Subcommittee Democrats Highlight the Benefits of the Clean Power Plan
(Washington, DC) – Today the Subcommittees on Environment and Energy held a joint hearing to review the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) recent report, Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan. The report consists of several long-term projections of the CPP’s potential impacts on the energy sector through 2040.
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in her opening statement. “I suspect that some Members and witnesses will be making the same old argument that EPA regulations are killing the economy and jobs. We know that this just isn’t true, and it isn’t what EIA’s analysis shows. Rather, as history has shown us time and again, stricter pollution limits have invariably led to innovation and the creation of new technologies that end up creating jobs while protecting our environment. I am confident American industry will continue this record of innovation and job creation as new environmental standards like the Clean Power Plan are adopted. The bottom line is that the costs and risks of inaction are too high for us to continue to drag our feet or put our heads in the sand.”
Democratic Members emphasized the overall benefits of the proposed rule, including climate and health benefits; the limitations of EIA’s analysis; the flexibility provided to states in how they achieve carbon reductions under the proposed rule; how the proposed rule can spur technological innovation and speed the development and deployment of low-carbon energy sources; and the need for the U.S. to take a leadership role in addressing climate change.
Ranking Member of the Environment Subcommittee Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said, “Beyond the economic costs associated with a changing climate, there are very serious public health risks related to increases in global temperature – longer heat waves, changes in water and air quality, foodborne and insect-borne disease, and in my state, the risk of wildfires. Climate change also has the potential to exacerbate existing health conditions, such as, asthma, and adversely impact vulnerable populations like children and the elderly. This cost to public health is unavoidable if we decide to sit back and do nothing to address the present threat of climate change.”
Ranking Member of the Energy Subcommittee Alan Grayson (D-FL) said, “The world is pursuing clean energy technologies. Any effort to undermine those investments, including by stopping the Clean Power Plan from moving forward is short-sighted. America needs new energy solutions, and it should position itself as an industry leader in the pursuit of these technologies.”
Congressman Grayson also stressed the cost of inaction on climate change. He said, “Earlier this week EPA released a report titled, ‘Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action.’ The report describes just some of the benefits that we will see within this century if we take action to reduce GHG emissions. For example, approximately $3 billion in avoided damages from poor water quality, $11 billion in avoided damages to agriculture, and an estimated 12 thousand fewer deaths from extreme temperatures in 49 major U.S. cities.”
Dr. Susan Tierney, Senior Advisor at Analysis Group and former Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Energy under the Clinton Administration emphasized the limitations in the EIA analysis in her testimony. She said, “EIA’s forecasting model (NEMS) does not incorporate various benefits that will occur as a result of the Clean Power Plan. NEMS is a model of energy production and use and does not purport to be a comprehensive model of the U.S. economy. For example, EIA’s analysis does not include the impact of improving human health and lowering health-care costs, or of avoiding impacts of climate change and the costs that communities will incur in addressing its impacts in the future. EIA’s assessment therefore cannot be viewed as reflecting the Clean Power Plan’s impacts on the economy.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article