, 10 major companies, and 3 labor unions representing over 800,000 employees are challenging the EPA's final Clean Power Plan.

In less than 2 weeks, international climate negotiations will begin. The world is watching to see whether the United States will foolishly move forward with costly regulations that will do virtually nothing to protect our environment.

Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate now has the chance to take a real up-or-down vote on whether the EPA's Clean Power Plan can and should move forward. This is a legal binding resolution that if successful will prevent the Clean Power Plan or a similar rule from taking effect.

Passing this resolution will send a clear message to the world that a majority of the Congress does not stand behind the President's efforts to address climate change with economically catastrophic regulations. Passing this resolution will also demonstrate to the American people that the Senate understands the need for affordable and reliable energy. Congress should pass this resolution and place this critical issue squarely on the President's desk. America's economic future is at stake, and it is time to send a clear signal that enough is enough.

I am very privileged to be offering this resolution with Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota. She has been a champion on this issue. She has a different energy mix in her State and different energy concerns, but I think it goes to the heart of North Dakotans and West Virginians about the economic impact of such a very far-reaching and untried regulation in an area that is so far-reaching. I thank the Senator for her steadfast support. It has been my pleasure to be working with Senator Heitkamp.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source